Yes, Three Persons, one nature. As we say in the creed at Mass, the Son is “consubstantial with the Father,” meaning He is one substance with the Father, and meaning by substance what Aquinas means.I have a hard time exampling to my Mom a protestant just what you said. The scriptures say “There are three who bear witness in heaven”. That is the doctrine of the trinity. Isn’t it three “persons” and one nature?
She’s very left wing. From pentecostalism. Much knowledge from the average protestant, like a baptist is lost. She says a “triune being”. I don’t think she gets it. She says “three in one” and I say “One in three”. So she is not wrong, but I don’t think she gets what I say, “One in three”. When I say “Three who bear witness in heaven” she goes off on a tangent that just doesn’t sound right. She gets irritated. But she can’t deny the Bible says it. She just doesn’t want to deal with it.Yes, Three Persons, one nature. As we say in the creed at Mass, the Son is “consubstantial with the Father,” meaning He is one substance with the Father, and meaning by substance what Aquinas means.
I think the usual Protestant would agree that the Son is one substance with the Father, even if that statement is in itself not self -evident. Does your mother agree that the Son is one substance with the Father?
A lot of the time she gets so she doesn’t want to talk about it. But she also BTW and is very adamant about this, believes is Baptism in “Jesus Name”. I mentioned the Didache and how it’s older than the Bible and an actual manual for the formula. She thinks “Jesus’s name” is literally “Jesus name”. I don’t quite know when to tell her they started doing that. Jesus was baptized I told her in “John’s name”. The Baptism of John. The Baptism of Jesus is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. or Jesus’s Baptism. She really has a problem with that. She knows nothing about history and I don’t believe she wants to know. Just blindly believe things. I can’t do that. I take an actual interest. I told her that her Bible is about my Church. “So you say”, she says. It does take work and effort to seek. And that goes for all of us.Have you asked her how she understands the Trinity? What does she say? Does she say anything that you think is really wrong, not true?
… there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father … Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one … John 15:2
You are right, John is talking here about the Trinity. Does your mother agree that the Trinity is the subject of the sentence?
May I just say it’s neat that you and your Mom are even talking to each other about this. It must please God that you are both interested in His nature. Be a good listener, and while you are listening to what she is saying, a little prayer to the Holy Spirit to enlighten your dialogue can be mentally said, so maybe you can see a new way to clarify your point to her.
By the way, what is the point you wish her to see?
As for the point I want her to see is the doctrine of the trinity. It's been totally lost by those she follows. A triune being doesn't sound like three beings with one nature, God. That's the way I understand it.
I just talked to her. I said "Maybe this will help you understand". I said "You, your husband, and you daughter. Are separate and distinct persons with one nature. Human nature. So you're one." She replied, "No No that's not the way it is I have plenty of scripture, " *Sola Scriptura* there. "That proves me right you can't change my mind." I simply left it at that and said "You have to do your duty. I person's duty is to seek his maker". Animals eat, sleep and want sex. They do not seek their maker. Their responsibilities are lesser than ours and they are lesser than us. When IMO you come to the point "Well I have it all". You've failed. I told her "It sounds like your telling Jesus No I don't like it that way. The way you say it. Change it!" she laughed and I left it alone.
It is I really who seek. And try to help others along the way. If it can be done. :)It’s worth mentioning that this passage, the so-called Johannine comma, is almost certainly not authentic, and is not found in almost any recent translation. But it does faithfully witness the Tradition.She’s very left wing. From pentecostalism. Much knowledge from the average protestant, like a baptist is lost. She says a “triune being”. I don’t think she gets it. She says “three in one” and I say “One in three”. So she is not wrong, but I don’t think she gets what I say, “One in three”. When I say “Three who bear witness in heaven” she goes off on a tangent that just doesn’t sound right. She gets irritated. But she can’t deny the Bible says it. She just doesn’t want to deal with it.
Bill
True. This is a dogma of the faith.There was never a time when Christ was NOT the “Son of God”
The Father of the Son is the Person of the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. This is true and of faith.There was never a time when the Son of God did not have a father.
True. He is the eternal Son of the Father. This is a dogma of faith.The Son of God did not require a mother to be the Son of God.
Not true. That He never became a son, in the sense that He is always the eternal Son of the Father, I concede, that He never became a son in a different manner, I deny. The Son of God was not always the Son of Mary, but He did become the Son of Mary. Thus, He has been a Son from eternity is true, and He became a Son is true, but not in the same way. The first refers to His Person within the Godhead, and in the Divine Nature (the proper nature). The second refers to His Person as became incarnate, and in the assumed nature.Christ never became a son (Christ was never “not a son”)
True and of faith.From all eternity past, Christ was always the Son of God.