Understanding the Trinity

[ViaCrucis]

Understanding the Trinity

As an atheist one of the many things I find confusing about Christianity is the concept of the Trinity;

God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit.​

Part of the problem is understanding the concept of having three ‘God’ entities while at the same time describing them as a single entity.

As an outsider it also seems to me that each of the components of the Trinity would have a specific function or purpose. Is this the case? If not, why have three components?

The most confusing component of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. Although it’s part of the Trinity it appears to be the least mentioned and the vaguest (to me) part of the Trinity. Although I can more or less understand the God-the-Father/God-the-Son concepts, I have trouble understanding the idea of the Holy Spirit, what it is and where it fits in.



A Request

After more than a decade on CF I’ve found that Christians have a habit of using impenetrable Christian jargon when trying to explain Christian concepts. As a non-Christian much of this jargon can be difficult to follow.

How you respond is up to you however sticking to plain English would help.



OB

I can attempt to help clarify the jargon if you like.

There are two very important Greek words that need some unpacking.

The first is the Greek word ousia, a word that is best translated into English as "being" or "essence". The etymology of this word is literally a noun form of the Greek verb meaning "to be", making the English word "being" about as literal translation as can be offered. The word "essence" as a translation follows the same process, from the Latin esse, "to be". The use of the word ousia is about talking about what something is.

In the context of the Trinity the matter of ousia arises because of several early theological debates and controversies surrounding the relationship between Jesus as the Son of God, and God as the Father of Jesus. These early debates did not involve the question, "Is Jesus divine?" This was something already agreed upon, it was never a question of if Jesus is divine, but rather what does it mean to say Jesus is divine, what is Jesus' divinity, and how does that relate to God the Father?

Without getting into all of nitty gritty of those debates, by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the central debate going on was basically this: When we say Jesus is divine--that Jesus is God--are we saying that Jesus is God the same way that God (the Father) is God? Or is Jesus God in some other way? That sounds very weird to a modern audience, especially if we imagine the idea of "God" as "the big guy up top who runs the show". But to the ancients, these sorts of questions made sense. From a Jewish background there had been questions about whether there were one or two "Powers in heaven", and this also sometimes engaged with Greek philosophy, notably forms of Platonism. So, for example, in the works of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria who tried to harmonize Jewish and Greek thought together, he would speak of how God in His unknowable and inapproachableness interacted with the world through an intermediary power; for Philo this was how he spoke about the Logos, borrowing from Greek philosophy. God engaged with and interacted with the world through the intermediary power of His Logos, His Word.

To add to this, in the Bible there exists the question concerning a figure often seen acting as God's intermediary/represenative, the Malakh YHVH, or "Angel of the LORD". While the idea of a malakh, a messenger or angel (from the Greek meaning "messenger"), isn't interesting on its own. There are a number of incidents where a specific Malakh YHVH appears, and it is treated as YHVH/God Himself appearing. The Malakh is often directly called by the unique four-letter sacred name of God, YHVH. Thus indicating that, in some way, somehow this figure is sent by and distinct from YHVH but also is YHVH or so representative of YHVH that it bears His name.

In the Second Temple Period of Judaism, this led to conversations about "two powers in heaven", especially in some mystical Jewish works, such as the Zohar. It is why Philo borrows the Greek idea of the Logos to speak of the intermediary agency between God and the world.

Early Christians, including the works of the New Testament, took ideas like Logos, and the Angel of the LORD, and understood these as being about Jesus.

So by the time we get to the debates which resulted in the Council of Nicea, this was a very large conversation. So with all of that background out of the way, here was the central debate at Nicea:

Was Jesus God in the same way that God is God? Or was Jesus God in a similar, or perhaps different way than God is God?

These positions can be reduced to two competing words: Homoousios and Homoiousios. Homo (Same) + Ousia (Being); or Homoi (Similar) + Ousia (Being).

The Council of Nicea adopted the use of the word Homoousios, Jesus is God in the same way that God is God. What this means is that there are not two entities, or beings both divine; or of different degrees of divinity. There is one Divine Being, a singular Divine Power: God. And Jesus is so identifiable with this one Divine Being and Power that He is the same thing.

But this isn't a confusion of what we might call personal identity, it was not saying Jesus is His own Father. Instead it was saying that Jesus, as the Son, is the same thing which His Father is. The way the bishops who met at Nicea tried to explain this was like this:

Jesus is "God of God, Light of Light". That needs further unpacking. By this expression "Light of Light" it alludes to how light has a source. For example the sun, there is light which radiates, emenates from its source, the sun. We need to think like a pre-modern, pre-scientific person of the ancient world. The sun is itself light, and also, light comes from the sun. So the light of the sun has its source in the sun, itself light. So this expression "God of God, Light of Light" means that Jesus as God (the Son) has a Source (God the Father); but the source and its emenation are distinct, they are both the same thing. Additionally, it meant that you can't have the source without its emanation (the sun illuminates, you can't have a sun without illumination); in the same way we can't have the Father without the Son, so Father and Son must be equally eternal. To speak of the Son as "begotten" of the Father is to speak of the Father as the Source or Origin of the Son, but this "act" of giving birth to the Son is something that defies our understanding of time. It is an eternal "act"--since Father and Son are equally eternal, then there was never a time when the Father was without Son, there was never a time when there was no Son. There has always been the Father, there has always been the Son.

We are, at this point, talking about being, what a thing is. And here, the Son is the same thing that the Father is. And it would be fair to ask, then, "So there are two Gods?" The answer to that is a hard no. Because again, we are talking about the singular Divine Power, the singular Divine Being. The Son is not another God, another being, the Son is Homoousios, the Same-Being as the Father. In the same way, again, as Light and Light are the same--the illumination of the sun does not constitute a second sun as it were. So the Son is not another God, but is the same thing the Father is.

I want to continue this, but this post is already very long and I have to get ready for real life things. I mentioned at the beginning the importance of two Greek words, and have really only spoken of ousia here. I want to also discuss the second word of importance, hypostasis, and further clarify and elaborate on this at a later time.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jacks]

I can attempt to help clarify the jargon if you like.

There are two very important Greek words that need some unpacking.

The first is the Greek word ousia, a word that is best translated into English as "being" or "essence". The etymology of this word is literally a noun form of the Greek verb meaning "to be", making the English word "being" about as literal translation as can be offered. The word "essence" as a translation follows the same process, from the Latin esse, "to be". The use of the word ousia is about talking about what something is.

In the context of the Trinity the matter of ousia arises because of several early theological debates and controversies surrounding the relationship between Jesus as the Son of God, and God as the Father of Jesus. These early debates did not involve the question, "Is Jesus divine?" This was something already agreed upon, it was never a question of if Jesus is divine, but rather what does it mean to say Jesus is divine, what is Jesus' divinity, and how does that relate to God the Father?

Without getting into all of nitty gritty of those debates, by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the central debate going on was basically this: When we say Jesus is divine--that Jesus is God--are we saying that Jesus is God the same way that God (the Father) is God? Or is Jesus God in some other way? That sounds very weird to a modern audience, especially if we imagine the idea of "God" as "the big guy up top who runs the show". But to the ancients, these sorts of questions made sense. From a Jewish background there had been questions about whether there were one or two "Powers in heaven", and this also sometimes engaged with Greek philosophy, notably forms of Platonism. So, for example, in the works of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria who tried to harmonize Jewish and Greek thought together, he would speak of how God in His unknowable and inapproachableness interacted with the world through an intermediary power; for Philo this was how he spoke about the Logos, borrowing from Greek philosophy. God engaged with and interacted with the world through the intermediary power of His Logos, His Word.

To add to this, in the Bible there exists the question concerning a figure often seen acting as God's intermediary/represenative, the Malakh YHVH, or "Angel of the LORD". While the idea of a malakh, a messenger or angel (from the Greek meaning "messenger"), isn't interesting on its own. There are a number of incidents where a specific Malakh YHVH appears, and it is treated as YHVH/God Himself appearing. The Malakh is often directly called by the unique four-letter sacred name of God, YHVH. Thus indicating that, in some way, somehow this figure is sent by and distinct from YHVH but also is YHVH or so representative of YHVH that it bears His name.

In the Second Temple Period of Judaism, this led to conversations about "two powers in heaven", especially in some mystical Jewish works, such as the Zohar. It is why Philo borrows the Greek idea of the Logos to speak of the intermediary agency between God and the world.

Early Christians, including the works of the New Testament, took ideas like Logos, and the Angel of the LORD, and understood these as being about Jesus.

So by the time we get to the debates which resulted in the Council of Nicea, this was a very large conversation. So with all of that background out of the way, here was the central debate at Nicea:

Was Jesus God in the same way that God is God? Or was Jesus God in a similar, or perhaps different way than God is God?

These positions can be reduced to two competing words: Homoousios and Homoiousios. Homo (Same) + Ousia (Being); or Homoi (Similar) + Ousia (Being).

The Council of Nicea adopted the use of the word Homoousios, Jesus is God in the same way that God is God. What this means is that there are not two entities, or beings both divine; or of different degrees of divinity. There is one Divine Being, a singular Divine Power: God. And Jesus is so identifiable with this one Divine Being and Power that He is the same thing.

But this isn't a confusion of what we might call personal identity, it was not saying Jesus is His own Father. Instead it was saying that Jesus, as the Son, is the same thing which His Father is. The way the bishops who met at Nicea tried to explain this was like this:

Jesus is "God of God, Light of Light". That needs further unpacking. By this expression "Light of Light" it alludes to how light has a source. For example the sun, there is light which radiates, emenates from its source, the sun. We need to think like a pre-modern, pre-scientific person of the ancient world. The sun is itself light, and also, light comes from the sun. So the light of the sun has its source in the sun, itself light. So this expression "God of God, Light of Light" means that Jesus as God (the Son) has a Source (God the Father); but the source and its emenation are distinct, they are both the same thing. Additionally, it meant that you can't have the source without its emanation (the sun illuminates, you can't have a sun without illumination); in the same way we can't have the Father without the Son, so Father and Son must be equally eternal. To speak of the Son as "begotten" of the Father is to speak of the Father as the Source or Origin of the Son, but this "act" of giving birth to the Son is something that defies our understanding of time. It is an eternal "act"--since Father and Son are equally eternal, then there was never a time when the Father was without Son, there was never a time when there was no Son. There has always been the Father, there has always been the Son.

We are, at this point, talking about being, what a thing is. And here, the Son is the same thing that the Father is. And it would be fair to ask, then, "So there are two Gods?" The answer to that is a hard no. Because again, we are talking about the singular Divine Power, the singular Divine Being. The Son is not another God, another being, the Son is Homoousios, the Same-Being as the Father. In the same way, again, as Light and Light are the same--the illumination of the sun does not constitute a second sun as it were. So the Son is not another God, but is the same thing the Father is.

I want to continue this, but this post is already very long and I have to get ready for real life things. I mentioned at the beginning the importance of two Greek words, and have really only spoken of ousia here. I want to also discuss the second word of importance, hypostasis, and further clarify and elaborate on this at a later time.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't know about the OP, but I found this to be a great post. Informative and well written.
Thank you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As I said, I wanted to come back and discuss the word and idea of hypotstasis as it relates to the Trinity.

This one is a bit harder, the word hypostasis is literally the prefix hypo ("under") and stasis ("to stand"), and can literally be translated as "substance" in English, through the Latin substantia, which is a straight literal translation (sub = under, stantia = standing). However, in the context of talking about the Trinity the term "subsistence" is generally the preferred translation (sub = under, sistio = stand). The word is used to describe the particular reality of something. In contrast with ousia, which talks about what a thing is; the being or "is-ness" of something; hypostasis addresses the underlaying reality or, we might say, the "this-ness" of something.

Whereas we say the Ousia, the Being, of the Trinity is singular, indivisible, one; we say that there are three distinct Hypostases or Subsistences. So we would speak of the Hypostasis of the Father, or the Hypostasis of the Son, etc. The word "Person" is often used here as well, but I'll talk about that in a bit later. Here the idea being spoken about is that there are three distinct This-es, the Father is a This, distinct from the Son. So that we aren't making any confusion. There is something distinct and particular about This One we call "Father", there is something distinct and particular about This One we call "Son", and so on.

In this we speak of what makes Each distinct and particular. The Father is the Father, His Fatherhood is unique and particular, He is the Father of the Son, the Source and Origin of the Son. We say the Father "begets" the Son, thus speaking of how the Father is unique and distinct in His relationship with the Son. In the same way we speak of the Son, He is "begotten" of the Father, that is His relationship with the Father. So that, in the one, indivisible, Being--the Ousia--of God there are Three distinct realities that are fully and completely relational. There exists a Tri-unial relationship between these Three, between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Each is God, the one indivisible Being we call "God"; and that Being is one and indivisible. There is only one God, as per what I attempted to explain in the previous post I made. But Each is Himself unique and distinct, a specific reality: The Father is Himself, the Son is Himself, and the Holy Spirit is Himself. In this way there are Three; even as when talking about God's Being or Ousia, there is only One.

This personal, relational, distinctiveness of Each is why we also talk about "Persons". Though, if we go back early on in Christian history the use of the word "Person" was somewhat controversial. The Greek word to note here is prosopon (plural prosopa), a word which somewhat literally means "face" (pros + ops = "toward" + "eyes"). In an ancient Greek context this word was employed in theater, where actors would literally put on a mask or "face" in order to play a role. In the early 3rd century there was a movement where some Christians argued that this is how God acted, so that God wore three "faces", this view was attacked pretty harshly and is remembered today as the heresy of Modalism, though it has other names. The more explicit name for this heresy is Modalistic Monarchianism, which simply put, is the idea that God is a Monarchy (the one God) who relates to human beings through different "modes" by putting on different masks--in Jesus God wears the "face" of the Son, as an example. It is also named after one of its leading supporters, Sabellius and thus often called Sabellianism; among the Latin-speaking Church in the West it was also called Patripassionism (Patri = "father" passionis = "suffering", i.e. "God the Father suffered on the cross").

The reasons for why this view was criticized and condemned so strongly as being heretical is that it was viewed as denying some pretty obvious things which Christians generally believed, and which the Gospel Story clearly conveys: There is a very real relationship between Jesus and His Father. In the Gospel Narrative Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, and at that moment, according to the texts, the voice of God the Father booms from heaven saying, "This is My beloved Son", and the Holy Spirit is described as coming down upon Jesus as a dove. There is also all the times Jesus speaks of the Father as distinct from Himself, He says things like He says what the Father tells Him to say, He does the works of His Father, He prays to return again to the glory He had with the Father before the world began, and so on. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is described as "Another Comfortor", whom Jesus and His Father will send. So there is this repeated language of relationality, which gets completely destroyed if we simply deny a real distinctiveness of the Three.

However, this idea of prosopon/prosopa, understood in the context of Hypostasis, that we aren't talking about mere "faces" or "masks" which God wears, but actual, distinct, real Someones was eventually embraced. This is actually how we get our meaning of the word "person", as in Latin persona (plural personae) had the same basic meaning as the Greek prosopon/prosopa--a face or mask. It is this specifically Christian, Trinitarian idea of person that is really how the word and concept has dominated and informs the way we use the word "person" in English. Where a person is a distinct someone. And thus we talk also of person-hood, and personality, and the like.

In modern English we tend to treat "person" or "persons" as interchangeable with the idea of "people"; though these words share a very different linguistic history ("people" from "populus", the inhabitants of a place). But person is about a real, distinct someone; I am not you, and you are not me. Thus "Person" serves the double purpose of highlighting the distinctive reality of each Hypostasis of the Trinity; the Father's "Father-ness" we might say, or the Son's "Son-ness" we might say; the way in which the Father relates to the Son, or the Son to the Father. And it highlights that we are not talking about an impersonal reality, but personal; the Father relates to the Son in a personal way, and thus there exists love.

And love is incredibly important here. When St. Augustine wrote his treatise On the Trinity he makes the idea of love a central issue. Augustine goes back to a statement made in the New Testament, to the First Epistle of St. John where it says "God is love". Augustine proceeds to make the argument, and Christian theologians and thinkers have followed in Augustine's footsteps for centuries afterward, that what does it mean to say "God is love"? So Augustine makes the argument that love, by necessity, requires three components: the one who does the loving, the one that is loved, and the love itself. This is sometimes abbreviated to Lover, Beloved, and Love Itself. Thus, if "God is love" is a true statement, it can only be that there has always been a Lover, a Beloved, and the Love Itself. What is usually immediately rejected would be the idea that God's love is simply self-directed, a selfish love, thus the object of God's love cannot simply be Himself; this would undermine everything we know about divine love through divine revelation (for further reading, see 1 Corinthians chapter 13, or Jesus' words "There is no greater love than this, than that someone lay down their life for their friends") Thus the love of God must always be a love that is from One to Another. So in order for God to be love, there must always be One and Another, a Lover, a Beloved, and Love Itself. For St. Augustine, and again, many Christian thinkers down through the centuries, this is an incredibly important issue. The Father loves His Son, the Son loves His Father. The Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father. There is always this flow, this living dynamic that exists from Father to Son, from Son to Father.

-- I decided to edit this single long post and cut it into two, in the hopes that it will be easier to read--

 

[ViaCrucis]

Now in all of this I have spoken a lot about the Father and the Son, but have only briefly spoken about the Holy Spirit. This has, in part, been intentional. You specifically noted that it seems the Holy Spirit gets less "airtime" as it were when talking about this, and I wanted to spend time focusing on Him specifically.

So we have talked about how the Father is the Source or Origin of the Son, that the Son has His Being from and in the Father--the Son is the same thing, the same Being, as the Father. We use the language of "begetting" to talk about this. I've also mentioned the distinctiveness between the Father and the Son, the Father is distinct and relates to the Son, and the Son to the Father. And I've brought up the topic of divine love, of love from One to Another, and how the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. This is, I think, the right time to talk about the Holy Spirit.

In the Nicene Creed we use a special word to talk about the Person/Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. We use the word "proceed". The word in the Creed is ekporeuomenon "to come out of". This is going to get a little tricky because the Christian East and the Christian West use different formulations, in the East the Creed says the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" but in the West it says the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son". There is a very complex historical and also even more complicated theological reasons for this difference, and it is part of a major division between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. I won't get into all of that here. Instead I want to focus on this idea of proceed, the procession of the Holy Spirit. There is another term we use here to speak of the same thing, and that is spiration. If it helps, think of respiration, breathing; because in a sense that is what spiration is referring to. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [and the Son] is the idea that the Holy Spirit is exhaled, breathed out. We talk about how the Son is begotten, and now we talk about how the Holy Spirit is exhaled, proceeds from, spirated.

In Hebrew, Greek, and in Latin the word referring to the Holy Spirit all carry the idea of breath or wind. In Hebrew it is ru'ach, in Greek it is pneuma, and in Latin it is spiritus. In all of these words there is this idea of breath, or wind.

In the opening to the book of Genesis we read how "in the beginning God", God is already there in the beginning before the world was made, and the language the text uses is that "the Spirit of God fluttered over the surface of the waters". The Ru'ach of God "fluttered" or "hovered" over the face or surface of the primordial waters of pre-creation. What seems to be meant here is that God and God's Ru'ach, His Divine Breath, is here blowing across the surface of the waters. So the Holy Spirit is not something which exists later; but like the Son we say the Holy Spirit is Eternal, He has the same Being as the Father and the Son, though He is distinct. As noted from earlier pargraphs, the Holy Spirit is "Another Comfortor", One whom the Father and the Son will send, and He descends upon Jesus at Jesus' baptism. So He is distinct, but He is not something other than God. He is a distinct Someone, just as the Father and Son are distinct Someones; but God in the same way that the Father and the Son are God. One Being, Three Hypostases/Persons.

The Holy Spirit is breathed, spirated, He is there blowing across the surface of the primordial waters of pre-creation. And, going back to love, He is breathed from Father to Son, the Holy Spirit flows from the Father to the Son. This is the "Love Itself" we might say of the triad of Lover, Beloved, and Love Itself. The bellowing, breathing, life between Father and Son, and so even as the Father loves the Son, so does the Son love the Father. And the Holy Spirit is right here, as He proceeds from the Father, is exhaled from the Father; and the Son responds, the Son reciprocates, and that exhalation and breath is reciprocated. In the same vein, the Holy Spirit is exaled, He is there fluttering upon the face of the waters before the world existed, when there is only God and nothing else.

And in the explosive moment of creation there is a picture we see in Genesis: God says "Let there be.." and there was. God, His Word, and His Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And from chaotic nothingness explodes order and existence, the universe comes to life from the empty darkness of nothingness. From God's Word and God's Breath.

So the very universe itself is brought into existence through the Holy Spirit, by the power of God's Word (Jesus Christ).

From creation to redemption, it is the same Spirit that we see mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus said He and His Father would send the Holy Spirit, and the Acts of the Apostles records that event as the great pouring-out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. This gift of the Spirit to the early Christian Church is about the way in which God lives in, inhabits, and transforms the people who believe in Jesus. To really get into that would require more than one post, and a lot of different threads I think. As it covers just about ever facet of Christian theology and Christian practice. But, to keep things immensely brief for our purposes here, this gifting of the Spirit is, again, a breathing-out of God, an impartation of God's life to the people of God. In this way, and because it also comes with a union with Jesus, the Son (and therefore God's people can, because of their union with Christ, call Christ's Father their own Father) it means a union with God, a communion and fellowship with God.

In this way the gifting of the Holy Spirit is God coming down and bringing people into sharing life with Himself--and that means entering into the Mystery of the Trinity--in the love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--to partake of, share in, the love of God, the life of God. And the ways in which that life in and with God is redeeming, saving, healing, sanctifying not just us individually as sinners; but is about the way that redeeming, saving, healing, and sanctifying is ultimately about, and for, the whole of creation.

In this way, even when we aren't explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit by name, He is always implied. Whenever we talk about the love of God for us, the love of the Father for His Son, the love and humility of Christ toward His Father and in His suffering and service of His earthly ministry--including His passion and death on the cross, and also of His resurrection from the dead. Whenever we talk about our life with God, our faith in Jesus--the Holy Spirit is always in the middle of all that. He is always ubiquitous.

Again, the post is getting very long. I wanted to address several things in this post, and hope I've accomplished that. There is, of course, still a lot that can be said. And I'd love to do so, especially if there is time, and if there is interest, or follow-up questions. The topic of the Trinity is a gigantic one, and talking about it affects so much in Christianity that there is nearly an endless amount of conversations and topics that could come from discussing it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jacks]

Now in all of this I have spoken a lot about the Father and the Son, but have only briefly spoken about the Holy Spirit. This has, in part, been intentional. You specifically noted that it seems the Holy Spirit gets less "airtime" as it were when talking about this, and I wanted to spend time focusing on Him specifically.

So we have talked about how the Father is the Source or Origin of the Son, that the Son has His Being from and in the Father--the Son is the same thing, the same Being, as the Father. We use the language of "begetting" to talk about this. I've also mentioned the distinctiveness between the Father and the Son, the Father is distinct and relates to the Son, and the Son to the Father. And I've brought up the topic of divine love, of love from One to Another, and how the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. This is, I think, the right time to talk about the Holy Spirit.

In the Nicene Creed we use a special word to talk about the Person/Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. We use the word "proceed". The word in the Creed is ekporeuomenon "to come out of". This is going to get a little tricky because the Christian East and the Christian West use different formulations, in the East the Creed says the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" but in the West it says the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son". There is a very complex historical and also even more complicated theological reasons for this difference, and it is part of a major division between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. I won't get into all of that here. Instead I want to focus on this idea of proceed, the procession of the Holy Spirit. There is another term we use here to speak of the same thing, and that is spiration. If it helps, think of respiration, breathing; because in a sense that is what spiration is referring to. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [and the Son] is the idea that the Holy Spirit is exhaled, breathed out. We talk about how the Son is begotten, and now we talk about how the Holy Spirit is exhaled, proceeds from, spirated.

In Hebrew, Greek, and in Latin the word referring to the Holy Spirit all carry the idea of breath or wind. In Hebrew it is ru'ach, in Greek it is pneuma, and in Latin it is spiritus. In all of these words there is this idea of breath, or wind.

In the opening to the book of Genesis we read how "in the beginning God", God is already there in the beginning before the world was made, and the language the text uses is that "the Spirit of God fluttered over the surface of the waters". The Ru'ach of God "fluttered" or "hovered" over the face or surface of the primordial waters of pre-creation. What seems to be meant here is that God and God's Ru'ach, His Divine Breath, is here blowing across the surface of the waters. So the Holy Spirit is not something which exists later; but like the Son we say the Holy Spirit is Eternal, He has the same Being as the Father and the Son, though He is distinct. As noted from earlier pargraphs, the Holy Spirit is "Another Comfortor", One whom the Father and the Son will send, and He descends upon Jesus at Jesus' baptism. So He is distinct, but He is not something other than God. He is a distinct Someone, just as the Father and Son are distinct Someones; but God in the same way that the Father and the Son are God. One Being, Three Hypostases/Persons.

The Holy Spirit is breathed, spirated, He is there blowing across the surface of the primordial waters of pre-creation. And, going back to love, He is breathed from Father to Son, the Holy Spirit flows from the Father to the Son. This is the "Love Itself" we might say of the triad of Lover, Beloved, and Love Itself. The bellowing, breathing, life between Father and Son, and so even as the Father loves the Son, so does the Son love the Father. And the Holy Spirit is right here, as He proceeds from the Father, is exhaled from the Father; and the Son responds, the Son reciprocates, and that exhalation and breath is reciprocated. In the same vein, the Holy Spirit is exaled, He is there fluttering upon the face of the waters before the world existed, when there is only God and nothing else.

And in the explosive moment of creation there is a picture we see in Genesis: God says "Let there be.." and there was. God, His Word, and His Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And from chaotic nothingness explodes order and existence, the universe comes to life from the empty darkness of nothingness. From God's Word and God's Breath.

So the very universe itself is brought into existence through the Holy Spirit, by the power of God's Word (Jesus Christ).

From creation to redemption, it is the same Spirit that we see mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus said He and His Father would send the Holy Spirit, and the Acts of the Apostles records that event as the great pouring-out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. This gift of the Spirit to the early Christian Church is about the way in which God lives in, inhabits, and transforms the people who believe in Jesus. To really get into that would require more than one post, and a lot of different threads I think. As it covers just about ever facet of Christian theology and Christian practice. But, to keep things immensely brief for our purposes here, this gifting of the Spirit is, again, a breathing-out of God, an impartation of God's life to the people of God. In this way, and because it also comes with a union with Jesus, the Son (and therefore God's people can, because of their union with Christ, call Christ's Father their own Father) it means a union with God, a communion and fellowship with God.

In this way the gifting of the Holy Spirit is God coming down and bringing people into sharing life with Himself--and that means entering into the Mystery of the Trinity--in the love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--to partake of, share in, the love of God, the life of God. And the ways in which that life in and with God is redeeming, saving, healing, sanctifying not just us individually as sinners; but is about the way that redeeming, saving, healing, and sanctifying is ultimately about, and for, the whole of creation.

In this way, even when we aren't explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit by name, He is always implied. Whenever we talk about the love of God for us, the love of the Father for His Son, the love and humility of Christ toward His Father and in His suffering and service of His earthly ministry--including His passion and death on the cross, and also of His resurrection from the dead. Whenever we talk about our life with God, our faith in Jesus--the Holy Spirit is always in the middle of all that. He is always ubiquitous.

Again, the post is getting very long. I wanted to address several things in this post, and hope I've accomplished that. There is, of course, still a lot that can be said. And I'd love to do so, especially if there is time, and if there is interest, or follow-up questions. The topic of the Trinity is a gigantic one, and talking about it affects so much in Christianity that there is nearly an endless amount of conversations and topics that could come from discussing it.

-CryptoLutheran

Some wonderful insights. The Trilogy is a complicated idea for people and has been explained in a variety of ways. I find the historical background and biblical references you include, adds greatly to understanding the reasoning and development of the Trilogy. It goes a long way to explain a three dimensional reality to us one dimensional humans. (Nod to C.S. Lewis) Again thank you for posting.

 

[Andrewn]

After more than a decade on CF I’ve found that Christians have a habit of using impenetrable Christian jargon when trying to explain Christian concepts. As a non-Christian much of this jargon can be difficult to follow.

In my early years in the CF, I engaged in many disappointing discussions about the Holy Trinity, and I decided not to get back in similar talks. In the past year or a little longer, however, I found out why these discussions could have been better. There are at least three ways of talking about the Trinity and perhaps a fourth way. These alternatives are:

1) The Eastern Orthodox approach: Monarchy of the Father.
2) The Catholic and Lutheran approach: Relative Identity Trinity.
3) The Evangelical approach: Social or Egalitarian Trinity.

#2 is commonly referred to as the "Latin Trinity" and the "Classical Trinity."

Comments:

1) The expressions "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" are not in the Bible.
2) The Relative Identity approach, I must admit, remains a puzzle to me, as it does to many others. Its proponents often use the enigmatic phrase, ‘It’s a mystery.’ 'It is hard.' 'Don't ask.'
3) The social approach, in contrast, is a response to the perceived incomprehensibility of the Relative Identity Trinity. In my perspective and that of many others, this view is Tritheism.
4) The fourth approach is that of Oneness Pentecostals, but it is also prevalent among the unknowing in Evangelical circuits.

 

[Benaiah468]

-
​

The only way i can see God existing as just, a single being God (no Father, no Son, no Holy Spirit) just God.

Would be if God never created anything angels or humans. That God just existed alone with Himself and never brought anything else into existence.

But God is a creating God and has brought fourth a creation. So this requires God to exist in three beings, to be able to interact with His creation.

The doctrine of the Trinity correctly states that G-d is One

echad YHVH

YHVH
יְהוָה
10. י Yud 10
5. ה He 5
6. ו Vav 6
5. ה He 5
Σ 26

echad (one)
אחד
1. א Alef 1
8. ח Chet 8
4. ד Dalet 4
Σ 13

26 (YHVH)+13 (echad) = 39

Gematria supports the realisation that G-d is One, but at the same time a threefold composite unity (Father, Son, Spirit)

39 = 3*13 echad (one)

The G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Israel is revealed in such an ingeniously simple and yet incomprehensible way. Our intellect and our possibilities of understanding are not the standard by which the reality of G-d should be orientated.

 

[Benaiah468]

The number 13 consists of the numbers 1 and 3. A triangle can help to represent 3 "persons" as equal and actually as 1. The number 13 in the centre of the creation triangle corresponds to the gematria of ahabah and echad, i.e. love and unity. Continuous relationality is the definition of the inner divine Trinity

https://up.picr.de/47750341bt.jpg

https://up.picr.de/47750469qi.jpg

For those who struggle with Trinitarian theology, we can only repeat:

Scripture teaches us a Trinitarian image of G-d. This G-d is always on the throne (Father). G-d took on human flesh to show us what G-d is like (Son), and this G-d is present everywhere (Spirit). In our experience, the deepest truth of the Trinity doctrine is that G-d Himself took on human flesh and came to earth, that Jesus Christ is G-d and is of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father.

The Trinitarian belief has a certain logic. The Bible says that G-d is love, but the only way G-d can be love is if He is a community of G-dly "persons". Love does not exist in a monad. G-d is this eternal community of love.

He plays the symphony of our salvation in three movements. Each of these movements is associated with and supported by a different Trinitarian "person".

Salvation comes from the Father

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Eph.1:3-6

Salvation is realised in the Son

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph.1:7-12

Salvation is imparted by the Holy Spirit

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Eph.1:13-14

 

[Benaiah468]

The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is one of the two central doctrines that set forth the unique characteristics of Christian belief in G-d. It expresses the conviction of Christians that this G-d has made Himself known more fully, more specifically and more personally by taking our human nature into Himself, by coming among us as a particular human being without in any way ceasing to be the eternal and infinite G-d.

The other central doctrine is that of the Trinity. The reason why the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity fit together is partly a matter of history and partly a matter of rational reflection. Because the early Christians came to the realisation of His divinity in the light of Jesus' resurrection from the dead and experienced Him as a self-revelation of G-d, they recognised the need to believe in G-d Himself in His own essence, existing in an inner relationship of given and received love. This love was reflected in Jesus' relationship with the Father.

 

[Lukaris]

By definition according to God’s revelation to us, we believe in 1 God ( Deuteronomy 6:4)Who is 3 Persons in the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit ( 1 John 5:7).

The Lord Jesus Christ tells us God is our Father in the Lord’s Prayer ( Matthew 6:9). The Gospel of John clearly tells us Jesus Christ is God the Son, the Son of God the Father ( see John 1:1-3, John 1:14, John 1:18). The Lord Jesus Christ tells us of the Holy Spirit as Divine and as a person ( using the names “Helper”, “ Comforter”& “Spirit of truth”) see John 14:16-17, John 15:26.

The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit are coexistent and coeternal. By definition, the Father is the source, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (John 1:14) and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father ( John 15:26).

 

[Benaiah468]

What we call Trinity makes it possible to claim that G-d is love.

The revelation of the Trinity of G-d is summarised in a simple and profound way in the short sentence from the First Epistle of John:

G-d is love. 1 John 4:8

G-d is therefore not only in relation to us or the created universe. He is thus essential in Himself, in His intimacy, infinite and eternal. On the other hand, love itself proves to be true in relationship with another.

When we know the Father, the Son and the Spirit as the Lover, the Beloved and Love, we realise that G-d is in His innermost being a dialogue, a life of love among the three ‘persons’. This is the originality of the Christian understanding of G-d, and here man finds the true explanation for himself. The vocation to communion is the trace of the Trinity in man. Only in its light does this realisation attain an unexpected depth:

We are to meet, talk and love one another because we are image of G-d and G-d is indeed, as far as we are given to understand, a community of love.

There are two fundamental mysteries of the Christian faith:

The unity and diversity of G-d and the incarnation, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. G-d embraces the human condition to heal it of all that separates it from Him and to allow us to call Him in His only begotten Son by the name Abba, Father, and to be truly children of G-d.

This faith is indispensable for salvation, cf. John 8:24.

 

[Benaiah468]

When asked how I define the term Trinity, I'd say that it reflects the relationality of G-d in Himself.

A lonely G-d cannot be love. He can learn to love. He could long for love. But He cannot be love in itself, because love requires a counterpart. True love requires relationship. Finally, in the doctrine of the Trinity, we see how love is part of the fabric of creation; it is essential for the eternal Creator who needs nothing. Since eternity, the Father and the Son and the Spirit have been bound together in a relationship. They have loved each other. This loving relationship is intrinsically anchored in the nature of G-d.

If G-d were not a Trinity, but only a solitary Divinity, he could be neither love nor G-d! I don't think we have been mistaken about the meaning of love. A loveless G-d would be a deficient G-d, and love would not be part of the foundation of a universe created by that G-d. Yet relationships and the desire for love are central to us. This would be a very strange state of affairs in a universe that was not created by a Trinitarian G-d.

 

[gaweatherford]

As a Christian you are obliged to pretend you understand this stuff.

As a non-Christian I can be honest and tell you it left me more confused.

OB

It left Spurgeon confused too, but he was still able to be satisfied.

Spurgeon:
We can never understand how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be three and yet one.
For my part, I have long ago given up any desire to understand this great mystery,
for I am perfectly satisfied that, if I could understand it, it would not be true, because
God, from the very nature of things, must be incomprehensible.

 

[Occams Barber]

It left Spurgeon confused too, but he was still able to be satisfied.

Spurgeon:
We can never understand how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be three and yet one.
For my part, I have long ago given up any desire to understand this great mystery,
for I am perfectly satisfied that, if I could understand it, it would not be true, because
God, from the very nature of things, must be incomprehensible.

From my point of view all Spurgeon is doing is trying to justify the absence of an explanation for the Trinity by turning ignorance into a virtue. Its a mystery therefore it must be true is hardly a rational approach to understanding the world.

OB

 

[Benaiah468]

G-d, unlike humans, not only has the potential to be a multipersonal being. Scripture repeatedly supports a plurality within the G-dhead. Even the Hebrew word elohim is plural, so that YHVH, our G-d, could also be translated YHVH, our G-ds. It is also Scripture that establishes the connection between G-d and love.

Is G-d by nature community before he created the world?

The essence of G-d is the foundation of all earthly relationships. In Him, the essence or bond of the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is love.

Therefore, John says that G-d is love

And we have known and believed the love that G-d hath to us. G-d is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in G-d, and G-d in him. 1 John 4:16 KJV

G-d in His saving grace brings His people into the same covenantal love that the ‘persons’ of the Trinity share.

Do we see important connections between and profound implications arising from the eternal Trinitarian existence of G-d, the eternal love bond of the ‘persons’ of the Trinity, and our covenantal existence as an image of G-d?

A punishing G-d is only punishing when sin exists. Sin does not exist between the ‘persons’ of the Trinity. Love, however, is not only a potentially retrievable attribute of G-d, it is His own essence.

Love is only love when it moves between and within ‘persons’.

Although there can be relationships without love, there will never be love without relationship. G-d could not be love without some form of relational experience and expression being inherent and elemental to who G-d is. If G-d were a monad, He would have to create someone or something else in order to exercise and express love. Even then, He can only be described as loving, but not as love.

To say G-d is love is to say that in His being is the constant active exchange of acceptance. Love is the DNA of the G-dly, so to speak.

It is the Christian doctrine of the G-dhead that best captures this biblical concept.

The Bible begins with the story of G-d's decision to create. In creating, G-d extends His own inner experience of love. We are the result and expression of G-d's love life. When He chose to extend and expand His love through relationships by creating us, the Bible records that G-d spoke to Himself in the plural:

And G-d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: Gen.1:26 KJV

G-d is love and therefore G-d is related ‘persons’.

 

[Yusuphhai]

In Aramaic, God and God' Word can use the same word Memrah (Word, Logos, Holy Son). In Hebrew, the Holy Spirit is Ruach HaKodesh. Ruach means Breath and "Wind". When the word Ruach is pronounced, one exhales breath (through the sound of ch). When God exhales His Breath, He speaks the Holy Word (through exhaling Breath). This is a concise explanation of the Trinity. However, Jewish believers are still not very clear about the mystical explanation of the Trinity.

 

[Benaiah468]

A relational G-d-being has fellowship and relationship in eternity without first having to resort to creation. It experiences what it means to give and receive love and to do so completely without a creature.

For just as man is made in the image of G-d as a being of community and relationship, G-d is also intent on relationship, with the difference that He is already relationship and community in Himself. This is what the living triune G-d has over every other unipersonal G-d-being.

An impersonal G-d does not love until He creates the world and human beings. An impersonal G-d does not have love and relationship as His essence, it isn't an essential aspect of His character and nature. The essence of an impersonal G-d is power and greatness. An impersonal G-d tends to create moralism and absolutism.

The G-d of Scripture is triune: Father, Son and Spirit. He is a trinity. G-d did not create out of loneliness, as if He needed creation. G-d is not a solitary monad, but a free, self-communicating love. This is the basis of the Christian faith.

The essential implication is that if a triune G-d created the world, loving relationships are what our lives are really about. From time immemorial, ultimate reality has consisted of a community of ‘persons’ who knew and loved each other. Therefore, ultimate reality is about love relationships.

 

[Lukaris]

In different parts of the Bible there are accounts of God as distinct Persons. In Daniel 7:13-14, the Person of the Ancient of Days is understood as God the Father while the Son of Man is God the Son, the Son of God the Father. The Lord Jesus Christ is clearly God Personified ( see Colossians 1:10-23 especially verses 15-18 and also compare to John 1:1-3, John 1:14-18.

The Divine Person of the Holy Spirit is testified to by the Lord Jesus Christ in John 16:1-16 and the 3 Persons declared by the Lord Jesus Christ in John 15:26 and also in John 14:15-18 unto the very way God expects us to live life itself.

The ancient preachers carefully read the scriptures and realized that 3 Divine Persons were revealed in them. “Holy Trinity” is just a shorthand term for this. Hebrews 1:1-2 tells us that God has made Himself known to us throughout time as He sees fit.

The same God spoke in Isaiah 48:12-18 as did in Revelation 1:1-20. Isaiah himself may not have known the full meaning of many of the same terms he used that John used in Revelation but John himself did. ( compare Isaiah 48:12 to Revelation 1:8 & Revelation 1:11.

 

[Joseph G]

Just an added thought to this discussion...

Scripture says that God is love. If there was no other Separate Person for Him to love, then it means He only has Himself to love, rendering the definition of love meaningless.

So He has His eternal Son to love. What connects them together? The Third Person, the eternal Holy Spirit.

One Spirit (God), three Persons. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

So God creates all beings, in Heaven and on earth, and gives each free will to reject His love, because love isn't love if it's forced.

The angels and other beings in the spiritual realm all make their choices, some stay and some rebel.

And then comes man. Man makes the fatal choice, and he and all generations to follow require redemption.

And here is where we see the functions of each Member of the Trinity.

The Father creates man in His image and sacrifices His own heart to demonstrate exactly what love is, by offering His perfect Son to take His wrath in our place.

And Jesus demonstrates His love for the Father and mankind by submitting to the will of His Father through all His days unto the point of death - all of which we are utterly incapable to accomplish ourselves.

And finally, upon professing our faith, we are sealed by His Holy Spirit of promise Who through Him alone we are able to love and endure until the end of our lives here and receive permission to dwell in His Kingdom forever.

Why the Third Person of the Trinity? Because Jesus is still fully God and fully Man - and how could He indwell us except through His Spirit?

John 17 NIV

"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. For You granted Him authority over all people that He might give eternal life to all those you have given Him. Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent. I have brought You glory on earth by finishing the work You gave Me to do. And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began."

"I have revealed You to those whom You gave Me out of the world. They were Your's; You gave them to Me and they have obeyed Your Word. Now they know that everything You have given Me comes from You. For I gave them the words You gave Me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from You, and they believed that You sent Me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those You have given Me, for they are Yours. All I have is Yours, and all You have is Mine. And glory has come to Me through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by the power of Your Name, the Name You gave Me. so that they may be one as We are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by That name You gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled."
"I am coming to You now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of My joy within them. I have given them Your Word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that You take them out of the world but that You protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by The Truth; Your Word is Truth. As You sent Me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify Myself, that they too may be truly sanctified."

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in you. May they also be in Us so that the world may believe that you have sent Me. I have given them the glory that You gave Me, that they may be one as We are one— I in them and You in Me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that You sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me."

"Father, I want those You have given Me to be with Me where I am, and to see My glory, the glory you have given Me because You loved Me before the creation of the world."

"Righteous Father, though the world does not know You, I know You, and they know that You have sent Me. I have made You known to them, and will continue to make You known in order that the love You have for Me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

John 14:15-21 NIV

"If you love Me, keep My commands. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show Myself to them.”

 

[Benaiah468]

The universe is everything that we can touch, feel, perceive, measure or recognise. This includes living beings, planets, stars, galaxies, dust clouds, light and even time.

What can we learn from this about the doctrine of the Trinity?

The more accurate illustration of G-d's triune nature is the universe that He Himself created. You and I live in a three-dimensional world. All physical objects have a certain height, width and depth. G-d imprinted something of Himself into the things He created and made.

As believers in an infinite and transcendent G-d, this should not surprise us. This is a sign that we are encountering the true G-d, who is mysterious and complex, rather than a human projection or creation. About his own nature, G-d himself says

To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? Isa.46:5