The Trinity as Rocket Science

[Ben Masada]

Marcus Borg, in Speaking Christian, discusses an interesting schism in Christianity over a dispute about the Trinity:

"The issue was whether the Holy Spirit 'proceeds' from 'the Father' or from 'the Father and the Son.' The Western church affirmed the latter, and the Eastern church the former. In 1054, Christianity split in two over this issue, producing Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Each side excommunicated the other.

There is something at stake in this issue, even as it's unclear that the two sides in the conflict had any inkling of it. And that is if God's Spirit 'proceeds' from 'the Father and the Son' (and not from 'the Father only'), then God can be known only through Jesus and thus only in Christianity. But if God's Spirit 'proceeds' form 'the Father only,' then it is possible that God can be known apart from Jesus and thus in other religions."

Clearly, Southern Baptist Christians believe "God's Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." Hmm . . . I wonder which position Thomas Aquinas takes on this?!

Hi Ahanu, and you wonder which position Thomas Aquinas could have taken on the issue that split the Church between the West and the East? How about the position that he only Scriptures that Jesus considered the Word of God takes on this? Thomas Aquinas pales by comparison to the Word of God, which, according to Psalm 147:19,20 was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. Thomas Aquinas was a Western Catholic monk. Therefore, by deduction, his position is that the Spirit comes from both, the Father and the Son.
Ben

 

[Ahanu]

The problem, Ahanu, is that the Church (whether Ante-Nicean, Oriental, Eastern, Catholic, or Protestant) has been studying the Trinity for quite some time now (2 millenia more or less), so tradition does count if one wants to discuss the different interpretations of the Trinity.

Yes, tradition counts in discussing interpretations of the Trinity. While I found your second link unhelpful, I found your first link to be of benefit.

To give a brief description of what is meant by saying God is one Essence and three person, the writer begins with an analogy by the Cappadocian Fathers: Human nature/human essence appears in "many numbers," which could be called "persons" or "hypostases." Hence, the Fathers had to address the issue of multiple Gods. Because God is not in the created world, God abides outside of time and space, and with time and space annihilated in the realm of God, differences no longer appear, so God is "one Essence." Notice that hypostases and persons are interchangeable: the Cappadocian Fathers made a distinction between the terms hypostases and essence. I'm noting this because Augustine changed this. Augustine sought an analogy in one person; the Cappadocian Fathers sought the analogy in three persons. Augustine uses an analogy of the mind, a psychological model: the Father as memory, the Son as knowledge, and the Spirit as love. The difference between Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers marks a divergence in Trinity interpretation--a divergence between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity.

Thomas:

Sorry Ahanu

My apologies for misunderstanding.

 

[IowaGuy]

So what did they teach you about the Trinity? I grew up in a Southern Baptist family too. Whenever the preacher talked about the Trinity, it was to prove other religions are wrong. Definitions of the Trinity and its practical applications, if there were any, were pretty iffy.

Ahanu - I don't remember many sermons (if any) regarding the specifics of the Trinity. I would agree with your "iffy" comment, at least regarding my particular church/pastor.

Augustine sought an analogy in one person; the Cappadocian Fathers sought the analogy in three persons. Augustine uses an analogy of the mind, a psychological model: the Father as memory, the Son as knowledge, and the Spirit as love. The difference between Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers marks a divergence in Trinity interpretation--a divergence between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity.

Ahanu - coming from a similar background as you, I'm wondering: is this a theoretical/historical exercise for you (mental masturbation?), or do you think a more thorough understanding the Trinity will make an actual difference in how you live your day-to-day life?

 

[Ahanu]

coming from a similar background as you, I'm wondering: is this a theoretical/historical exercise for you (mental masturbation?), or do you think a more thorough understanding the Trinity will make an actual difference in how you live your day-to-day life?

Mental masturbation.

It will not make a significant impact on my daily life, but that does not mean it will have no significance whatsoever. A more thorough understanding of the Trinity will help in knowing why Baptist Christians interpret the Trinity as a condemnation of all other religions. Besides, if a Baptist informs me of the exclusiveness of the Trinity, wouldn't it be cool to note Catholics don't see it that way?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

I'm noting this because Augustine changed this. Augustine sought an analogy in one person; the Cappadocian Fathers sought the analogy in three persons. The difference between Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers marks a divergence in Trinity interpretation -- a divergence between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity.

There is definitely a divergence ... but the Church is a broad Church! Neither the Cappadocians nor Augustine are doctrine as such, they're just theological viewpoints. Both the Cappadocians and Augustine have had their theologies revised or rejected ... indeed Gregory of Nyssa held doctrines which the Universal Church refutes absolutely (as did my beloved St Maximus).

It's commonly accepted between us and the East that the latter are more prone to abstractionism, and an understanding of the Trinity which is almost tritheism, whereas the West is so focussed on the personhood of Christ that the Trinity is almost an afterthought.

A more thorough understanding of the Trinity will help in knowing why Baptist Christians interpret the Trinity as a condemnation of all other religions. Besides, if a Baptist informs me of the exclusiveness of the Trinity, wouldn't it be cool to note Catholics don't see it that way?

Well, we're back to broad church again ... post Vatican II, the doctrine states that anyone of good heart can find his or her way to God, with or without a knowledge of the Trinity, with or without the Catholic Church. The traditionalists (unlike me) jumped to their feet and declared that a heresy, the seat of St Peter vacant, the end of the world as we know it ... we all want God to be ours, not only exclusively, but to the detriment of everyone else, it seems ...

I distinguish a fundamental distinction between 'Tradition' as a river shaping and being shaped by a landscape to which it brings life and vitality, and 'tradition' (which is fact just conservatism opposed to any change whatsoever) which is like a glacier flattening everything in its path.

It's the same when people say there have been trinities in history ... yes there have, and I would expect nothing less, as creation is the way it is because it is Trinitarian. But the data of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity is utterly unique and unlike any other triunes, which are tritheist, whereas Christian Trinity is absolutely not.

God bless

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

With the exception of a few modern versions (UU and LDS are examples), Christianity shares one view of the Trinity. Even the Assyrian Nestorian Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches exist within the context of Nicaea. The Catholic and Orthodox tradition fractured from these non-Chalcedon groups over Chistology, not Trinity.

"G!d, H!s Logos, and H!s Sophia"--F!ther, S!n and Holy Sp!rit. It unites all Trinitarian Christians.