Three-in-One = Trinity?

[chrisb]

They (Montalban and hamna2han) are trying to use the number system which can work but I thought my concept of the triplets would explain that God is equally 3 persons in one. As Jesus said also that if you have seen me you have seen the father.

Grace and Peace dessert,

Be aware that Plotinus’ cosmology suggests a chain of hypostases with no ‘backward’ dependency:

"…With regard to the existence that is supremely perfect , we must say it only produces the very greatest of the things that are found below it. But that which after it is the most perfect, the second principle, is Intelligence (Nous). Intelligence contemplates the One and needs nothing but it. But the One has no need of Intelligence . The One which is superior to Intelligence produces Intelligence which is the best ex-istence after the One, since it is superior to all other beings. The (World-)Soul is the Word (Logos) and a phase of the activity of Intelligence just as Intelligence is the logos and a phase of the activity of the One. But the logos of the Soul is obscure being only an image of Intelligence. The Soul therefore directs herself to Intelligence, just as the latter, to be Intelligence, must contemplate the One…Every begotten being longs for the being that begot it and loves it…"
-Ennead V:i:6; translated by Joseph Katz, The Philosophy of Plotinus, pp.15-6

What is begotten, although most perfect, best existence after the One, and superior to all other beings, is less than that from which it originates (i.e. The One).

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. - John 13:16

As the relationship between a Hypostasis and its products, the Logos denotes the plan or formative principle from which the lower realities evolve and by which their development is governed. Plotinus uses the term not to indicate a separate hypostasis (contra Philo, Christianity, etc), but to express the relationship between a Hypostasis and its source or its products or both.

"That [The One] which is eternally perfect is eternally productive. That which it produces [the Nous] is eternal too, though inferior to the generating principle…" -Ennead V,i,6; translated by Joseph Katz, The Philosophy of Plotinus, pp.15

One could argue that Arius not only maintains the oneness of the One (unity of the Father and His Essence) but recognized the uniqueness of the Logos in creation as a ‘true’ first creation (i.e. emanation), a necessary one but not one which shares His Essence nor is it equal to the One.
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. - John 14:28

That is why we have the necessary baptism in the name of the three persons, the name of the Father, The name of the Son and the name of the Holy Ghost.

If you don’t believe in the Triune God I guess you have 0.

Or the formula could be “The Way, The Truth and the Life”. By a renewal in the Spirit we can enter into the Life of the Son to share in a relationship with the Father. This Formula doesn’t ‘have’ to suggest the Doctrine of the Trinity in the sense that Athanasius articulated nor does it ‘have to’ only be interpreted in the way the Council of Nicea professed it.

We make too many presumptions when we assume such and we ignore a vast majority of the Church of the 4th Century whom were Arian. Regardless if we believe the Doctrine of the Trinity is correct or not we do ourselves a disservice when we assume that the evidence only affords ‘one’ conclusion.

I know this topic is challenging and I’m forcing the issue in order for us to look at the subject with greater depth and with greater honesty.

Peace.

 

[dessert]

dessert,

I appreciate your good will and I have seen your example. Three children who share DNA is wonderous, but it’s really not that hard to figure out…it’s the same as with twins. With material beings, multiple copies made of the same kind of material (like multiple coins all made of copper) are easy to imagine.

Unfortunately, none of these things yields and explanation of the trinity.

Alexius, I admire your intellectual honesty and your willingness to think hard about your faith. Whatever you decide for yourself, your sincere and thorough religious examinations will serve you well. I hope that you won’t have to face any personal criticism or rejection because of your doubts and willingness to ask the toughest question there is for Christianity.

There is no personal criticism or rejection intended thanks dessert

 

[dessert]

Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father as we are on, and He said ask the Father anything in my name. He wasn’t just talking about seeing with the eyes but with the mind and the heart and soul. Recognizing the Father , Son and Holy Spirit. Dessert

 

[dessert]

My protestant KJV bible recognizes the Trinity so what version are you using? page 33 NKJV Nelsons Son of God the second person of the Trinity ; Christ take it up with them! good night talk tomorrow
Dessert

 

[chrisb]

Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father as we are on, and He said ask the Father anything in my name. He wasn’t just talking about seeing with the eyes but with the mind and the heart and soul. Recognizing the Father , Son and Holy Spirit. Dessert

Grace and Peace dessert,

In Plotinus’ teaching, that which is begotten cannot be ‘equal’ to the One because it is an emanation from the One and because it fails to share ‘equality’ with the One in it’s *un-*begottenness. With that said I believe it can share oneness in the Nous (i.e. sharing the Divine Mind) through contemplation of the One through emanation by the One but this is a far cry from equality as the Doctrine of the Trinity suggests.

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. - 1 Corinthians 8:6

"of whom" suggests source. “by whom” suggests active agent.

Just as there is one God the Father from whom are all things, so there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things. ~Cyril of Alexandria

Source: Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947-.

Peace.

 

[KindredSoul]

Okay, so let me try to get this straight, the three persons are one because they are identical and of one nature…Am I correct? It makes some sense, but I think Hindus can use the same description for their gods. They have many gods of one nature…I think I am mixing up the proper definition of “persons” with human persons. I keep think of three identical yet individual human beings (like the angels depicted in Rublev’s OT Trinity)…I think this is confusing me…Should they be physically connected like siamese twins? Sorry, but that’s the only way I can ask it…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

I’m not familiar with all Hindu deities; they say they have many gods of one nature, who are ultimately one, but do any of those gods ever contradict the wills/natures of the others? The Trinity is so perfectly One in nature that the three Persons of the One God always comply with one another; they are of one ultimate intention, since they are One. Most polytheistic religions, even if they claim that all the deities are of one nature, depict those deities (at least in some cases, and as many gods as Hinduism has, it would be hard to say no such cases exist there) as contradictory and wanting different things, potentially never perfectly complying with one another. That’s certainly one difference, and it makes the claims of polytheistic faiths (that claim their deities are one) questionable and unlike the Trinity.

As for how to think of the Trinity, I tried to give a possible description in post #75 on Pg. 2 of the thread (though it was complicated, it may be worth a read) as to how the three can be distinct but yet One…they’re inseparable, but not quite in the way of Siamese Twins; it’s more of a matter-of-fact way - as long as the Father exists, the Son exists, not only identical to in nature but inseparable (spiritually and philosophically, not “physically”) from the Father, and the same goes for the Holy Spirit. Post #75 went into a lot more detail, if you don’t mind trying to wade through it; basically, God being a Trinity seems a direct consequence of God being Omniscient, Perfect, and Loving.

 

[FCEGM]

Something my mind keeps coming back to:

If each person of the Holy Trinity is 100% God and together they are 100% God, yet still distinct, then if one person is gone, God is still 100% God, but now just two persons. If this is so, why can’t He be complete in just one person. Can’t He be one person who creates and sustains and saves? I know some have tried to explain this, but I just don’t get it. I just see it as kind of unnecessary to need three distinctive persons…When I was younger, I unknowingly believed in Modalism (Sabellianism). Why does this (modes) work? I will pray about this…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Alexius, I hope you will seriously consider purchasing either Theology for Beginners or Theology and Sanity, both by Frank Sheed (both books were previously recommended to you). Either book would greatly help you in your present struggle with this basic Christian belief. Also, this site offers some good material on the topic:

bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#TRINITY

 

[dessert]

Grace and Peace dessert,

In Plotinus’ teaching, that which is begotten cannot be ‘equal’ to the One because it is an emanation from the One and because it fails to share ‘equality’ with the One in it’s *un-*begottenness. With that said I believe it can share oneness in the Nous (i.e. sharing the Divine Mind) through contemplation of the One through emanation by the One but this is a far cry from equality as the Doctrine of the Trinity suggests.

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. - 1 Corinthians 8:6

"of whom" suggests source. “by whom” suggests active agent.

Just as there is one God the Father from whom are all things, so there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things. ~Cyril of Alexandria

Source: Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947-.

Peace.

Thank you for your source peace to you. Dessert

 

[chrisb]

As for how to think of the Trinity, I tried to give a possible description in post #75 on Pg. 2 of the thread (though it was complicated, it may be worth a read) as to how the three can be distinct but yet One…they’re inseparable, but not quite in the way of Siamese Twins; it’s more of a matter-of-fact way - as long as the Father exists, the Son exists, not only identical to in nature but inseparable (spiritually and philosophically, not “physically”) from the Father, and the same goes for the Holy Spirit. Post #75 went into a lot more detail, if you don’t mind trying to wade through it; basically, God being a Trinity seems a direct consequence of God being Omniscient, Perfect, and Loving.

Grace and Peace KindredSoul,

You do know that the Father begets the Son and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, right. In a real sense, they aren’t identical. The un-begotten Father doesn’t share the begotten-ness of the Son nor the Procession-hood of the Holy Ghost. Even if one argues an ‘eternal’ begetting as the Doctrine of the Trinity posits still must admit that the Son fails to share this key generation with the Father no matter how perfectly the Father’s ‘thought of himself’ allows Him to, in effect, create a copy of Himself as a separate being.

Peace.

 

[KindredSoul]

Grace and Peace KindredSoul,

You do know that the Father begets the Son and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, right. In a real sense, they aren’t identical. The un-begotten Father doesn’t share the begotten-ness of the Son nor the Procession-hood of the Holy Ghost. Even if one argues an ‘eternal’ begetting as the Doctrine of the Trinity posits still must admit that the Son fails to share this key generation with the Father no matter how perfectly the Father’s ‘thought of himself’ allows Him to, in effect, create a copy of Himself as a separate being.

Peace.

Grace and Peace to you too, my friend.

What you have said serves to point out the distinction between them, which is fully a part of the Trinitarian doctrine. They are distinct not because of inherent nature, but rather in roles. That the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit Proceeds doesn’t lessen their identical nature in a sense of “What is God like”, but only in a sense of “origin” (for lack of a better word to describe an eternal situation). For instance, when you meet a person, you do not normally consider how they were born a part of their description (though it is in a technical sense, it’s not normally what we mean when we say “That’s just so-in-so’s nature”), but rather their qualities, intelligence, character, etc.

This distinction in nature of “origin” is what makes them distinct from one another, and is what makes them intertwined; the Son must be begotten of the Father eternally, and the Holy Spirit must proceed eternally…they are bound to one another by virtue of their very means of existing as they do…otherwise, they would be three independent gods (whose existences and divine attributes might be just as well off without any given one of them) instead of One Triune God. That they are related in this manner, however, serves to underscore the absolute unity of them, while acknowledging that they are also distinct; the doctrine of the Trinity demands exactly that sort of distinction and unity to be true.

The analogy may not be perfect, because it’s not an easy doctrine, but it has worked wonders for helping me personally to make some sense of the Trinity.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace to you too, my friend.

This distinction in nature of “origin” is what makes them distinct from one another, and is what makes them intertwined; the Son must be begotten of the Father eternally, and the Holy Spirit must proceed eternally…they are bound to one another by virtue of their very means of existing as they do…otherwise, they would be three independent gods (whose existences and divine attributes might be just as well off without any given one of them) instead of One Triune God. That they are related in this manner, however, serves to underscore the absolute unity of them, while acknowledging that they are also distinct; the doctrine of the Trinity demands exactly that sort of distinction and unity to be true.

Grace and Peace KindredSoul,

There can be no ‘origin’ in the eternal. There can be no ‘necessity’ in the complete. There can be no ‘multiplicity’ in perfect unity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity was not intented to establish a paradox. It was the incorporation of platonist beliefs in the realm of the ideal from whence all material being-ness in creation are borne. The Nous or Logos is the ‘ideal’ of the One ‘in creation’. The doorway, if you were, between ‘that which is beyond being’ and ‘that which enters into being’ as the one created thought from which the One creates all creation. The World-Soul or Holy Spirit is the Will of this created thought (Divine Word) manifesting all creation.

The similarities between neo-platonist cosmology and our interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures co-mingle and is the reason Gentiles flocked to the message of Jesus Christ while Jews did not. Christianity is the product of the cornerstone which bridges Gentile and Jew into One People and the Doctrine of the Trinity is the co-mingling of these two desparate peoples understanding of the One.

Most of us don’t fully understand this Doctrine and so grasp for analogies to express it. These analogies do more injustice to the Doctrine than remaining silent.

Arius once said that ‘there was when there was not’ with regard to the Triune Godhead. To speak of ‘origins’ we must then agree with him.

The One is immutable and perfect and there is no beginning and not end found. To speak otherwise is to do grave harm to the immutability and perfection of the One.

Athanasius, perhaps, failed to understand this and in his desire to establish the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ he and the Council of Nicea professed a Doctrine which fails to do justice to either the emanating chain of being of Plotinus’ Ennead or the Shema of Judaism. So, we find ourselves standing between them alone.

Personally, I find great sympathy with our Muslim critics regarding this teaching and with the wain of platonist thought we not only find ourselves alone but we ourselves don’t understand the necessity for the co-mingling of these two great peoples and their philosophies concerning the nature of the One.

Peace.

 

[KindredSoul]

There can be no ‘origin’ in the eternal. There can be no ‘necessity’ in the complete. There can be no ‘multiplicity’ in perfect unity.

My use of the word “origin” was only for lack of a better word. The reason for that “origin” being applicable is that the Logos is a necessary begotten result of the Father’s self aware existence; the Father simply is omniscient, and so there is the eternal, living Logos/Self Concept, which has thus also existed for eternity since the Father has been omniscient for eternity…but the Father is the eternal “begetter” of the Logos. The Holy Spirit’s existence seems to be similar to this. “Origin” is a limited word, but it by no means indicates that there was ever a time when the Holy Spirit or the Son didn’t exist; such a time never existed by virtue of God’s nature.

The Doctrine of the Trinity was not intented to establish a paradox. It was the incorporation of platonist beliefs in the realm of the ideal from whence all material being-ness in creation are borne. The Nous or Logos is the ‘ideal’ of the One ‘in creation’. The doorway, if you were, between ‘that which is beyond being’ and ‘that which enters into being’ as the one created thought from which the One creates all creation. The World-Soul or Holy Spirit is the Will of this created thought (Divine Word) manifesting all creation.

…(Edited for Length)…

Most of us don’t fully understand this Doctrine and so grasp for analogies to express it. These analogies do more injustice to the Doctrine than remaining silent.

Perhaps, since it is a mystery…but there comes a time, when the Athanasian understanding (and the Church’s infallible understanding, we must remember) of the Trinity is attacked, that silence and analogies both do far more justice to the Trinity than suggesting that the infallibly True understanding of the Trinity as God in Three persons is a falsehood or misunderstanding.

Arius once said that ‘there was when there was not’ with regard to the Triune Godhead. To speak of ‘origins’ we must then agree with him.

The One is immutable and perfect and there is no beginning and not end found. To speak otherwise is to do grave harm to the immutability and perfection of the One.

If you mean to critique my use of the word “Origin”, again please realize that I simply lack a better word. Even if the Son comes from the Father, and the Holy Spirit henceforth as a result, this is an instantaneous thing for as long as God exists at all. Therefore, the Son and Holy Spirit exist for as long as the Father: To Eternity, and from eternity. To deny this would be the same as saying that God’s awareness (plain and simple awareness, not even regarding the Logos/Self Concept)has a beginning and an end simply because it “originates” from Him…that is not necessarily true, and is in fact untrue. God’s awareness must have always existed if He is omniscient, but at the same time it “originates” from Him (though eternally) because, well, it is God’s awareness. This is only an example of why such reasoning is sound, and that same reasoning can be applied when trying to understand the Trinity, or at least explain how it could be possible. The immutable perfection of God is not wounded by this reasoning.

Athanasius, perhaps, failed to understand this and in his desire to establish the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ he and the Council of Nicea professed a Doctrine which fails to do justice to either the emanating chain of being of Plotinus’ Ennead or the Shema of Judaism. So, we find ourselves standing between them alone.

Personally, I find great sympathy with our Muslim critics regarding this teaching and with the wain of platonist thought we not only find ourselves alone but we ourselves don’t understand the necessity for the co-mingling of these two great peoples and their philosophies concerning the nature of the One.

Peace.

I am afraid we differ greatly in opinion here. I believe in the Church’s claims to infallibly pronounce Dogma. If Athanasius’ understanding of the Trinity won over, I believe that was indeed the correct understanding of the Trinity. The Holy Trinity may be hard to understand, but it isn’t an oxymoron–a Paradox is somewhat different from that, being “a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.” I can understand the way I’ve worked it out quite well, and I honestly see no contradiction if it’s fully understood.

That being so, the Trinity, as Athanasius and the Church’s infallible declarabtion have described it, may be hard to understand but isn’t an impossibility nor is it a contradiction. Thus, why should we believe that Athanasius and the Church are mistaken simply because the traditional Trinitarian Doctrine is more complicated than a doctrine that seems easier for those who doubt the Trinity to understand? We have to hold to the Truth ever more tightly when it is challenged by those who do not understand it.

 

[wussup]

Dearesst Kindred Soul-
That was very articulate. Easily the best explanation of the Trinity I have ever heard. I am interested in seeing what the others have to say before giving my two cents…
-Wussup

 

[chrisb]

My use of the word “origin” was only for lack of a better word. The reason for that “origin” being applicable is that the Logos is a necessary begotten result of the Father’s self aware existence; the Father simply is omniscient, and so there is the eternal, living Logos/Self Concept, which has thus also existed for eternity since the Father has been omniscient for eternity…but the Father is the eternal “begetter” of the Logos. The Holy Spirit’s existence seems to be similar to this. “Origin” is a limited word, but it by no means indicates that there was ever a time when the Holy Spirit or the Son didn’t exist; such a time never existed by virtue of God’s nature.

Grace and Peace KindredSoul,

You express the orthodox teaching of the Church well but you are keeping the dialogue ‘safe’ by not pursuing the Doctrine any deeper than what can be copy and pasted from textbooks. When we do this we made any dialogue stale and anticeptic and no life with be in our words. I simply demand that we do better, as the early Fathers did:

Seeds in a pomegranate cannot see objects outside its rind, because they are inside. Similarly human beings who are enclused with all creation in the hand of God cannot see God…

Friend, it is through him that you are speaking, it is he whom you breathe, and you do not know it! For your eye is blind, your heart is hardened. But, if you wish, you can be cured. Entrust yourself to the doctor, and he will open the eyes of your soul and your heart. Who is the doctor? God, using his word and his wisdom…

~ Theophilus of Antioch First Book to Autolycus

Perhaps, since it is a mystery…but there comes a time, when the Athanasian understanding (and the Church’s infallible understanding, we must remember) of the Trinity is attacked, that silence and analogies both do far more justice to the Trinity than suggesting that the infallibly True understanding of the Trinity as God in Three persons is a falsehood or misunderstanding.

The Triadic-Form of Divinity cannot be defended. It is a formal profession of what Athanasius and the Council of Nicea saw as a grave necessity to insure the inclusion of the Nous and the World-Soul within the ‘Divine Essence’. To claim that what is ‘begotten’ is equal to the One who ‘begets’ caused a great rift within the early Church and potentially motivated the later development of what we now know as Islam.

If you mean to critique my use of the word “Origin”, again please realize that I simply lack a better word. Even if the Son comes from the Father, and the Holy Spirit henceforth as a result, this is an instantaneous thing for as long as God exists at all.

I’m not criticizing you brother. I’m only challenging myself to delve deeper into the history of this Doctrine and it’s origins in neo-platonist thought.

For you or Athanasius to posit that for the One to contemplate Himself forces the creation of a copy within the ‘realm of Ideal being’ is borne in platonist philosophy and the necessity of being-ness. The One is beyond being and non-being and frankly beyond platonist philosophic necessities such as the ‘realm of Ideal’. The One is not an object of knowledge. Concepts, which never come without a secret wish to classify and to possess, are powerless to grasp the One by whom we ought to let ourselves be grasped. ‘Grasped’ in two senses: of being open to receive Him, as He freely reveals Himself, and of being seized with wonder.

Every concept formed by the intellect in an attempt to comprehend and circumscribe the divine nature can succeed only in fashioning an idol, not in making God known.
~ St. Gregory of Nyssa Life of Mose

[to be continued]

 

[Alexius]

Alexius, I hope you will seriously consider purchasing either Theology for Beginners or Theology and Sanity, both by Frank Sheed (both books were previously recommended to you). Either book would greatly help you in your present struggle with this basic Christian belief. Also, this site offers some good material on the topic:

bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm#TRINITY

Yes, of course I’ll buy them ! I’m trying to understand this topic and they seem beneficial…

BTW: You’re not the author, are you? I’m convinced I need to buy them anyway…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[De_Maria]

Why is it that God must be three persons? It doesn’t seem to make sense to believe in something that is not logical. For instance:

God the Father + God the Son + God the Spirit = God the ?

You are using the wrong mathematical formula.

-and-

(1) God the Father + (1) God the Son + (1) God the Spirit = (1) God?

The correct formula is 1 x 1 x1 = 1

It bothers me - I haven’t lost the Faith, but this issue is nudging at me. Can’t God be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and yet be strictly one God in one “person?” Thanks!

According to Revelation, God is three Divine Persons.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

I have left the Church, and I asked exactly the same question you did. I can’t see any intellectually honest way to solve the problem.

At best, it’s “a mystery”…and if that’s the case, why would God force us to believe in something that makes no sense in order to achieve salvation?

It makes a great deal of sense.

The three Divine Persons are consubstantial. We see that we exist in a universe which mirrors this Trinity.

a. Time - time consists of past, present and future. But the transition is seamless. Where does the past end and the present begin? When does the present end and the future begin? What we find is that time consists of three states in one dimension.

b. Space - space consists of height, depth and breadth. But where do they begin and end. If I lie down, my breadth is my height and if I turn over, my breadth is my height. Another trinity.

c. We ourselves consist of a trinity of mind, heart and spirit.

d. And of course, every family consists of a trinity of husband, wife and the love that binds them.

Our entire universe reflects the Trinitarian mystery.

And that is as it should be.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[FCEGM]

Yes, of course I’ll buy them ! I’m trying to understand this topic and they seem beneficial…

BTW: You’re not the author, are you? I’m convinced I need to buy them anyway…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

LOL - no, just a fan - although I DO get a million dollar commission everytime I recommend the books.

 

[KindredSoul]

Grace and Peace KindredSoul,

You express the orthodox teaching of the Church well but you are keeping the dialogue ‘safe’ by not pursuing the Doctrine any deeper than what can be copy and pasted from textbooks. When we do this we made any dialogue stale and anticeptic and no life with be in our words. I simply demand that we do better, as the early Fathers did:

Seeds in a pomegranate cannot see objects outside its rind, because they are inside. Similarly human beings who are enclused with all creation in the hand of God cannot see God…

Friend, it is through him that you are speaking, it is he whom you breathe, and you do not know it! For your eye is blind, your heart is hardened. But, if you wish, you can be cured. Entrust yourself to the doctor, and he will open the eyes of your soul and your heart. Who is the doctor? God, using his word and his wisdom…

~ Theophilus of Antioch First Book to Autolycus

The Church has perfect Faith that it is through God that She has spoken and taught the Doctrine of the Trinity infallibly, that Her doctrines have been perfected by the Divine “Doctor” Whom we adore.

And please do not say that orthodoxy is stale and stagnate; there is nothing anticeptic in believing that God, in His infinite wisdom, would safeguard us in Truth. If one believes this, and therefore believes that the Trinity was not formulated in error, it is only Faithfulness to the Truth, not fear or stagnation of the Truth, that would keep one solidly within the orthodoxy.

The Triadic-Form of Divinity cannot be defended. (Edited for Length)

But, my friend, it has been defended. Perhaps one can claim that we haven’t defended it well enough for it to make sense, but that is to presume it doesn’t make sense to us either. And I must say, and please believe me, over the course of this discussion, the Trinity, the “Triadic-Form of Divinity” as you call it, has come to make more logical sense to me than ever before…I no longer even see a hardship in accepting it, nor do I anymore (as I once did) fear the faintest hint of contradiction. Simply because it cannot be logically defended to the liking of some, such as those adhering to the anti-Trinitarian heresies of Islam, doesn’t mean it cannot be logically defended. My friend, to say such a thing is a great matter of personal opinion, is it not? Would you, perhaps, say the Trinity cannot possibly make sense, when I can now truly say it cannot possibly not make sense to me, ever again?

I’m not criticizing you brother. I’m only challenging myself to delve deeper into the history of this Doctrine and it’s origins in neo-platonist thought.

For you or Athanasius to posit that for the One to contemplate Himself forces the creation of a copy within the ‘realm of Ideal being’ is borne in platonist philosophy and the necessity of being-ness. The One is beyond being and non-being and frankly beyond platonist philosophic necessities such as the ‘realm of Ideal’. The One is not an object of knowledge. Concepts, which never come without a secret wish to classify and to possess, are powerless to grasp the One by whom we ought to let ourselves be grasped. ‘Grasped’ in two senses: of being open to receive Him, as He freely reveals Himself, and of being seized with wonder.

A deity who is not aware, who is not personal, who possesses no consciousness, is little more than a force of nature, or in this case, supernature; Such a one may as well be Gravity, or other phenomena that act without any thought of their own. When we say that God exists, we do not mean to say he is physically existing; but He does exist, and He is real. In this sense, He is a “Being” in the sense of “One that Exists.” His very name, “I AM” captures the essence that, whatever else is true of Him, He exists, and is the very pinnacle of Being.

Every concept formed by the intellect in an attempt to comprehend and circumscribe the divine nature can succeed only in fashioning an idol, not in making God known.
~ St. Gregory of Nyssa Life of Mose

[to be continued]

If St. Gregory’s words are taken to mean that God cannot reveal Himself - and let’s remember, the Church teaches the Trinitarian Doctrine to be God’s self revelation to us, using the Councils as a means - then there would be no Faith at all, but only vague Agnosticism, acknowledging that some deity may exist, but never attempting to know that deity. The Triune God is not an idol; and without His revelation, no one would have ever known of the Trinity…human reason alone, though it could reason it logically, would not have motive to imagine such a thing as the Trinity had God not revealed it to be True in the Incarnation and Holy Spirit. These aren’t concepts of human intellect alone; we believe them to be God given Truths. A simplified, non-Trinitarian deity is far more likely to result from human intellect than God, who is so beyond human nature that some would (mistakenly) call Him a contradiction.

 

[JimG]

KindredSoul’s descriptions of the Trinity have been perfectly on target. Let us not forget that God is pure spirit. (And if we forget what spirit is, I refer to Frank Sheed in Theology for Beginners) for a good explanation.

Since God is spirit, he has no parts, and no extension in time. We speak of the Father as “source” and of the son being begotten or generated. But in using those terms, we cannot apply them as we would to a material being. There is no ‘instant’ when the son or the holy spirit began to be.

The Father, in knowing himself, begets the son from all eternity. From the father and son’s exchange of love, the holy spirit proceeds from all eternity. There is not a nanosecond’s delay between the being of the father and the generation of the son or the procession of the holy spirit. There is no time whatsoever!

And most importantly, the son and the spirit are not separate beings, not separate entities, not separate natures, not new things, not created persons. The son is no more a separate being from the father than my self awarness is a separate entity from me. (But in the case of God, the self-knowing, the Word, IS a distinct person—a relation–but not a new entity.)