A Rational Explanation of the Trinity

[LittleLes]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:08 PM']You dont get it do you? I'll say this again and back up what the others have stated, All your questions that you stated earlier in ANY of your replies in any threads you've posted in, have been answered. and the answers are valid in every way, your just posting to agure and thats it.
[right][snapback]712691[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not at all. There have been replys made which do not answer the questions. Some of those bordered on the absurd or attempted to introduce an entirely different issue.

But apologists when they have no good answer often try to claim that they have proven their point. Some people actually believe them, but not those who have read and analyzed their arguments.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:16 PM']I think we should only debate in Latin from now on. It is more precise.

Propter quod dicit Ioannes in Apocalypsi: Beati qui lavant vestimenta in sanguine Agni, ut sit potestas eorum in ligno vitae, et per portas ingrediantur civitatem; quasi dicat, quod per contemplationem ingredi non potest Ierusalem supernam, nisi per sanguinem Agni intret tanquam per portam. Non enim dispositus est aliquo modo ad contemplationes divinas, quae ad mentales ducunt excessus, nisi cum Daniele sit vir desideriorum. Desideria autem in nobis inflammantur dupliciter, scilicet per clamorem orationis, quae rugire facit a gemitu cordis, et per fulgorem speculationis, qua mens ad radios lucis directissime et intensissime se convertit.
[right][snapback]712715[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Actually Greek is more precise than Latin. But if you can't make your case in English, you might as well try Latin. Noting will be lost on the readers.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 6 2005, 09:28 AM']

The Love between the Father and the Son is infinite - therefore it is God, and since it isn't the Father or the Son, it must be a third Person.

The Love of God for Himself is simply What God is.  The Love of the Father for the Son is Who the Holy Spirit is.
[right][snapback]712990[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE<

Yes that's an old explanation which sounds good but really makes no sense at all. But, no doubt, some apologists having said it will claim that they have proven something.

We were all taught in catechism to parrot such saying without giving them any thought, but in time some begin to realize the contradiction therein contained.

If the love for the Father for the Son is what the Spirit is, is the love of the Spirit for the Son what the Father is? If not, again this shows inequality and hence lack of sameness.

LitttleLes

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 6 2005, 12:29 PM']RESPONSE:

Actually Greek is more precise than Latin.  But if you can't make your case in English, you might as well try Latin. Noting will be lost on the readers.
[right][snapback]713155[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote name='Me']Anyway, it is a really cool language. I think I like Greek better though[/quote]
I think we basically agree on something.. wild.

[Jake Huether]

[quote]Yes that's an old explanation which sounds good but really makes no sense at all. But, no doubt, some apologists having said it will claim that they have proven something.

We were all taught in catechism to parrot such saying without giving them any thought, but in time some begin to realize the contradiction therein contained.[/quote]

Actually, I have put many hours of thought into this. And it makes perfect sense to me!

[quote]If the love for the Father for the Son is what the Spirit is, is the love of the Spirit for the Son what the Father is?[/quote]

No. By your question you show your misunderstanding of Person and Being. If I re-write what you've written correctly, maybe you'll see the difference.

"...the love of the Father for the Son is [b]WHO[/b] the Spirit is, ..."

The Love of the Father for the Son is WHO the Spirit is.

The Love of the Spirit for the Son is WHAT the Spirit is and is WHAT the Son is and is WHAT the Father is. The Love of the Spirit for any of the Persons of the Trinity is WHAT they are - God, which is Love.

But the Love of the Son and Father for eachother is the Holy Spirit.



[quote]If not, again this shows inequality and hence lack of sameness.[/quote]

It show's inequality of Persons - "distinction" is a better word. It certainly doesn't show inequality in terms of WHAT each Person is. On the contrary it shows the equality of WHAT they each are, which is God.

LittleLess,

It is in times like this, where you are confused about something, it is better to take Truth on Faith first, and then work out the understanding part.

Because you are mixing up things that you don't seem to understand from the get-go.

Just read what has been written, absorb it, and let it sink it. Upon reflection and prayer you will come to understand.

Faith must come first.

God bless.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 6 2005, 01:12 PM']

But the Love of the Son and Father for eachother is the Holy Spirit.
It show's inequality of Persons - "distinction" is a better word.  It certainly doesn't show inequality in terms of WHAT each Person is.  On the contrary it shows the equality of WHAT they each are, which is God.
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If something is "distinct," by definition it possesses something or lacks something that the thing that it is distinct from possesses. Otherwise it wouldn't be distinct. It would be identical.

And if one possesses something another lacks, again by definition, inequality exists.

Whatever circuitous or convoluted rationalization is attempted to prove the no inequality exists in the concept of the Trinity, the obvious fact that it would exist .

Even before the doctrine of a Trinity was formally voted in, Origen, the early Church theologian, recognized this. In his "First Principles" Origen stated:

"The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, Bbeing less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote). "

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 6 2005, 01:12 PM']
LittleLess,

It is in times like this, where you are confused about something, it is better to take Truth on Faith first, and then work out the understanding part.

Because you are mixing up things that you don't seem to understand from the get-go.

Just read what has been written, absorb it, and let it sink it.  Upon reflection and prayer you will come to understand.

Faith must come first.

God bless.
[right][snapback]713219[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

To pretend that what one takes on faith is "truth" is really accepting as true what is clearly at issue. Or perhaps in error. Some have no problem with doing that. Others do.

Such a practice replaces rationality with lack of rationality , or even outright gullibility.

Origen and of course many others, recognized the basic contradiction in the theory of the Trinity which Nicaea did not.

It is not too surprising, if in studying history, one finds that several other Councils changed Nicaea's teaching. But, unfortunately the institutional Roman Church stuck with it. The Orthodox Catholics modified it.

[Jake Huether]

[quote]RESPONSE:

If something is "distinct," by definition it possesses something or lacks something that the thing that it is distinct from possesses. Otherwise it wouldn't be distinct. It would be identical.[/quote]

Indeed. The Father and the Holy Spirit, in Person, lack Sonship, since the Father is a Father and the Holy Spirit is the Love of a Father and Son and not a Son. After the incarnation, the Father and the Holy Spirit also lack human nature. The Person of the Son is the only Person of the Blessed Trinity to have a human nature. The Son and the Holy Spirit, in Person, lack Fatherhood. The Son is a son, and the Holy Spirit is the Love between a Father and Son. The Father and the Son are not the Love for eachother. They HAVE Love for eachother, who is the Holy Spirit.

In Nature, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are identical. They are God - infinite, perfect and One.

In Person the Father is distinct from the Son, the Son from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from either of the others.

[quote]And if one possesses something another lacks, again by definition, inequality exists.[/quote]

And this is okay. Because the one thing that these Persons possess that is identical is their Nature. What they are is God. Who they are makes them distinct.



[quote]Whatever circuitous or convoluted rationalization is attempted to prove the no inequality exists in the concept of the Trinity, the obvious fact that it would exist .[/quote]

But no one is saying that no inequality, in Person, exists. There is simply equality in Nature. This is what makes God ONE. The Father is WHAT the Son is - God. The Father is not WHO the Son is.



[quote]Even before the doctrine of a Trinity was formally voted in, Origen, the early Church theologian, recognized this. In his "First Principles" Origen stated:

"The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, Bbeing less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote). "[/quote]

I'm not going to comment on this, since I don't know the context. Nor do I know how the Church formally responded to this teaching.

What I do know is that there has been developement in the understanding of the Trinity. The doctrine hasn't changed... ever. It's only developed. The more God reveales to His Church about Himself, the more we can know. Nothing has changed - as far as Teaching is concerned.

You may be looking at certain peoples speculations changing. But you must be sure to see that it is Teaching.

The Teachings of the Church have always been: One God, Three Divine Persons.

[Jake Huether]

[quote]RESPONSE:

To  pretend that what  one takes on faith is "truth" is really accepting as true what is clearly at issue. Or perhaps in error. Some have no problem with doing that. Others do.[/quote]

Yet, what is Faith but the belief in something for which there is no proof?

Maybe you believe faith is something else?

I know what Jesus said. And if Jesus is God, I know He does not lie. And if Jesus is God, and He doesn't lie, then my faith is in His Church, which He promised the Holy Spirit to and promised the gates of hell would not overcome.

I don't accept the Trinity because someone said it was True. I accept the Trinity because God's Church said it was True. My Faith came first. And after studying and contemplating the doctrine of the Trinity... I know it is True from understanding of the facts that have been revealed by God.



[quote]Such a practice replaces rationality with lack of rationality , or even outright gullibility.[/quote]

And a firm "faith" in only what is rational and can be proven removes faith completely from the equation! So there is no faith.

[quote]Origen and of course many others, recognized the basic contradiction  in the theory of the Trinity which Nicaea did not. [/quote]

Again, I don't know the context. But it seems that you are simply confusing terms so that things only seem to contradict.



[quote]It is not too surprising, if in studying history, one finds that several other Councils changed Nicaea's teaching. But, unfortunately the institutional Roman Church stuck with it.  The Orthodox Catholics modified it.[/quote]

Not sure if I follow that... But no Teaching has ever changed. If it did, then God's a liar.

God bless.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 6 2005, 04:41 PM']Yet, what is Faith but the belief in something for which there is no proof?

Maybe you believe faith is something else?

I know what Jesus said.  And if Jesus is God, I know He does not lie.  And if Jesus is God, and He doesn't lie, then my faith is in His Church, which He promised the Holy Spirit to and promised the gates of hell would not overcome.


[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I think we've covered this before. Please note that only in Matt 16 is Jesus suppose to have promised a Church. Mark, from whom Matt copied, relates the same passage with no promise of a Church. Luke does the same, again no statement about Church. And John contradicts Matt too. Most importantly, after the Ascesnion, Christ's followers do not found any Church but remain a sect within orthodox Judaism "zealous for the law." And nowhere else in the NT is Jesus quoted as saying he planned to found a church. But there are abundant passages in which he says he's going to return soon, while some are still alive. Hence, why would he want to found a church? But a copyist of the scripture later on might have wanted him to, and added that passage.

Do you really believe everything you are told even when there is clear contradiction?

[White Knight]

Littleless you obviously dont know what is contradiction & condiction. If you did you wouldn't see any contradiction in the Catholic Church or Christianity period. You would only see Condiction.


But since you have no desire to listen to anybody or take any form of truth in or evidence, your just aguring for no reason.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:19 PM']RESPONSE:

But you haven't yet said anything specific to respond to.

Plain English can explain most contradictions just fine. Trying to make things sound more profound than necessary just doesn't make a convincing argument if the contradiction is obvious.

Origen of Alexandria, (185-254) one of the most famous early Christian theologians, in his classic treatise "On First Principles" observed this contradiction:

"The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote)."

Thus the Son is less than the Father, and the Holy Spirit less than the Son. This follows from "unbegotten, "begotten" and "proceeds from" or else we have a contradiction by claiming equality.

No need to get hung up in "apophatic" at all, see?
[right][snapback]712612[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The above response clearly illustrates either a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of the point made in my previous post, or else an understanding and subsequent refusal to deal with the actual issue:

The point is that the english language - and any human language, is fundamentally inadequate with regards to providing exact terms which would fully express the nature of God. By virture of the fact that english (and all other languages) fail to be specific enough, contradictions will arise, such as the "contradiction" of the Trinity.

We say "three distinct persons" because that is the best that human language can do to describe that aspect of God's being. We say "One God, undivided" because that is the best that human language can do to describe that aspect of God's being. The contradiction occurs because of the failure of the language to adequately express God, not because God's actual being is in contradiction.

In Christ,

Jeff

[LittleLes]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 6 2005, 07:29 PM']

The point is that the english language - and any human language, is fundamentally inadequate with regards to providing exact terms which would fully express the nature of God. By virture of the fact that english (and all other languages) fail to be specific enough, contradictions will arise, such as the "contradiction" of the Trinity.

[right][snapback]713818[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The flaw in your argument is the "exact terms which would FULLY
express the nature of God." But one doesn't have to fully express the nature of God to understand any number of aspects of his existence or to have evidence of contradictions in some claims made about him.


For example, it is argued that the Son is the Father's perfect conception of his own self. Since existence is among the Father's perfections, his self-conception must also exist. Thus the Son is "begotten" by intellectual generation.

And the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the perfect love that exists between the Father and the Son. But this love too must share the perfection of real existence.

However, according to the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit "proceeds from BOTH the Father and the Son." But then there must be perfect love between the Father and the Holy Spirit which too must share the perfection of real existence. Hence the need to invent a fourth person of the Trinity. And so forth.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 6 2005, 04:41 PM']
Yet, what is Faith but the belief in something for which there is no proof?

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

That is also the definition of gullibility.

[White Knight]

You have no proof of you being hear tomorrow Littleless, that is something that requires faith.


Why dont you place Faith in the Evidence of the existance of the condictional Holy Blessed Trinity?