Understanding the Trinity

[Vico]

This, dear Vico, now becomes pantheism.

I have knowledge in me. I have love in me, as do you. By this theology, one must conclude, therefore, that God’s essence is manifested in creation. This is pantheism.

To maintain simplicity, Baha’i theology asserts that God’s essence is BEYOND all humanly expressed attributes. We assign the attributes of All-Loving, All-Powerful, All-Merciful, etc so as not to assign any IMPERFECTIONS onto His essence, but the essence cannot be expressed on this finite level of existence in creation.

The human painter is BEYOND the expressions found on his painting. The human painter is not the beauty, order and textures and colours found in His painting, he is far far far more than those expressions. One cannot find the neural pathways in the painting, one cannot find the optic nerve in the painting, nor can the paint on the painting fathom what an optic nerve could possibly be.

This is a manifest contradiction in applying the concept of “simplicity” to God.

What we see in Creation is an emanation of Gods active attributes, not His essential attributes.

"God in His Essence is unknowable, inaccessible to man: we can only say that He exists, but we cannot know anything else about Him, not even what `to exist’ means for Him.

And yet, we are used to ascribe to Him names and attributes: Creator, All-Knowing, Provider, or Word, Will, Love, and so on. The meaning of this ascription of names and attributes is explained in the Bahá’í texts in two ways:

• The names and attributes we ascribe to God refer to what we understand of them in the world of creation. Abdu'l-Bahá says: Their [the attribute’s] existence is proved and necessitated by the appearance of phenomena’:[7] we see that the universe follows a harmonious and ordered way, and we say that God is its Ordainer; we see creatures, and we say that God is their Creator. But our understanding of these attributes is only what we have under-stood, in the plane of the world of creation, of these spiritual truths, which are far beyond our minds. This is what Western philosophers call via eminentiae.
• The names and attributes we ascribe to God `are only in order to deny imperfections, rather than to assert the perfections that the human mind can conceive’.[8] For example, we say that He is the Almighty, meaning that He is not powerless, as His creatures are. This is what Western philosophy calls via negationis or remotionis."

.

In Christianity, the nature of creation is not divine nature and what is created is from nothing, so it not pantheism. The doctrine of creation teaches that all things are distinct from God and God is their efficient cause, not producing things from His own substance nor from any pre-existing reality, but by an act of His will bringing them out of nothing.

 

[Servant19]

In Christianity, the nature of creation is not divine nature and what is created is from nothing, so it not pantheism. The doctrine of creation teaches that all things are distinct from God and God is their efficient cause, not producing things from His own substance nor from any pre-existing reality, but by an act of His will bringing them out of nothing.

Can you please explain the difference between His essence existing within creation, but His substance not existing within creation, since you say that He is “not producing things from his substance”?

.

 

[Servant19]

He’s talking about the previous sentence.

MJ

Yes I know. It requires a thorough and heartfelt reflection

.

 

[Vico]

Can you please explain the difference between His essence existing within creation, but His substance not existing within creation, since you say that He is “not producing things from his substance”?

.

Essence is substance, but not all essences are substantial because accidents also have an essence. There are no accidents in God. God is said to be in all things by essence.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q8 A3

Objection 1. It seems that the mode of God’s existence in all things is not properly described by way of essence, presence and power. For what is by essence in anything, is in it essentially. But God is not essentially in things; for He does not belong to the essence of anything. Therefore it ought not to be said that God is in things by essence, presence and power.

**Reply to Objection 1. **God is said to be in all things by essence, not indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their essence; but by His own essence; because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being.

newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm

 

[Vico]

…

From New Catholic Encyclopedia, on the Beatific Vision:

No creature can by its own natural powers alone attain to the intuitive vision of God. Sacred Scripture shows that the only knowledge of God possible to the natural powers of man is that drawn from creatures and is indirect, analogous knowledge (Wis 13.1–9; Rom 1.18–21). Intuitive knowledge of God as He is in Himself is proper only to the Blessed Trinity (Jn 1.18; 6.46; Mt 11.27; 1 Cor 2.11), and God is essentially invisible (1 Tm 1.17), dwelling in light inaccessible to man (1 Tm 6.16; Jn 1.18). Moreover, the intuitive vision of God promised to man after death is expressly said to be linked to the order of grace (1 Jn 3.2; Jn 17.2–3; Rom 6.23).

encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407701215/beatific-vision.html

 

[Servant19]

Essence is substance, but not all essences are substantial because accidents also have an essence. There are no accidents in God. God is said to be in all things by essence.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q8 A3

Objection 1. It seems that the mode of God’s existence in all things is not properly described by way of essence, presence and power. For what is by essence in anything, is in it essentially. But God is not essentially in things; for He does not belong to the essence of anything. Therefore it ought not to be said that God is in things by essence, presence and power.

**Reply to Objection 1. **God is said to be in all things by essence, not indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their essence; but by His own essence; because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being.

newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm

Two questions arise here Vico

1. You say “not all essences are substantial”. A God’s essence substantial?
2. You and St.Thomas say that “God is said to be in all things by essence” yet St.Thomas also states " it ought not to be said that God is in things by essence". Can you please explain this?

.

 

[Servant19]

From New Catholic Encyclopedia, on the Beatific Vision:

No creature can by its own natural powers alone attain to the intuitive vision of God. Sacred Scripture shows that the only knowledge of God possible to the natural powers of man is that drawn from creatures and is indirect, analogous knowledge (Wis 13.1–9; Rom 1.18–21). Intuitive knowledge of God as He is in Himself is proper only to the Blessed Trinity (Jn 1.18; 6.46; Mt 11.27; 1 Cor 2.11), and God is essentially invisible (1 Tm 1.17), dwelling in light inaccessible to man (1 Tm 6.16; Jn 1.18). Moreover, the intuitive vision of God promised to man after death is expressly said to be linked to the order of grace (1 Jn 3.2; Jn 17.2–3; Rom 6.23).

encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407701215/beatific-vision.html

This supports the Baha’i position, don’t you think?

This also tells me that we are both learning in this dialogue Vico, and this cheers my heart. The answers to all this mystery are embedded in both Catholic and Baha’i theology. The signposts are to the same Summit

.

 

[Vico]

Two questions arise here Vico

1. You say “not all essences are substantial”. A God’s essence substantial?
2. You and St.Thomas say that “God is said to be in all things by essence” yet St.Thomas also states " it ought not to be said that God is in things by essence". Can you please explain this?

.

Substance is a being whose essence (nature) requires it t exist in itself (a being in itself). It is distinguished from accident, whose essence (nature) is to exist in a substance.

Adam (primary substance) is a human (secondary substance, or universal). God is a primary substance, but has no secondary substance.

“His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being” means God is in all things as an agent. An agent is present to that upon which it works since an “agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power”. God is not in all things as part of their essence, nor as an accident.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes I know. It requires a thorough and heartfelt reflection

.

That’s not what he’s saying though. Not about further revelation nor further continuation. You will need to follow the premise. Old and New Testament is FINAL. Same God, Trinity of Persons. BXIV is thorough in what he means.

MJ

 

[Servant19]

Substance is a being whose essence (nature) requires it t exist in itself (a being in itself). It is distinguished from accident, whose essence (nature) is to exist in a substance.

Adam (primary substance) is a human (secondary substance, or universal). God is a primary substance, but has no secondary substance.

“His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being” means God is in all things as an agent. An agent is present to that upon which it works since an “agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power”. God is not in all things as part of their essence, nor as an accident.

Thankyou Vico, however, I feel this post doesn’t answer any of my questions.

I also noticed a typo in my post. The question is:
Is Gods essence substantial? (That was the first question)

I also cannot understand if or how you answered the second question which is a source of confusion for me.

.

 

[hasantas]

the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Father begets, the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. What seems regardable or not is irrelevant.

When you say ‘obvious’, you must mean ‘explicit’; however there are numerous references and indirect allusions. The Qur’an is obviously mistaken because the writer thinks the Trinity is 3 gods composed of father, Mary as mother and jesus. This only proves the Qur’an is not from God and is simply in error.

St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignathios of Antioch, and St. Theophilos of Antioch were using the term before 100AD.

if you mention three persons in one family does that make 3 families? Your flaw is mistaking ‘personhood’ for isolation or solitariness.
why? Was there a time before God is mercy or justice? Trinity is who God is, there is no time without, just as God is not without any attributes, nor does God need time.
The Son is involved in all creation, all redemption. You mistake the Son’s incarnation by rejecting His redemption and eternal Kingdom.
God can and did for the Salvation of the human race. We do not believe the Divine essence transformed.
The Father’s image/reflection is brought forth from Him eternally, we understand the Father’s icon to be the Son who is begotten. Our understanding is that God is relational.
When you saw Voice of God, we include the Son and Spirit in this.

There’s a difference between appearance of a dove and incarnation. I already told you that you will have to dispel 2000 years of Tradition and Church teaching of which the Holy Bible is one written portion. Quoting or stating your personal interpretation of the Bible will not sway Catholic or Orthodox Christians, or even most protestants. When we see that your interpretation contradicts what our Fathers handed down to us, along with the Bible, we know you are wrong

So it is not importand if your Fathers conflicts with Bible?

 

[Servant19]

That’s not what he’s saying though. Not about further revelation nor further continuation. You will need to follow the premise. Old and New Testament is FINAL. Same God, Trinity of Persons. BXIV is thorough in what he means.

MJ

Yes, it requires significant reflection.

Humans have occupied the earth for ~200,000 years and God has guided them through Prophets all that time. Yet suddenly He stops 2000 years ago never to be seen again. And the earth keeps spinning and will do so for at least another 1 billion years.

All Christians should reflect on that sentence, including BXIV

.

 

[Servant19]

So it is not importand if your Fathers conflicts with Bible?

In many ways hasantas, Catholicism puts as much merit on the teachings of the Fathers as the Bible. Sacred Tradition is, well, sacred

It is important to study their Traditions as well as the Bible…

I must warn you though, you will find plenty to support the Islamic perspective, and plenty to support the “Jesus is God” perspective, both of which have Truth.

.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, it requires significant reflection.

Humans have occupied the earth for ~200,000 years and God has guided them through Prophets all that time. Yet suddenly He stops 2000 years ago never to be seen again. And the earth keeps spinning and will do so for at least another 1 billion years.

All Christians should reflect on that sentence, including BXIV

.

How do I say this charitably?

I see that you are taking a sentence from BXVI and not following his words at its premise. But running with it away from the Context.

Here’s more about what he’s getting at:

I would like to emphasize the very significant witness to the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Scripture which we find in the texts of the liturgy, where the word of God is proclaimed, heard and explained to the faithful. We find a witness to this in the ancient prayers which in the form of an epiclesis invoke the Spirit before the proclamation of the readings: “Send your Paraclete Spirit into our hearts and make us understand the Scriptures which he has inspired; and grant that I may interpret them worthily, so that the faithful assembled here may profit thereby”. We also find prayers which, at the end of the homily, again ask God to send the gift of the Spirit upon the faithful: “God our Saviour… we implore you for this people: send upon them the Holy Spirit; may the Lord Jesus come to visit them, speak to the minds of all, dispose their hearts to faith and lead our souls to you, God of mercies”. This makes it clear that we cannot come to understand the meaning of the word unless we are open to the working of the Paraclete in the Church and in the hearts of believers."



MJ

 

[Techno2000]

Humans have occupied the earth for ~200,000 years

.

 

[Vico]

Thankyou Vico, however, I feel this post doesn’t answer any of my questions.

I also noticed a typo in my post. The question is:
Is Gods essence substantial? (That was the first question)

I also cannot understand if or how you answered the second question which is a source of confusion for me.

.

1. You say “not all essences are substantial”. Is Gods essence substantial?

For the first I posted:

Substance is a being whose essence (nature) requires it to exist in itself (a being in itself). It is distinguished from accident, whose essence (nature) is to exist in a substance.

Adam (primary substance) is a human (secondary substance, or universal). God is a primary substance, but has no secondary substance.

The essence of God is substantial. Primary essences are substances. Secondary essences (universals a.k.a., accidents) are not substances (e.g., an essence of white and an essence of musical). Non-substances are accidents, and accidents are ontologically dependent on substances.

A thing could be a substance or not; per Aristotle, things in the world are not beings because they stand under some genus, being, but rather because they all stand in a relation to the primary being, which is substance. Aristotle Metaphysics has ten categories of objects in the world to which words correspond (1) substance; (2) quantity; (3) quality; (4) relatives; (5) somewhere; (6) sometime; (7) being in a position; (8) having; (9) acting; and (10) being acted upon.

1. You and St.Thomas say that “God is said to be in all things by essence” yet St.Thomas also states " it ought not to be said that God is in things by essence". Can you please explain this?

For the second I posted:

“His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being” means God is in all things as an agent. An agent is present to that upon which it works since an “agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power”. God is not in all things as part of their essence, nor as an accident.

In Summa Theologica, the style of to present an objection, and then answer it. St. Thomas presents the objectioon with “it ought not to be said that God is in things by essence, presence and power” and answers the objection with “God is said to be in all things … by His own essence; because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being”.

The key is that God’s substance is “present to all things as the cause of their being”. God is the Creator. This is a specific rejection of pantheism and panentheism.

 

[Servant19]

How do I say this charitably?

I see that you are taking a sentence from BXVI and not following his words at its premise. But running with it away from the Context.

Here’s more about what he’s getting at:

I would like to emphasize the very significant witness to the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Scripture which we find in the texts of the liturgy, where the word of God is proclaimed, heard and explained to the faithful. We find a witness to this in the ancient prayers which in the form of an epiclesis invoke the Spirit before the proclamation of the readings: “Send your Paraclete Spirit into our hearts and make us understand the Scriptures which he has inspired; and grant that I may interpret them worthily, so that the faithful assembled here may profit thereby”. We also find prayers which, at the end of the homily, again ask God to send the gift of the Spirit upon the faithful: “God our Saviour… we implore you for this people: send upon them the Holy Spirit; may the Lord Jesus come to visit them, speak to the minds of all, dispose their hearts to faith and lead our souls to you, God of mercies”. This makes it clear that we cannot come to understand the meaning of the word unless we are open to the working of the Paraclete in the Church and in the hearts of believers."



MJ

Humbly, I would suggest more reflection is required. Maybe go into a quiet space for a few hours alone?

How can it be the Holy Spirit giving you the “Word of God” when He has spoken to 20,000 denominations?

The Holy Spirit should unite not divide. I suggest more reflection, because at this rate you are not reflecting, I’m suggesting…I don’t like to suggest these things…

.

 

[Reuben_J]

If Son is eternal and god then how could it be incarnated? The eternal and divine essence do not transform. God is in existence as eternally and God do not settle in time and matter.

This is interesting and perhaps lies the difference in Islam and Christianity.

A Christian would then ask you, “Why could not and eternal God be incarnated (embodied in flesh; in human form)? Would God unable to do that if God wants to?”

While Islam puts a limitation in the capability of God, the doctrine of Trinity espouses that God, in His love of humankind, does an incredible act of self-giving of love.

 

[Servant19]

This is interesting and perhaps lies the difference in Islam and Christianity.

A Christian would then ask you, “Why could not and eternal God be incarnated (embodied in flesh; in human form)? Would God unable to do that if God wants to?”

While Islam puts a limitation in the capability of God, the doctrine of Trinity espouses that God, in His love of humankind, does an incredible act of self-giving of love.

If God could incarnate if He wanted to, then surely the Father can potentially not beget if He wanted to. Do you agree?

.

 

[Reuben_J]

If God could incarnate if He wanted to, then surely the Father can potentially not beget if He wanted to. Do you agree?

.

Hi. I guess this is out of my depth. But my answer would still be the same - if God wants to, He could do it, but He did not. He may be not necessarily do thing according to our human logic, that is why we find we are often puzzled at the things God did. But is it a surprise? Surely not. We were forewarned that God’s way is different from our ways and His thought is not our thought.