Three-in-One = Trinity?

[chrisb]

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.

Grace and Peace KindredSoul,

No I am not saying that orthodox teachings of the faith is stale and stagnate but the simple regurgitating of them are unfruitful particularly for the uninitiated. It ceases to be illumination and becomes merely a triumphal show of intellectual entrenchment.

To elevate the formula as the truth would be idolatry of the Form in the place of it’s Substance. It is within the substance that the initiated must plumb in order to grow in communion with the One.

There is a traditional Semitic Saying which says: The sight of someone eating will not appease your hunger. The spiritual experiences of others cannot satisfy your yearnings.

For the Triadic-Form of Divinity to be one’s own it must be encountered first-hand in the mystical experience of the faith. My intellectual challenge is to seek this first-hand encounter in the realm of ideas but perhaps this is the Western Way of things and not the Eastern Way. Perhaps there exists a distinction between grasping the formula and experiencing the divine? I believe so personally, but I maybe in the Western Church Form has replaced Substance. The rigid fearful clinging to someone elses concept has replaced our own journey to encounter the experience itself. Such is called ‘blind faith’ (i.e. faith without it’s own eyes to see the truth first hand).

The early Church Fathers spoke dynamically about the Divine Nature and never stuck to predefined formulas nor appealed to authority outside their own personal insights. When one appeals to outside authority one is affirming that they don’t know but they have believe that someone else does and they are willing to take them at their word. I don’t believe this is Christianity…

Christianity is an invitation to encounter the Divine first hand and affirm the doctrines of the faith first hand. Such is the journey of all the God-Seers and Saints of the Church.

Appeals to external authority is the appeals of those who simply don’t know themselves. If the Holy Spirit is within us guiding us to all truth then we are not asked to appeal to external authority but the inner law written on our hearts and established through our encounter with the Divine.

But, my friend, it has been defended.

No, the nature of the divine cannot be objectively studied and validated and so any affirmation fails to be a defense.

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.

The asumption that contemplation of the self ‘must’ create a separate being-hood to establish a “Knower and the Known” relationship is Platonism and isn’t a necessary fact in our discussion. The One who is beyond being need not establish a copy of Himself in order to contemplate Himself. This is what you are affirming when you argue for the necessity of a dualism (i.e. Logos; Nous; Son).

Even if we were to agree that the Knower and the Known dualism is necessary, we as Christian don’t affirm a Realm of Ideal Being as Platonist do and so don’t have to affirm the begetting of a Person-hood (i.e. mirror of the One). We are at liberty to elaborate the Trinity is less than pure Platonist frameworks. Unfortunately the Council has set the formula of the Trinity within an unnecessary Platonist one but we, as Christians, are not concerned with the Form we should be concerned with our own encounter of the Substance the Form suggests with all it’s inherent intellectual weaknesses of human concept and language. Such is the whole point our Lord’s criticism of the rigorism of the Pharisees (the Letter Kills, the Spirit Heals).

[to be continued]

 

[chrisb]

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.

You mean there would be on Idols for us to get distracted over…

Peace.

 

[dessert]

Chrisb; you sound somewhat like an anti-Christ but I must be wrong and I appoligize because I would have an awfull time arguing successfully with you. What is your defi. of an anti-Christ? thanks Dessert

 

[KindredSoul]

…the simple regurgitating of them are unfruitful particularly for the uninitiated.

Is it mere regurgitation to speak the truth? Must a child touch a hot stove before he trusts it will burn his hand? Is a parental warning to him useless regurgitation, or useful information?

There is a traditional Semitic Saying which says: The sight of someone eating will not appease your hunger. The spiritual experiences of others cannot satisfy your yearnings.

But if that “someone” tells you which foods are poisonous (analogous to heresies) and which are healthy (orthodox teachings), it is appreciable. You then know what foods to safely eat (i.e., what experiences to pursue).

For the Triadic-Form of Divinity to be one’s own it must be encountered first-hand in the mystical experience of the faith. …(shortened)… The rigid fearful clinging to someone elses concept has replaced our own journey to encounter the experience itself. Such is called ‘blind faith’ (i.e. faith without it’s own eyes to see the truth first hand).

It is also more satisfying to swim than to be told that water is wet by an experienced swimmer, but the water is wet non-the-less, and the words of the other’s experience are true. Likewise, it is wonderful if one experiences the Trinity firsthand (and many have throughout the ages, and never afterwards questioned the Doctrine), but the Trinitarian doctrine doesn’t cease to be true in the absence of experience.

The early Church Fathers spoke dynamically about the Divine Nature and never stuck to predefined formulas nor appealed to authority outside their own personal insights. When one appeals to outside authority one is affirming that they don’t know but they have believe that someone else does and they are willing to take them at their word. I don’t believe this is Christianity…

You are mistaken, my friend. Christianity has always been about trusting the testimony of others. The Apostles trusted that Jesus’ words were true. The first Christians trusted the testimony of the Apostles, as did the Early Church Fathers; if this were not so, our Faith today wouldn’t have been preserved. Ours is a Faith of Trust, not of subjective experience alone. It’s true, the Apostles and Church Fathers sought experience, and we may and should do likewise, but those experience were to serve to vindicate the Truths in which they Trusted, not to be the precondition of that trust, and the same is true today. To demand experience isn’t Faith.

Continued…

 

[KindredSoul]

If the Holy Spirit is within us guiding us to all truth then we are not asked to appeal to external authority but the inner law written on our hearts and established through our encounter with the Divine.

It is by the objective Truths preseved by the Church and Scriptures that we “Test the spirits”, as we are told to do in Scripture, to see if it is indeed the Holy Spirit guiding us.

No, the nature of the divine cannot be objectively studied and validated and so any affirmation fails to be a defense.

This is a false premise, which cannot be accepted by us. If God has revealed to us an objective Truth, as He has done, then that Truth can be objectively known and validated. To make any other claim is to say that God is not efficient at making His revelations known; it’s a claim that cannot be maken without insulting His revelation.

The asumption that contemplation of the self ‘must’ create a … being-hood to establish a “Knower and the Known” relationship is Platonism and isn’t a necessary fact in our discussion. The One who is beyond being need not establish a copy of Himself in order to contemplate Himself. This is what you are affirming when you argue for the necessity of a dualism (i.e. Logos; Nous; Son).

So you reject the premise (in blue) by stating your own (in red). The premise in blue may be true, and we’ve no more reason to believe your premise than the first; the possibility that the first premise is true isn’t good for an anti-Trinitarian stance, but that doesn’t mean Trinitarians ought to ignore it.

Even if we were to agree that the Knower and the Known dualism is necessary, we as Christian don’t affirm a Realm of Ideal Being as Platonist do and so don’t have to affirm the begetting of a Person-hood (i.e. mirror of the One).

Christians affirm much more than a Realm of Ideal Being. We affirm the ultimate Ideal Being Himself - the Truine God, who because of His Triune nature needs nothing else but His own existence to be complete, whole, omniscient, and loving. To deny that God is an Ideal Being is to advocate a Greco-Roman view (ironically) that a deity can fail to obtain the ideal.

We are at liberty to elaborate the Trinity is less than pure Platonist frameworks…Such is the whole point our Lord’s criticism of the rigorism of the Pharisees (the Letter Kills, the Spirit Heals).

But our Lord spoke many objective Truths. He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Indeed, this did cause differences of the New Covenant from the Old…but it did not establish a subjective Age in which each person’s subjective experience is superior to universal Truth. Subjectivism is in contrast with the teachings of our Lord, God Incarnate, who came to make Himself known, not to initiate further subjectivism and chaos.

You mean there would be no idols for us to get distracted over

No, my friend…the Triune God is the only deity who isn’t an idol. A non-Trinitarian Faith idolizes simplicity, demanding that God befit the understanding of those who deny the Trinity. A primarily subjective Faith idolizes human experiences, deeming them more divine than even the objective revelations that God Himself has given us.

 

[KindredSoul]

Dearesst Kindred Soul-
That was very articulate. Easily the best explanation of the Trinity I have ever heard.

KindredSoul’s descriptions of the Trinity have been perfectly on target.

Thank you for your encouraging and reaffirming words, my friends in Christ…I appreciate them more than you may know.

 

[Montalban]

Can someone help me with a question… What’s SteveB’s use of Plotinus got to do with the Trinity?

 

[chrisb]

Is it mere regurgitation to speak the truth? Must a child touch a hot stove before he trusts it will burn his hand? Is a parental warning to him useless regurgitation, or useful information?

Grace and Peace KindredSoul,

Encountering the One should not be threatening to the teachings of the Church. We should not replace a genuine encounter with the Divine with Dogmas. Dogmas can me misunderstood and misused because they are expressions of these Divine Encounters. As much as they are sacred they hold for the initiated ‘keys’ for genuine encounters but they are not the encounters themselves. We cannot replace one Saints theosis for our own is the main thrust of my point.

But if that “someone” tells you which foods are poisonous (analogous to heresies) and which are healthy (orthodox teachings), it is appreciable. You then know what foods to safely eat (i.e., what experiences to pursue).

Only is they understand the Dogmatic Keys themselves. If they do not then their advice can be damaging but you are grasping my point with this point.

It is also more satisfying to swim than to be told that water is wet by an experienced swimmer, but the water is wet non-the-less, and the words of the other’s experience are true.

Yes, this is true but until one gets wet they really never actually know what wet is. They have absolutely no objective idea what wet is and yet they speak about it with authority… that would be a grave error to listen to.

Likewise, it is wonderful if one experiences the Trinity firsthand (and many have throughout the ages, and never afterwards questioned the Doctrine), but the Trinitarian doctrine doesn’t cease to be true in the absence of experience.

I’ve never said that the Doctrine isn’t valuable but that we need to explore and plumb the reality of the Nature of the Divine first hand. I don’t deny that Jesus shared the unique unity with the Father but I don’t believe that unity must be articulated through a Platonist Framework in the manner of the Doctrine of the Trinity. That is not a denial of the Triadic-Form of Divinity either it is merely a show of sympathy for our critics who refute a Platonist understanding of the One to be authoritative.

You are mistaken, my friend. Christianity has always been about trusting the testimony of others. The Apostles trusted that Jesus’ words were true. The first Christians trusted the testimony of the Apostles, as did the Early Church Fathers; if this were not so, our Faith today wouldn’t have been preserved. Ours is a Faith of Trust, not of subjective experience alone. It’s true, the Apostles and Church Fathers sought experience, and we may and should do likewise, but those experience were to serve to vindicate the Truths in which they Trusted, not to be the precondition of that trust, and the same is true today. To demand experience isn’t Faith.

John the Theologian is know to us as the Greatest of the Apostles. His mystical insights reveal to us an intimate knowledge of the One and a departure from the other Gospels.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

• 1 John 2:27

Read For They Shall See God by David Beck. Note: this has nothing to do with Arianism but addresses Christianity in the sense that we are all called to be God-Seers with True Sight and not just Blind Faith.

You are insightful and I appreciate the fact that you have journeyed with me without frustration or acusation. You are a kind spirit and I know my posts challenge us as Christians. I don’t deny this but I do believe they are of value to explore. Thank you.

Peace.

 

[chrisb]

Chrisb; you sound somewhat like an anti-Christ but I must be wrong and I appoligize because I would have an awfull time arguing successfully with you. What is your defi. of an anti-Christ? thanks Dessert

Grace and Peace dessert,

I admit that my enquiry is going to be challenging to some but it’s intent is not to ‘deny’ Christ nor his manifestation ‘in the flesh’. If we read the early Fathers of the Alexandrian School we will encounter an understanding of the Nature of the Divine which is ‘richer’ in my humble opinion than what is agreed upon later in the Council of Nicea.

You may label me an explorer of Moderate Arianism but I honestly believe that you cannot label me an anti-Christ.

Peace.

 

[dessert]

Grace and Peace dessert,

I admit that my enquiry is going to be challenging to some but it’s intent is not to ‘deny’ Christ nor his manifestation ‘in the flesh’. If we read the early Fathers of the Alexandrian School we will encounter an understanding of the Nature of the Divine which is ‘richer’ in my humble opinion than what is agreed upon later in the Council of Nicea.

You may label me an explorer of Moderate Arianism but I honestly believe that you cannot label me an anti-Christ.

Peace.

Grace and peace to you also and I do not wish to label you anything.
The apostles had the advantage of living with the Christ, but, and so we have to hear seconf hand of men but still i rely on the Holy Spirit to witness to me the truth and therein I hear the truth as the Spirit has for me. ie; your example of food and eating is very good as someone may try to convince me to try some food and it may be sweet to that person but to me I try and it taste sour to me, but what if I say oh no I’m not even going to try because this is an ie; italian dish and you are not from Italy and you don’t even speak Italian so first prove to me that you speak the language. But to further explain this is exactly what drew me away from the Church was the lack of discernment. I appreciate your explanations . Dessert

 

[KindredSoul]

Encountering the One should not be threatening to the teachings of the Church. We should not replace a genuine encounter with the Divine with Dogmas.

Indeed, a genuine encounter with God is never threatening to the teachings of the Church. But the Dogmas of the Church infallibly guide us, so that we may determine whether or not we are truly encountering God as He is, or something else - such as a figment of our imagination, some other spirit, or even a glimpse of God filtered through our flawed understandings (which, often enough, cannot immediately grasp the Trinity, so might neglect to realize that God is Triune). Even then, it’s true that such misleading experiences do not threaten the Church’s teachings, which stand as the Truth, but they can distract the individual away from that Truth.

Yes, this is true but until one gets wet they really never actually know what wet is. They have absolutely no objective idea what wet is and yet they speak about it with authority… that would be a grave error to listen to.

This isn’t necessarily the case. There are other substances that are wet besides water, which those who’ve not experienced water could have experienced; though water may feel a bit different, it’s very important that they believe that it is wet, or else they might mistake an illusion of water (say a mirage in the desert that is actually mere sand) for water, even though a major qualification for water is missing. Those who merely trust but never experience, then, are more accurate about the nature of water than the one who doesn’t trust and thinks he experiences. He’d have been better off trusting them in this case.

I’ve never said that the Doctrine isn’t valuable but that we need to explore and plumb the reality of the Nature of the Divine first hand. I don’t deny that Jesus shared the unique unity with the Father but I don’t believe that unity must be articulated through a Platonist Framework in the manner of the Doctrine of the Trinity. That is not a denial of the Triadic-Form of Divinity either it is merely a show of sympathy for our critics who refute a Platonist understanding of the One to be authoritative.

Sympathy for those who cannot understand the Truth is indeed noble…but it can go overboard. Admitting that the Trinity can be complicated and hard to understand is efficient sympathy, for it admits: “I can see why you might have trouble with this point, and I want to help you understand.” But we must be careful to never say to our critics “You may be right, so who is the Church to say otherwise?” for such portrays a lack of trust in our Faith, and doesn’t motivate our critics to explore the truth in our claims - why should they be interested in the Truth if we ourselves do not firmly trust in it? In short, one can have sympathy without agreeing with our critics to any extent.

John the Theologian is know to us as the Greatest of the Apostles. His mystical insights reveal to us an intimate knowledge of the One and a departure from the other Gospels.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

• 1 John 2:27

It is that same John whose letters are the only written scripture where the word “anti-Christ” literally appears; he applies it to those whose understanding of God differed from the orthodox. For instance, 2 John 2:7 condemns as anti-Christs those who believed Christ wasn’t really incarnate, but spirit only. That’s a strong accusation. He didn’t say “Well, if that’s what their anointing tells them, that’s their legitimate experience in God.” So it seems that he didn’t advocate subjective experience either. He believed the anointing of God would lead us to Truth, no doubt…but clearly he believed in objective truth. If someone’s “anointing” seemed to contradict that Truth, he apparently wouldn’t have believed that person’s “anointing” was of God. The same is true for all the Truth, including that of the Triune nature of God.

You are insightful and I appreciate the fact that you have journeyed with me without frustration or acusation. You are a kind spirit and I know my posts challenge us as Christians. I don’t deny this but I do believe they are of value to explore. Thank you.

You’re welcome. I too have something to be thankful for, my friend; whatever else may become of our discussion, your posts have helped me to solidify my understanding and my confidence in the Triune nature of God by producing an occasion to effectively defend the Truth of that nature.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Blessed Trinity
God is Three Persons in One Nature

1. 
   *]There is one divine Nature.
   
   NATURE – *What *something is. Answers the question, *“What *is it?”
   
   *]There are three divine Persons.
   
   PERSON – *Who *someone is. Answers the question, *“Who *is it?”
   
   *]Each Person is distinct and wholly Himself — Not one Person is either of the others.
   
   The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit.
   The Son is neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father.
   The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.
   
   *]The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
   
   The three Persons do not *share *the one divine Nature, as if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each are “one-third” God.
   
   Rather, each Person totally possesses the one divine Nature: The Father totally possesses the one divine Nature.
   The Son totally possesses the one divine Nature.
   The Holy Spirit totally possesses the one divine Nature.
   
   Each Person, therefore, is God.
   
   *]There are not three Gods but only one God.
   
   The three Persons are distinct, but not separate.
   
   The Father, Son and Holy Spirit each do not possess *separate *divine Natures, which would mean They are three Gods. On the contrary, each Person totally possesses the *same *one divine Nature.
   
   Thus, the Trinity is one God, not three Gods.

1. 
   Excellent post.

 

[Montalban]

Grace and Peace dessert,

I admit that my enquiry is going to be challenging to some but it’s intent is not to ‘deny’ Christ nor his manifestation ‘in the flesh’. If we read the early Fathers of the Alexandrian School we will encounter an understanding of the Nature of the Divine which is ‘richer’ in my humble opinion than what is agreed upon later in the Council of Nicea.

You may label me an explorer of Moderate Arianism but I honestly believe that you cannot label me an anti-Christ.

Peace.

In short… who cares what Plotinus thinks?

 

[rmcmullan]

The Blessed Trinity
God is Three Persons in One Nature

1. 
   *]There is one divine Nature.
   
   NATURE – *What *something is. Answers the question, *“What *is it?”
   
   *]There are three divine Persons.
   
   PERSON – *Who *someone is. Answers the question, *“Who *is it?”
   
   *]Each Person is distinct and wholly Himself — Not one Person is either of the others.
   
   The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit.
   The Son is neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father.
   The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.
   
   *]The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
   
   The three Persons do not *share *the one divine Nature, as if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each are “one-third” God.
   
   Rather, each Person totally possesses the one divine Nature: The Father totally possesses the one divine Nature.
   The Son totally possesses the one divine Nature.
   The Holy Spirit totally possesses the one divine Nature.
   
   Each Person, therefore, is God.
   
   *]There are not three Gods but only one God.
   
   The three Persons are distinct, but not separate.
   
   The Father, Son and Holy Spirit each do not possess *separate *divine Natures, which would mean They are three Gods. On the contrary, each Person totally possesses the *same *one divine Nature.
   
   Thus, the Trinity is one God, not three Gods.

1. 
   That’s very, very good. Best explanation so far. And in line with Mormon teachings. So you know it’s got to be true.

 

[Vincent]

That’s very, very good. Best explanation so far. And in line with Mormon teachings. So you know it’s got to be true.

This LDS professor would disagree:

In short, while Latter-day Saints do not believe in the ontological oneness of the members of the Godhead, we believe they are infinitely more one than they are separate.

Emphasis added

 

[rmcmullan]

This LDS professor would disagree:Emphasis added

I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Ontological? Is that like sillymadeupwordological?

However, I can certainly agree with these five points. But for some reason, Catholics no longer accept Mormon baptism because of the differences on the Trinity/Godhead. Maybe it’s because it’s never really been defined as well as this. This I think really nails it.

 

[truthsilence]

rmcmullan,

The difference is the LDS church teaches a plurality of Gods. That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not One God, but three separate Gods; in addition to that, that there were more Gods before, and there are more Gods to come.

Peace,
Tami

 

[truthsilence]

rmcmullan,

I have ordered the book Vincent is getting his reference from: “Theology for Beginners”. I’m excited to receive it, because I think the author nails it, as you said. Maybe you should order a copy for yourself.

Peace to you.

 

[Vincent]

I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Ontological? Is that like sillymadeupwordological?

Ontological – “Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.”

What Professor Millet was getting at, was that LDS theology does not hold that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in substance/nature/being (consubstantial.). Thus, the last point in Frank Sheed’s explanation of the Trinity, which implies “ontological oneness” (to use Professor Millet’s terminology), appears to be incompatible with the LDS position on the Godhead.

However, I can certainly agree with these five points. But for some reason, Catholics no longer accept Mormon baptism because of the differences on the Trinity/Godhead. Maybe it’s because it’s never really been defined as well as this. This I think really nails it.

Also check out Posts 15 and 16, which clarifies the Catholic position even further.

Here’s how Fr. Luis Ladaria, SJ at the Pontifical Gregorian University explains the differences (in the context of the baptism controversy). Especially note the part I placed in bold type.:

. . . the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). **The very word divinity Vincent: in LDS theology] has only a functional, not a substantial content

, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552).

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay, thanks for the post Vincent, the background was most helpful. But I think I’m still unable to put it in my own words. Let me see if I got it:

There are three persons with the same divine nature. RC and LDS both teach that even though the three persons have the same divine nature, they are not individually divine? But LDS call each of the three persons God whereas only the RC call the union of them God?