Theology of the Trinity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this the correct way of thinking of the Trinity

God: Creator and Judger of the World
We pray to God for: Mercy on our soul. Thank him for the graces in this life

Jesus: Redeemer of Humanity
We pray to Jesus for: Consolation and understanding of the trials on our life.

Holy Spirit: A powerful person and spirit from God
We pray to the Holy Spirit for: Keeping our soul in the state of grace (hence why there is a term called ‘Sins against the Holy Spirit’). A spirit that helps us be closer to God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The way I prefer to think about Trinity:
God is love. Love pours itself out to others. In all eternity, outside of time or created things, God is love, and is loving someone.

The second person is that beloved, and also loves the Father in reciprocally. Father and Son love each other eternally and…

The Spirit is that love personified. The Spirit is the creative power of that love. The Spirit is that love poured out and active.

The three are distinct, yet they are one in love.
 
Last edited:
Is this the correct way of thinking of the Trinity

God: Creator and Judger of the World
We pray to God for: Mercy on our soul. Thank him for the graces in this life

Jesus: Redeemer of Humanity
We pray to Jesus for: Consolation and understanding of the trials on our life.

Holy Spirit: A powerful person and spirit from God
We pray to the Holy Spirit for: Keeping our soul in the state of grace (hence why there is a term called ‘Sins against the Holy Spirit’). A spirit that helps us be closer to God.
From the Trisagion
Father: Holy God
Son: Holy and Mighty
Holy Spirit: Holy and Immortal
St. Hillary of Pointiers, John of Dama, Chapter X.— Concerning the Trisagium (“the Thrice Holy”)
For we hold the words “Holy God” to refer to the Father, without limiting the title of divinity to Him alone, but acknowledging also as God the Son and the Holy Spirit: and the words “Holy and Mighty” we ascribe to the Son, without stripping the Father and the Holy Spirit of might: and the words “Holy and Immortal” we attribute to the Holy Spirit, without depriving the Father and the Son of immortality. For, indeed, we apply all the divine names simply and unconditionally to each of the subsistences in imitation of the divine Apostle’s words. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him: and one Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things, and we by Him And, nevertheless, we follow Gregory the Theologian when he says, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in Whom are all things: for the words “of Whom” and “through Whom” and “in Whom” do not divide the natures (for neither the prepositions nor the order of the names could ever be changed), but they characterise the properties of one unconfused nature. And this becomes clear from the fact that they are once more gathered into one, if only one reads with care these words of the same Apostle, Of Him and through Him and in Him are all things: to Him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen

For that the “Trisagium” refers not to the Son alone, but to the Holy Trinity, the divine and saintly Athanasius and Basil and Gregory, and all the band of the divinely-inspired Fathers bear witness: because, as a matter of fact, by the threefold holiness the Holy Seraphim suggest to us the three subsistences of the superessential Godhead. But by the one Lordship they denote the one essence and dominion of the supremely-divine Trinity. Gregory the Theologian of a truth says, “Thus, then, the Holy of Holies, which is completely veiled by the Seraphim, and is glorified with three consecrations, meet together in one lordship and one divinity.” This was the most beautiful and sublime philosophy of still another of our predecessors.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iii.x.html#fna_iii.iv.iii.x-p8.1
 
Last edited:
According to your understanding then, God is basically in love with himself? Yet traditionally the Catholic Church defines love as projecting from the lover to the loved which is distinguished from itself. Or am I mistaken? If not then you’ve split the simplistic nature of God into modes and since each mode must be individualistic in its reciprocation then you’ve created Gods…plural. There can be no distinction in God’s nature since this also would destroy the basic definitions given for the Christian God and its unified simplistic being.
The Trinity is three distinct persons in the unity of love. Not separate parts.

Do you agree that God is love? If God is love…then there must be persons involved.

The marital union is the best (although imperfect) analogy for the Trinitarian love. Two persons becoming one flesh. The love having the creative power, and becoming another person in itself.

You might not agree with any of it, but hopefully you understand the theology.
 
By definition, not mine but the Churches, God cannot have distinctions.
The Church also proclaims the Trinity.
This would destroy Gods simplistic nature. How do you define persons? There can be no plurality in God. How do you define the word “part”?
What distinguishes these two concepts?
some good discussions:


https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm#II

The Trinity is mystery. Mystery is not a dead end, rather it is an invitation to explore more deeply into God’s mystery. The questions you ask point that way.
I have heard God described as being love itself. But I have also read in the bible the definition of love and it is hard to rectify mans conception of God, the bibles description of love, and mans depiction of what love is not and Gods actions as described in the scriptures. I do not believe there must be an object of love for love to exist. I believe love precedes its actions towards its object. Love in man is an extant potential. God as love is this potential realized. Do you believe the lover can be loves originator and its receiver too?
No I don’t. Again, think of the marital union as compared to masturbation.
The marital union cannot reflect the trinitarian conception. I am familiar with this comparison. Each person in the marriage has a specific, identifiable, and modal position to fulfill. The husband is a distinct entity from the wife and the parents from the progeny. Each has separate, distinct, and unequal rolls to fulfill with which the concept of a family is created. There can be no comparable conception of a family within the nature of God. The family unit was created for man, not for God as a fulfillment of mans not Gods nature. Why do we insist on comparing man with God as if man is merely mini Gods walking around. I think this is wrong. To understand the nature of man doesn’t mean you understand the nature of God. You merely are given a glimpse into Gods natures interactions with man. The bible itself declares the ineffable gap between God and man. Breached solely through Christ.
That marital analogy is not perfect, as no analogy can be. It is simply the best analogy we have.
 
I would recommend a book; “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed. It has an excellent chapter regarding the Trinity.
 
Is this the correct way of thinking of the Trinity

God: Creator and Judger of the World
We pray to God for: Mercy on our soul. Thank him for the graces in this life

Jesus: Redeemer of Humanity
We pray to Jesus for: Consolation and understanding of the trials on our life.

Holy Spirit: A powerful person and spirit from God
We pray to the Holy Spirit for: Keeping our soul in the state of grace (hence why there is a term called ‘Sins against the Holy Spirit’). A spirit that helps us be closer to God.
God the Father - Creator of Heaven and Earth - Via His Word

Jesus - The Word OF the Father

Holy Spirit - God’s Spirit who is with His Word

_
 
40.png
goout:
No I don’t. Again, think of the marital union as compared to masturbation.
Well this we can agree on. It would negate the love if the originator of that love were its recipient. So the analogy of the persons in the trinity as being both the originators and recipients of this same love in order to be self sustaining in existence before man existed must be incorrect. Or is it? It has been proposed that since man didn’t always exist and God IS love and love needs an object on which to project itself in order to exist this projection which allows for Gods eternal existence as love must be between the persons of the Godhead. I believe as I’ve stated elsewhere that the conception of the Godhead as being 3 persons within one Godhead is misunderstood or mistakenly conceived. Being a person is by definition being a self aware, emphasis on the self, distinguishable being or entity from another being or entity. This is why we can say there is 3 persons versus 1 or 2 persons. There is distinguishing factors between the concepts.
Again we have the problem of simplicity and modality within the Godhead. God must be simplistic in his nature and have no modality. Simply by adding another layer of paint to cover up the conflicts by saying that the persons within the Godhead are in total synchrony with each other or adding a couple more confusing and obscure philosophical conceptions doesn’t remove the fact that their are 3 distinct entities. The Church can emphasize all it wants that it worships only one God, the problem is in how it defines that God. Seems it either has to redefine the accepted notions of what the word God means or reformulate what the persons in the trinity are referring to. I’ve got to go but I would like to discuss some of the article on “Explaining the Trinity” with you. Perhaps you can clarify some of what I don’t understand about its statements or at least further expand on what you believe about the trinity. I am really interested in this concept.
I am not seeing how diversity detracts from simplicity. The Church speaks about unity in diversity.
The simplicity is not in the abstract details as they can be used to point out distinctions, it is in the unitive love that binds the persons as one.
 
Last edited:
Now then, what do you think about love. How does it function? From where does it arise? Why must love have an object in order for it to exist? Why can’t love be self-sustaining, like a fire that needs no fuel, or someone to heat in order to exist? What defines love in other words?
First of all love has to be between persons.
 
If love is a potential then why does it have to be between persons? Can’t love be an unexpressed potential?
Then you are simply redefining love to meet your ends.
Any sense of love in any time and any culture assumes that love is between persons.
If you want to redefine love then it’s hard to have meaningful discussion.
 
If there is knowledge there must be an object of that knowledge, and if there is love (willing the good of something) there must also be an object for which the good is willed. Certainly God knows himself and loves himself.

The persons are neither parts nor modalities of the Godhead. There are intrinsic relations that subsist in the essence that are not reducible to each other. God knows himself, and the Word that is generated in this intelligible procession is absolutely identical to the essence that generates it. By identity the essence is the same, but there is a relational difference between that which generates and that which is generated. It’s the very fact that God is a Simple essence that we can say that God essentially and naturally generates the perfect image of himself in an intelligible procession of knowing. It is something he does through his whole essence. Not by a part nor an accident to the essence. It’s because of this we speak of a person generated and not just knowledge. But the Word is not the Father under a different mode, and the Father not the Word under a different mode. Yet in what they are they are each wholly the same essence.

God also loves himself, and if taken personally Word is a proper name for the Son, then if taken personally Love is a proper name for the Holy Spirit. God’s essence is the inclination to love itself, and one can only love what is apprehended by the intellect, which is why this love is considered to be between the Father and the Word, proceeding from each to the other. These relations are relatively opposed (and so cannot be reduced to each other), by which we have the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
 
Let me ask this then, what is the difference between love between persons and love between a person and something else that isn’t a person?
As said in my last post, the key here is that God is Simple. He knows all things by knowing himself, and all things he knows in one act at once (not by knowing this and then that). The real relations in God then are what originate and terminate in the Godhead. He is both the principle and term of the processions by which we have the relatively opposed relations, which we refer to as persons.
 
A couple of things that occurred to me while reading this thread:

God is One. There is one divine nature, one divine essence, one divine Being, one divine entity.

Three Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, wholly possess the one divine nature. The Persons do not share the divine nature; each Person wholly posseses the one divine nature.
Persons are not parts. God remains one nature, with no parts.
God is wholly Spirit. God has no extension in time or space.

God does not exist in time, so it is not correct to say that God exists temporally “prior to” creation. The instant of creation is to God the same as the day after tomorrow, or any other day. For God there is no before and after.

Jesus is one Person–the second Person of the Trinity.
He has two natures, human and divine.
 
I disagree, many cultures act out love between a person and an inanimate object that the person expresses their love for. Art for instance. A favorite car. A fictional character in a book or other media…etc.
We are not disagreeing, we are speaking two different languages. You are reducing love to an impersonal level that it isn’t.
Those things are not love in the sense we are using towards God.
Those are attachments to beauty. Preferences. Affections for a thing. Sentiments. Those things might be bound up with loving someone, they might not be. But they are not the essence of love.
Love is to will the good of another, for the sake of the other. By definition there are persons involved.
You don’t will the good of a car, and you don’t desire the response of your car, because a car can’t respond. You might take care of it, and it might perform well for you, but it can’t will your good in return. A car is inanimate. It does not have rationality or a will, so it cannot love.

So again, you are sort of moving the goalposts of love here, to prove your point of view that God has no personal love in the Trinity.
Why don’t you start with what human beings know about love, and work from what is revealed to us about love, and how it has always been defined. Love has always assumed relationship between persons.
And so if God is love, what does that love reveal to you about God’s Trinitarian nature?
 
Last edited:
Mathew 25:31-36 makes it pretty clear that Jesus will judge the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top