Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 424
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 369
- Technical Topics 369
Christological Concepts of the Trinity
Hi,
I have a few questions concerning the Nature of Christ through the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity tells us that God is three persons in total unity. He is one in essence, but has shown Himself to us as three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are separate persons (hypostasis) with individual (hypostatic) attributes, yet all one in essence.
I wish to discuss these "Hypostatic Attributes".
Does each hypostasis of the Trinity have a will? Does each have mind? Does each have feelings? Does God have feelings even?
The Word of God and the Holy Spirit act with the Father in the act of Creation. I know that God the Father's will is the will of the Son and the Holy Spirit. They all work with ONE will. They all work with One Mind.
However, can we say that each person in the Trinity has His own mind also?
Apparently it is a misunderstanding that God merely appears in different forms - sometimes as the Father, others as the Son, or sometimes as the Holy Spirit. But, Scripture clearly says that both the Son and Spirit are “of God” and not merely aspects of God. Both the Son and Holy Spirit are realities with different personalities. They are not just different forms. If they have different personalities, then does each person of the Trinity have His own mind? Yet their will is that of the Father? Is this correct? Please explain?
This is what we know and have understood so far:
1. One God, One Father: There is only one God because there is only one Father.
In the Bible the term "God" with very few exceptions is used primarily as a name for the Father. Thus, the Son is the "Son of God," and the Spirit is the "Spirit of God." The Son is born from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father -- both in the same timeless and eternal action of the Father's own being. In this view, the Son and the Spirit are both one with God and in no way separated from Him. Thus, the Divine Unity consists of the Father, with His Son and His Spirit distinct from Himself and yet perfectly united together in Him.
2. One God, One Divine Nature and Being: What the Father is, the Son and Spirit are also.
The Son, born of the Father, and the Spirit, proceeding from Him, share the divine nature with God, being "of one essence" with Him.
This is a Perpetual son to a Perpetual Father. We have to use the term "Perpetual" because there was never a time when the Father was without a Son, nor the Son without the Father. Simply that the Son is from the Father. You agree??
Every attribute of divinity which belongs to God the Father -- life, love, wisdom, truth, blessedness, holiness, power, purity, joy -- belongs equally as well to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The being, nature, essence, existence and life of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are absolutely and identically one and the same.
But does that mean that each PERSON of the Trinity could still have His own mind??
3. One God: One Divine Action and Will: Whatever the Father wills, the Son and the Holy Spirit also will.
Since they are one, whatever the Father wills, the Son and the Holy Spirit will also. Whatever the Father does, the Son and Holy Spirit do also. There is no will and no action of God the Father which is not at the same time the will and action of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Every action of God is the action of the Three. No one person of the Trinity acts independently of or in isolation from the others. The action of each is the action of all; the action of all is the action of each. The divine action is essentially one.
But does that still mean that each Person of the Trinity could have His Own mind?
4. One God, One Divine Knowledge and Love: Each knows the same Truth and exercises the same Love. Since they are one, they all have the same truth and exercise the same love.
Each person of the Trinity knows and loves the others with such absolute perfection, knowledge, and love that there is nothing unknown and nothing unloved of each in the others.
* If they have this unity of love between them, then they are separate persons of the Same Godhead. Therefore, EACH must have His Own "personal" capacity to love the other hypostasis??? Is that correct?
In the Fullness of Time, when Christ took flesh, at that moment, what was His relationship with the Trinity? was there a separation between them?
If we cannot touch nor see the Divine nature, then how could Christ's Divinity unite with His humanity without one consuming the other? How could the Divine fire overshadow Saint Mary without harming her?
When God appeared to Moses, God's glory (Just His Glory!) made Moses' face so bright that they had to put a towel over his face. What about Saint Mary who BORE Christ??
This is so mind boggling.
Thanks
I have a few questions concerning the Nature of Christ through the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity tells us that God is three persons in total unity. He is one in essence, but has shown Himself to us as three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are separate persons (hypostasis) with individual (hypostatic) attributes, yet all one in essence.
I wish to discuss these "Hypostatic Attributes".
Does each hypostasis of the Trinity have a will? Does each have mind? Does each have feelings? Does God have feelings even?
The Word of God and the Holy Spirit act with the Father in the act of Creation. I know that God the Father's will is the will of the Son and the Holy Spirit. They all work with ONE will. They all work with One Mind.
However, can we say that each person in the Trinity has His own mind also?
Apparently it is a misunderstanding that God merely appears in different forms - sometimes as the Father, others as the Son, or sometimes as the Holy Spirit. But, Scripture clearly says that both the Son and Spirit are “of God” and not merely aspects of God. Both the Son and Holy Spirit are realities with different personalities. They are not just different forms. If they have different personalities, then does each person of the Trinity have His own mind? Yet their will is that of the Father? Is this correct? Please explain?
This is what we know and have understood so far:
1. One God, One Father: There is only one God because there is only one Father.
In the Bible the term "God" with very few exceptions is used primarily as a name for the Father. Thus, the Son is the "Son of God," and the Spirit is the "Spirit of God." The Son is born from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father -- both in the same timeless and eternal action of the Father's own being. In this view, the Son and the Spirit are both one with God and in no way separated from Him. Thus, the Divine Unity consists of the Father, with His Son and His Spirit distinct from Himself and yet perfectly united together in Him.
2. One God, One Divine Nature and Being: What the Father is, the Son and Spirit are also.
The Son, born of the Father, and the Spirit, proceeding from Him, share the divine nature with God, being "of one essence" with Him.
This is a Perpetual son to a Perpetual Father. We have to use the term "Perpetual" because there was never a time when the Father was without a Son, nor the Son without the Father. Simply that the Son is from the Father. You agree??
Every attribute of divinity which belongs to God the Father -- life, love, wisdom, truth, blessedness, holiness, power, purity, joy -- belongs equally as well to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The being, nature, essence, existence and life of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are absolutely and identically one and the same.
But does that mean that each PERSON of the Trinity could still have His own mind??
3. One God: One Divine Action and Will: Whatever the Father wills, the Son and the Holy Spirit also will.
Since they are one, whatever the Father wills, the Son and the Holy Spirit will also. Whatever the Father does, the Son and Holy Spirit do also. There is no will and no action of God the Father which is not at the same time the will and action of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Every action of God is the action of the Three. No one person of the Trinity acts independently of or in isolation from the others. The action of each is the action of all; the action of all is the action of each. The divine action is essentially one.
But does that still mean that each Person of the Trinity could have His Own mind?
4. One God, One Divine Knowledge and Love: Each knows the same Truth and exercises the same Love. Since they are one, they all have the same truth and exercise the same love.
Each person of the Trinity knows and loves the others with such absolute perfection, knowledge, and love that there is nothing unknown and nothing unloved of each in the others.
* If they have this unity of love between them, then they are separate persons of the Same Godhead. Therefore, EACH must have His Own "personal" capacity to love the other hypostasis??? Is that correct?
In the Fullness of Time, when Christ took flesh, at that moment, what was His relationship with the Trinity? was there a separation between them?
If we cannot touch nor see the Divine nature, then how could Christ's Divinity unite with His humanity without one consuming the other? How could the Divine fire overshadow Saint Mary without harming her?
When God appeared to Moses, God's glory (Just His Glory!) made Moses' face so bright that they had to put a towel over his face. What about Saint Mary who BORE Christ??
This is so mind boggling.
Thanks
Comments
I will reply, don't think this is being ignored,
ahahahah.. now that was funny.
Thanks!
;)
i know they are the same (mind and will) but with different roles sometimes.
also God can reveal His glory or hide it.
that is enough for me, i am glad other people have done their philosophy degree on this subject or studied it all their lives.
sometimes only those who worship Him and who run from all pride can see His glory, this is how the desert fathers/mothers used to recognise each other without an introduction, they would see the glory of God on the face of the other one.
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. john 14:10
You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[e] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. -John 14:28
But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. -john 14:31
I am really glad you like the questions.
I think we are all up to par with respect to basic christology, and our creed. We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth.
As I mentioned below, we know that the Father created all things through His Son, with the life Giving Holy Spirit.
We know that the Triune God acts with ONE will and ONE mind.
But what we do not know is if each member of the Triune God (i.e. the Hypostastis) have their own personalities and their OWN mind.
Also, we know that there is perfect love and perfect unity between each member of the Holy Trinity. If you agree that there is perfect love and perfect unity, then would you also agree that this is an example of how we should be with one another??
If you agree that this is an example of how we should be: then the FACT that God the Son IS the "beloved" of the Father, then if God did NOT exist in a Triune nature, He would be selfish. There would only be love with Himself. He would only love Himself.
This is the point I was making AGES ago that you all disagreed with. But I do not see why you disagree with this, as it is not even my opinion. I heard this in a sermon.
So, if the Son is the Beloved of the Father, it means that the Son is NOT the Father.
But what does it mean in terms of the relationship between both the Father and Son?
We already know that both the Father and the Son have the same Divine Fabric and the same co-eternal existence. But what we do not know is how the Father is related to His Son or His Word, that is OF Him, but is NOT Him.
If it is NOT the Son, then does the Son, BEFORE the incarnation have his own mind? His own will? (sorry for repeating myself here, but I want to make sure this point is addressed).
What about the Holy Spirit? It says in the OT that the Holy Spirit was "hovering above the waters".
If the Holy Spirit was "hovering" above the waters, then that would mean the Divine nature was living amongst the human nature. If God Himself is Divine CREATED the world, then why do muslims have a problem believing that God could unite with our Humanity in the person of Jesus Christ?
As far as I am aware, their logic is that how could the Divine Nature be born? But the Divine nature was hovering above the waters and visited the prophets. How could the Divine Nature speak to the prophets? Surely it was through the Holy Spirit? No?
What I do not understand is this:
When God spoke to moses, they covered moses's face with a towel because God's glory was so bright they couldnt see moses's face from it.
So, if God's Glory is so bright, when this united with His Humanity, SURELY it must have had an effect in the Physical appearance of Christ? I'm not saying that it altered His Humanity, but if the Divine Nature Did not have any physical attributes, then it would mean that His Humanity would have consumed His Divinity - which we know to be incorrect.
I know you will say that "The Divine nature's attributes are shown in Christ through His ability to create, heal, forgive, love, etc.. etc.." - but surely there would have been a sign of this Divine Nature on His physical appearance??
Also, how is it that the Divine Fire did not consume saint mary when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and she bore Christ?
How is it the Divine Fire did not consume the waters that it was hovering above during the creation??
Thanks
Its absolutely mind boggling all this.
Thanks
;)
u might just have to do your PhD on this and then get back to us...
;)
Oh no!!
Come on...Please
The Nature of Christ by Pope Shenouda: http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/node/32
Meaning of the Holy Trinity by Fr. Abraam Sleman: http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/node/97
I can answer some of your questions though. Christ is called the Logos in the Gospel of St. John. This means the Word, but also means wisdom or logic (In proverbs Christ is referred to as Wisdom, Proverbs 9:1 says "Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars" ).
Arius said that, because he was begotten that means that there was a time where he didn't exist and therefore he is created. However, if we are to say this, then by what wisdom did God create his wisdom?
Fr. Abraam also speaks (Not as a mirror but a picture, and he points out that it can in no way be perfect) of the Trinity to be represented by a tree. Now we see in a tree the roots (signifies the Father) which are there yet not necessarily seen, the branches and what we see in a tree (signifies Christ, "He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit"), and the life of the tree (signifies the Holy Spirit). Furthermore life proceeds from the roots to the branches. Now this is still one tree, and you'll be hardpressed to find anyone who says it is three trees or that the roots are the branch or that the roots are the life.
Please correct if I'm wrong
Pray for me,
Anba Bola
A great book to read would be the Incarnation of the Word by St. Athanasius. We have the Epub up on orthodoxebooks so you can download it to your iphone/ipod. It's a big read and I've yet to read it, but it is one of the greatest writings on the nature of Christ, and from looking at your questions I'm sure that the book answers most of the questions.
Please forgive me for mostly just giving you references, but I thought that I'd rather do that than nothing, as the answer to your questions are far above my knowledge.
Please pray for my weak self.
Hi Zoxasi,
A great book to read would be the Incarnation of the Word by St. Athanasius. We have the Epub up on orthodoxebooks so you can download it to your iphone/ipod. It's a big read and I've yet to read it, but it is one of the greatest writings on the nature of Christ, and from looking at your questions I'm sure that the book answers most of the questions.
Please forgive me for mostly just giving you references, but I thought that I'd rather do that than nothing, as the answer to your questions are far above my knowledge.
Please pray for my weak self.
Yes, you are right. I will read this.
Its an interesting topic... If I say that I'll research it myself, I fear that I will lose the contribution of Fr. Peter and other more experienced theologians.
However, in the reading i've done lately, most of the questions have been answered... just a few remain.
Thanks
How are you?
Since you haven't had any replies in a while I'll bite.
1. That sounds very good, one thing to be wary of is that 'procession' and 'begetting' are distinct and unique from one another and also constitute the personal difference of the Father from the Son and from the Holy Spirit. The Cappadocian fathers used the term Hypostasis as an innovation of language which to the readers of their era meant something like a carrier together with their essence which would have sounded a lot like 3 Gods and they specifically wrote texts explaining what they meant. An example of one is 'On not 3 Gods' by St Gregory of Nyssa. The reason for it was they they wanted to show like you mentioned that the whole of the Holy Trinity is equal and yet unique, sharing the same nature, equal in power and dignity.
2. On this St Athanasius says something to the effect of "The only difference between the Father and the Son is that the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son." The bible expresses this by giving titles to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit expressing their personal difference and their equal possession of divine characteristics. i.e. the Bible describes the Father as "Wise" (source), the Son as "Wisdom" (begotten) and the Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of Wisdom" (procession).
The purpose of this is to emphasis the answer to the question that you're asking. The Greek word for the word person "prosopon" means something like "one who turns toward" which means one who is capable of relating to someone else. This is expressed by St Gregory the Theologian who talked about the mystery of the Trinity by saying that the reason that God is a Trinity and not a monotheistic God is that if God is Love who was He loving? God can only be love if He is capable of turning and facing one another and expressing that effection. In our own lives God tests us to see what we love, if it is Him or some other temporal evil.
Christ gave us an insight into His relationship with the Father before His crucifixion. He said many times over that it was His choice to die on our behalf and that it was something that He did in obedience to the Will of the Father. If Christ didn't have the ability to make this choice in service and obedience to the Father, He would be incapable of loving Him.
Its also a little bit like the expression of humanity being made in the image of God, this was with the power of choice to love and not to love, the likeness is how much we in the likeness of the Son who always chooses to love.
3. Absolutely - again this comes back to the mystery of love - which is all about choice, one cannot love without choice. The mystery of love is the mystery of unity it is only in an environment of loving submission that their can be unity of minds and wills. Our fall is a perverted thing which gives us the ability to put ourselves first, to put what we think, want and need before what others think, want and need.
If the trinity is the fullness of love it is must also the fullness of oneness - of every kind of oneness - mind, will, desire.
4. The nakedness of Adam and Eve in the garden is a symbol of this, we tend to think of nakedness now as something embarrassing or shameful. Adam and Eve were naked to show vulnerability, innocence, trust, its the condition now that a man will only reveal to his wife and his wife to him - where each unconditionally loves one another.
Anba Moussa has a good description of the incarnation in his book on the subject, he describes it as being like a TV showing a TV signal. The signals are invisible and everywhere but can only be seen through the TV. When a person turns the TV on it does nothing to the nature of the waves, they are exactly as they were before but can be seen through the TV.
The incarnation is like this; Christ had a genuine human experience and He did so without effecting or changing His Godhood.
It is the mystery of the incarnation which of itself makes the contact with St Mary possible, the reason why people were terrified of contact with God was because it occurred during the time of humanities separation and humanity had become incapable of entering into God's presence without dying. From that moment of conception miraculously performed by the Holy Spirit, this became the nature of the Word incarnate - heaven and earth are united and joined together once again in Him.
God bless,
LiD
Hi Zoxasi,
How are you?
Hi LiD,
I'm fine. Thanks for your post! I'm extremely surprised that no one has answered. This is very strange in fact. What is the difference between begetting and procession. We know that Christ proceeded from the Father, He was not created, and so we know that He perpetually proceeded from the Father. Is this deficient in my understanding? That's a brilliant point, and you are therefore underlying my conclusions: That if God is "ALL loving", who was He loving before the creation. He had always had to Love. If He only started loving His creation since the day of the creation, it meant that He didn't Love before.
Brilliant Point. I tried to explain this to everyone in this forum, and no one understood it. In fact, I was heavily attacked.
That's why in Islam, because their God is NOT Triune, we argue with them saying that it is impossible for their God to be "ALL Loving" if He never loved anyone before His creation. We KNOW very well in the Christian faith that the Son IS the BELOVED OF THE FATHER. There is perfect Love between all members of the Holy Trinity.
Excellent Point LiD!!!! THANKS!
I only expressed this idea on tasbeba.org as a contemplation that I picked up from the Church fathers. I heard this from a cassette from some Russian Orthodox Priest talking about Theology.
But what about the personalties of each person in the Trinity.
If the Son IS the Beloved of the Father, then can we say that the Son has a personality DISTINCT from the Father? Does He have a mind that is distinct from the mind of the Father?? Good point. But in the fullness of time, the Word took flesh, and Jesus the Christ was born. But before the incarnation, what was the situation? Did the Word/Logos of God the Father have a personality to be OBEDIENT to the Father's will??
Although we know that the Son and the Holy Spirit ALL have the same will as the Father, can we say that each person of the Trinity submitted to the will of the Father RATHER than their own will? But does that still mean that each Person of the Trinity could have His Own mind? From what I see what you are saying is that 'YES' each person of the Trinity DOES have His own will, but makes a choice to submit to the will of the Father.
Is that correct?? Excellent Point. Where have you been!? We've been searching for good theologians on this site.
But, please confirm: It would mean that the Holy Spirit and the Son submit to the will of the Father, BY CHOICE!? Right??
If we remove the term "choice" , we do not have "real" love. The Son is no longer the "beloved" of the Father, but the Father becomes "beloved" of Himself.
This is the case with Islam - that their God, WITHOUT the TRINITY, only loves Himself (lol). You see!! You see the importance of these questions?
Man, I should be paid to ask question on tasbeha.org... You can't imagine the headache I get just by trying to ask questions. You see the importance now? I think its safe to say that the incarnation is quite clear. The Nature of Christ, published by H.H Pope Shenouda, is quite sufficient.
However, it still doesn't clarify the following points:
* If they have this unity of love between them, then they are separate persons of the Same Godhead. Therefore, EACH must have His Own "personal" capacity to love the other hypostasis??? Is that correct?
In the Fullness of Time, when Christ took flesh, at that moment, what was His relationship with the Trinity? was there a separation between them?
If we cannot touch nor see the Divine nature, then how could Christ's Divinity unite with His humanity without one consuming the other? How could the Divine fire overshadow Saint Mary without harming her?
Thank you VERY much for your response. It was extremely beneficial.
[quote author=LifeInDeath link=topic=9987.msg122886#msg122886 date=1290945277]
The reason for it was they they wanted to show like you mentioned that the whole of the Holy Trinity is equal and yet unique, sharing the same nature, equal in power and dignity.
If the 3 hypostasis are equal, then what does it mean when Christ in John 14:28 says, "You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[a] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I."
How can the Holy Trinity be equal, if the Father is greater than the Son?
I know that i have misinterpreted the verse, but could someone please explain.
This topic really is "mind- boggling". I just have a small misunderstanding.
[quote author=LifeInDeath link=topic=9987.msg122886#msg122886 date=1290945277]
The reason for it was they they wanted to show like you mentioned that the whole of the Holy Trinity is equal and yet unique, sharing the same nature, equal in power and dignity.
If the 3 hypostasis are equal, then what does it mean when Christ in John 14:28 says, "You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[a] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I."
How can the Holy Trinity be equal, if the Father is greater than the Son?
I know that i have misinterpreted the verse, but could someone please explain.
I think that is because Christ took the form of a man. He forsook glory to come and be humiliated and endure suffering for the sake of His Creation; therefore, whilst He was still on Earth, the Father was greater than Him - in terms of Glory. Not Divinity.
We should not imagine that at any time the Word of God ceased to be God, but He added to Himself the experience of lowliness, of creatureliness, and of weakness, veiling His glory among men, even though it shone forth perpetually in Heaven.
Therefore he is understood to have entered into a state of lowliness, and returned to a state of glory, according to His personal experience, and not according to His Divinity.
We should also note that equality does not mean the same as identity. Three sons of a King may all be equally princes, but they are not interchangeable. They preserve their identity, even while having the same characteristic of royalty, riches, honour and glory.
It is according to their hypostatic identity that the Father is considered greater than the Son, and the Father and the Son are considered greater than the Spirit. But this is not a matter of nature, but of hypostatic quality and origin. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and therefore is, in a sense we cannot fathom, dependent on the Father. Likewise the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is therefore, in a sense we cannot fathom, dependent on the Father. And the Spirit is sent by the Son, whose Spirit He is, and is therefore dependent in a sense we cannot fathom, on the Son. But according to the Divine nature they are all co-essential and co-equal.
Father Peter
When the Word of God became incarnate he did not cease to remain what He was, and was always God, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit. But agreeing with you, in his human state he entered personally into the experience of humiliation and lowliness, even while he held the universe in being. He became a creature of His Father, even while the creator of all things.
We should not imagine that at any time the Word of God ceased to be God, but He added to Himself the experience of lowliness, of creatureliness, and of weakness, veiling His glory among men, even though it shone forth perpetually in Heaven.
Therefore he is understood to have entered into a state of lowliness, and returned to a state of glory, according to His personal experience, and not according to His Divinity.
We should also note that equality does not mean the same as identity. Three sons of a King may all be equally princes, but they are not interchangeable. They preserve their identity, even while having the same characteristic of royalty, riches, honour and glory.
It is according to their hypostatic identity that the Father is considered greater than the Son, and the Father and the Son are considered greater than the Spirit. But this is not a matter of nature, but of hypostatic quality and origin. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and therefore is, in a sense we cannot fathom, dependent on the Father. Likewise the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is therefore, in a sense we cannot fathom, dependent on the Father. And the Spirit is sent by the Son, whose Spirit He is, and is therefore dependent in a sense we cannot fathom, on the Son. But according to the Divine nature they are all co-essential and co-equal.
Father Peter
Thanks Fr. Peter,
Can you tell us more about the nature of each person in the Trinity BEFORE the Incarnation?
Does each person have their own will, their own mind? As I mentioned, I know that the Trinity has ONE will; but given that the Son is the Beloved of the Father, and that each person loves the other in the Trinity - and that love (for it to be love) must be Chosen, not forced, would it mean that each person in the Trinity has His own will to Love independent of that of the Father?
Thanks
We can certainly agree that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are in a relationship of mutual love with each other and that the Holy Trinity is almost a necessary expression of love such that a God alone cannot be a God of love.
I do not agree that love must be chosen to be love. Indeed I would say the opposite. A love which is chosen, or rather an object of love which is chosen is not the sign of love at all, but of self-regard. At the moment I am reading the life of the wonderful servant of God, Francis of Assisi. It was written by his near contemporary and disciple, Bonaventure. We see in the life of this person the entire and complete disregard for choice when it comes to love. He loves all without regard to who they are, how attractive they are, whether they reciprocate or not. He is an example of a person coming close to experiencing and practicing the love of God.
True love is not a choice. True holiness is not a choice. They come 'naturally' or 'according to nature' for those who are closest to that complete transformation which is the goal of our Christian life. We ourselves struggle to love even a little. But the greatest saints, after they have struggled for many years, have reached a grace filled life in which to love and to be holy are as natural to them as they are difficult for us.
It is according to the Divine nature which the Holy Trinity shares that the Divine Persons love one another, and extend their love towards the Creation. It is not a matter of unique hypostasis but of shared nature.
It is not appropriate to try to describe the psychology of the Persons of the Holy Spirit. It is beyond us, and it is better to be silent. It is enough to say that the Persons of the Holy Trinity share everything except that which distinguishes one from the other, and even those words we use to identify these distinguishing features have no real meaning in human understanding. We do not know what 'begotten' means, or 'proceeds'.
Father Peter
I do not agree that love must be chosen to be love.
OK.. but do you agree that if God is "all-Loving" - it means that He would have loved BEFORE the creation of the World. The Creation was not what "initiated" Love in God, but God was All-Loving, and the ONLY way is through the Trinity. I.e. God without the Trinity, like "Allah", will only show signs of humanistic love - or not even that (at best of times!).
Do you see this?
That because the Son is the "Beloved" of the Father, and that love between them was always there with God and In God, then Our God is truly "All Loving" - i.e. He loves outside of Himself.
2: I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3: Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4: Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5: I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
6: Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
This is why the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not something irrelevant to ordinary Christian life, but is the very foundation of it.
Father Peter
This is why the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not something irrelevant to ordinary Christian life, but is the very foundation of it.
So how comes when I said that IF God was not TriUne in Nature He would not have been ALL-Loving that you disagreed? And others disagreed also??
LifeInDeath,
Thanks for your post: but im a bit lost - what is the link of Job with this article??
Thanks
LifeInDeath,
Thanks for your post: but im a bit lost - what is the link of Job with this article??
Thanks
Its from after Job had a vision of God and realised that the way he was speaking about God wasn't with due reverence and respect. There is a saying from one of the fathers on this but the name of which escapes me at this moment who said something to the effect of Fathers of the Church only go to places where heretics first dare to tread - the necessity is created by the need to uphold the truth. The true Christian spirit is not found in technical definitions, He is found by those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. - "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."
Our natural inclination to the mysteries of God should be that they're something which can only be understood by through revelation from God bestowed on humble and pure in hearts rather than the result of our own intelligence or rational investigation. The struggle between Arius and St Athanasius shows this very clearly because Arius wanted to apply a pre-existant pagan understanding of god to Christ and the Father. St Athanasius and the fathers of the council of Nicea countered this by being committed to the Apostolic truth as it was revealed to us in the Gosepls. St Athanasius is very interesting because as much as there are many great theologians who are great intellectuals and philosophers, he was a man of the gospel and every time he spoke about God he did so using the voice of scripture - it is for this reason and the struggle which dominated his whole life that the church gives him the title "the apostolic".
True love is not a choice. True holiness is not a choice. They come 'naturally' or 'according to nature' for those who are closest to that complete transformation which is the goal of our Christian life. We ourselves struggle to love even a little. But the greatest saints, after they have struggled for many years, have reached a grace filled life in which to love and to be holy are as natural to them as they are difficult for us.
Thanks Father Peter,
I think I probably shouldn't have used the word 'choice' which sounds in our fallen condition like we're the centre of the action rather than God. I'm not an expert in philosophies of determinism and free will but so please don't be too harsh when considering my wording. The point I was trying to make is that love is something done out of freedom:
[quote author=Saint Augustine]Now it was expedient that man should be at first so created, as to have it in his power both to will what was right and to will what was wrong; not without reward if he willed the former, and not without punishment if he willed the latter. But in the future life it shall not be in his power to will evil; and yet this will constitute no restriction on the freedom of his will. On the contrary, his will shall be much freer when it shall be wholly impossible for him to be the slave of sin. We should never think of blaming the will, or saying that it was no will, or that it was not to be called free, when we so desire happiness, that not only do we shrink from misery, but find it utterly impossible to do otherwise. As, then, the soul even now finds it impossible to desire unhappiness, so in future it shall be wholly impossible for it to desire sin. But God's arrangement was not to be broken, according to which He willed to show how good is a rational being who is able even to refrain from sin, and yet how much better is one who cannot sin at all; just as that was an inferior sort of immortality, and yet it was immortality, when it was possible for man to avoid death, although there is reserved for the future a more perfect immortality, when it shall be impossible for man to die.
God bless,
LiD
Thank you for that quotation. I was not criticising your post when I said that True love is not a choice, rather I had in mind what you quoted. That real freedom is freedom from sin, not freedom to choose to sin.
Who is the free person? The one who just never wants to drink alcohol and get drunk, or the recovering alcoholic who is struggling each day to avoid falling into complete drunkenness, and so far has managed not to, but each day is a deadly battle. This is not an exact analogy, but it seems to me that being free to sin is not a freedom at all. Having the grace from God to so delight in Him that we do not wish to sin at all seems a much more blessed state.
This is why I am convinced, and have said here many times (stating only what the Fathers say), that our spiritual life should be concerned entirely with acquiring the Holy Spirit and making God welcome in our hearts, and not with avoiding a tick list of sins. If we are concerned entirely with sin then we are not concerned entirely with God. The one who loves God does not sin, the one who is always aware of the potential to sin, the occasions of sin, the history of sin etc etc, is much more liable to do so.
Choosing God is choice enough, if we really choose God every moment. There are many gross and serious sins that we do not commit because we know that our whole life would fall apart if we were caught - both in a church, personal, civil and criminal sense. Yet if we had that sense always with relation to God, and were always seeking to live in God's presence, then we would be much less likely to commit even smaller sins because we would be aware of the spiritual consequences and would not want to lose the sense of God's presence under any circumstances.
In my own experience I have found that seeking after God provides a greater strength to resist sin, that resisting sin allows me to seek after God. In the first case I am living in God's grace, in the second I am trying to live in my own strength - and I always fail.
Father Peter
So how comes when I said that IF God was not TriUne in Nature He would not have been ALL-Loving that you disagreed? And others disagreed also??
In our discussion here ...
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=8796.0
I think the questions were rather different. Because God is love by nature it is in accordance with that nature that the Holy Trinity exists. The Holy Trinity reveals to us that God is by nature love.
But going back to the other thread, it was asked, if God were not a Trinity would He be selfish, and I said that I did not think that it was possible to answer such hypothetical questions. God has shown Himself to be love, and to be a Trinity, and we see how these are connected.
I said... I think that still holds true. But I agree with what I said, which is that hypothetical considerations tell us nothing about God. Only God tells us anything about God, through natural and special revelation. God without the Trinity would not be the God we know. The God we know is love and we can explain the Trinity as an expression of that love.
It is not normally appropriate for us to place God under any sort of necessity other than that which He reveals. We know that He is love because He tells us and shows us. It is possible to imagine a world with a cruel and unpleasant god, indeed there are religions in the world that have such gods, but just being able to imagine does not make them true, nor tell us anything about the True God.
So I think I am happy with both these posts. One is asking about the reality as we know it. That the Holy Trinity reveals God's love, and the other is asking a hypothetical question about whether or not a monadic God would be selfish. In the first case I am positive that the Holy Trinity manifests God's nature of love - as He has revealed it - while in the second case I don't say much because what is being discussed is not our God at all, but a different god. That god might be love, it might not be. I explained in the other thread how it might be hypothetically possible to consider such a monadic god a god of love. But hypotheticals are not the same as the revelation we have been given.
God bless you
Father Peter
I'm sorry if I seem a bit dense, but would you agree that through the Trinity, God expresses Love. There is love between all members of the Trinity.
And IF God did not have a Son who was Beloved to the Father, then who would God have loved before the Creation? If God IS Love - then that Love MUST HAVE been with God BEFORE the creation.
Therefore, to me at least, it makes perfect sense that if God is all perfect and "all loving", then He must have had selfless love before the time of the creation.
I.e. , without a begotten Son, who would the Father have loved other than Himself?
I'm not sure I really understood your post below, but if you read LiD's post, I think he explained what I'm trying to explain pretty well.
Thanks a bunch
I have explained that it is not usually possible to work with hypotheticals about God. I did explain how God could perhaps be eternally loving even apart from the Trinity. But He IS the Holy Trinity.
Try reading my post again.
Father Peter
Hiya
I have explained that it is not usually possible to work with hypotheticals about God. I did explain how God could perhaps be eternally loving even apart from the Trinity. But He IS the Holy Trinity.
Try reading my post again.
Father Peter
Hi Father Peter,
If its any consolation the example itself was a proof that His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy used when he gave a theology course in Melbourne as one of his proofs from the church fathers on why God must be a Trinity. I can't find the specific reference in my notes but I do have this about the mind of God - which I hope will help clear things up.
[quote=His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy]We should also recognize that according to the teachings of the fathers, being or
essence are not confined only for the Father (Gregory of Nazianzen). The Father has true
being and he is the origin for the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son had true being by eternal
generation and the Holy Spirit has true being by eternal procession, but neither is separate in
his being or essence from the others.
Likewise, the mind is not confined only to the Son, since the Father is rational and the
Son has the attribute of mind and the Holy Spirit had the attribute of mind, since this is one of
the properties of essence. As saint Athanasius said, “and why are the attributes of the Father
ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him and carrying the same
essence”. We say that the Son is the Logos or ‘begotten mind’ or ‘mind uttered’ but the source of
the begotten mind is the Father.
Regarding the attribute of life, it is not confined to the Holy Spirit solely. The Father has
the attribute of life, the Son has the attribute of life and the Holy Spirit has the attribute of life,
since life is a property of the divine essence. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, “For as the Father
has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself” (Jn 5:26), and it is said
about our Lord Jesus Christ being the Word of God that, “in Him was life” (Jn 1:4). But, since
ibid. Letter 52, to the Canonicoe, p.155,156
Four Discourses Against the Arians- Discourse I, point 19- N.& P. N. Fathers - Vol. IV- Sep.1978.
ibid. point 21.
the Holy Spirit offers life to the creation, it is said that He is “the life-giving Lord” (creed of faith
and the Liturgy of St. Cyril), also that He is ‘giver of life’ or ‘life giving’ (prayer of the third
hour).
It is very dangerous to ascribe being for the Father solely, mind for the Son and life for the
Holy Spirit. In this case we divide the one divine essence into three different essences. This
might lead us to ascribe the essence only for the Father (since his is solely the being) and in
this case we deprive the Son and the Holy Spirit from it and abolish their being, altering them to
mere attributes for a sole divine hypostasis (and this is the Sabillian heresy). Saint Gregory the
theologian referred to these concepts saying, “Again I thought of the sun and a ray and light. But
here again there was a fear lest people should get an idea of composition in the uncompounded
Nature, such as there is in the sun and the things that are in the sun. And the second place lest
we should give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the others, and make Them only
Powers of God, existing in Him and not Personal. For neither the ray nor the light is a sun, but
they are only effulgences from the sun, and qualities of its essence. And lest we should thus, as
far as the illustration goes, attribute both Being and Not-being to God, which is even more
monstrous.”9
Here he refuses the mentioned allegory and warns from the difference between the
allegory and the original in understanding the Trinitarian doctrine.
I did explain how God could perhaps be eternally loving even apart from the Trinity. But He IS the Holy Trinity.
See, that is the problem. I'm not speaking hypothetically. I'm saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be loving outside The existence of the Trinity.
I think the proofs by LifeInDeath, including the quotes from His Eminence Bishop Bishoy explain this.
I think your rationale is that even if God did not have a Triune nature, we would not be able to know if He would still be "all loving" - but you would!
If God did not have a Son who was beloved to Him, then He could not be All-Loving. The reason is as follows:
"ALL-LOVING" means that He was perfect in His Love. The Creation did not create or trigger Love in God, but rather that Love was already manifested IN GOD's BEING (i.e. THROUGH the Trinity). If the One God did NOT have a Triune Nature, like in Islam, then His love would be selfish. He did not love anyone outside of Himself.
I think what you are saying is that you don't disagree with me, but you do not either agree with me on this simply because I am making a "hypothetical" statement (i.e. "what if").
But this can be answered easily. We know that God must be all-loving. There's no what-if's. How could He be "all - loving" if He never loved BEFORE the creation? Who would He have loved? Himself!! ?? Is that LOVE? To love yourself is SELFISH. But He Loved the Son, in the eternity of His Being. The Son IS The Beloved of the Father.