• Home
  • About
  • Awards
  • Dialogue with a Muslim: links
    • 1st response
    • Second response
    • Final response
  • Saturday Jess

All Along the Watchtower

~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

All Along the Watchtower

Search results for: Trinity

The Blessed Trinity and the Eucharist

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Commentaries, Faith, Homilies, Pope

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, orthodoxy

Pope-Benedict-XVI

Sometimes I am tempted to wonder whether there is any aspect of our faith which Benedict XVI has not illuminated to our benefit. This reflection on the Blessed Trinity and the Eucharist comes from his 2007 Post-Synodical Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis, the whole of which is well worth reading. I offer these reflections for today’s Solemnity.

7. The first element of eucharistic faith is the mystery of God himself, trinitarian love. In Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus, we find an illuminating expression in this regard: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (Jn 3:16-17). These words show the deepest source of God’s gift. In the Eucharist Jesus does not give us a “thing,” but himself; he offers his own body and pours out his own blood. He thus gives us the totality of his life and reveals the ultimate origin of this love. He is the eternal Son, given to us by the Father. In the Gospel we hear how Jesus, after feeding the crowds by multiplying the loaves and fishes, says to those who had followed him to the synagogue of Capernaum: “My Father gives you the true bread from heaven; for the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world” (Jn 6:32-33), and even identifies himself, his own flesh and blood, with that bread: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (Jn 6:51). Jesus thus shows that he is the bread of life which the eternal Father gives to mankind.

A free gift of the Blessed Trinity

8. The Eucharist reveals the loving plan that guides all of salvation history (cf. Eph 1:10; 3:8- 11). There the Deus Trinitas, who is essentially love (cf. 1 Jn 4:7-8), becomes fully a part of our human condition. In the bread and wine under whose appearances Christ gives himself to us in the paschal meal (cf. Lk 22:14-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26), God’s whole life encounters us and is sacramentally shared with us. God is a perfect communion of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. At creation itself, man was called to have some share in God’s breath of life (cf. Gen 2:7). But it is in Christ, dead and risen, and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, given without measure (cf. Jn 3:34), that we have become sharers of God’s inmost life.  Jesus Christ, who “through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God” (Heb 9:14), makes us, in the gift of the Eucharist, sharers in God’s own life. This is an absolutely free gift, the superabundant fulfilment of God’s promises. The Church receives, celebrates and adores this gift in faithful obedience. The “mystery of faith” is thus a mystery of trinitarian love, a mystery in which we are called by grace to participate. We too should therefore exclaim with Saint Augustine: “If you see love, you see the Trinity.”

Yes, indeed, where we see love, we see the workings of the Trinity. God is not an isolated, figure brooding over His creation, He is, as St John tells us, ‘love’. We encounter Him where we see love, and we do His work where we offer service through love. The foolishness of those who imagine that anyone believes in salvation through works is hard to understand, save in the sense that the great Enemy darkens the minds of men. If we are in Christ and He is in us, then just as the love of the Trinity overflows into creation, then our love for Him flows from us in the helping of others. Our humanity is redeemed through the Incarnation, and the Risen and Ascended Christ sanctifies our flesh. We shall be resurrected not as disembodied spirits, but in glorified bodies, like unto His body. Through the Eucharist we are sharers in His life now, whilst we are in this mortal realm. For this great gift, we give thanks and praise. To those who wonder what the Church means when it says that the fulness of the faith is here, this is the deep and true meaning.

C451

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Gospel for the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity: Year A

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Commentaries, Faith

≈ Comments Off on Gospel for the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity: Year A

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, God, Jesus, Trinity

Trinity

St John 3:16-18

Chrysostom comments on the intensity revealed by the words ‘God so loved the world’. He who is Infinite, majestic and immortal, loves us, who are none of these things in our fallen state; the depth of the love is shown by the fact He sent not an angel or some other creature, but His Son. The Son laid down His life for us, showing the depth of His love. We dress ourselves in finery of all kind, but we neglect Our Lord who passes hungry and naked, even though He has given his life for our lives.

St Gregory Nazianzen reminds us that Jesus lost nothing of His divinity when he saved us. Like a good physician he stooped to bind our wounds. Though He was mortal man, He remained God. He was of the race of David, but Adam’s creator. He who had no body, clothed himself in flesh, and had a mother, though she remained a virgin; he who was without bonds, bound himself with the cords of our humanity; he who was high priest was at the same time the sacrificial lamb; he offered up his blood and yet cleansed the world thereby. Though he was lifted onto the cross, it was sin that was nailed to it; he became as one who was dead, but rose from the dead and killed death for all who believe. On the one hand was the majesty of his divinity, on the other the poverty of his human form. Do not let hat is human in the Son permit you, wrongfully, to detract from what is divine. For the sake of the divine, hold in the greatest honour the humanity which the Immortal Son took on himself – and all for the love of you and I.

St Isaac the Syrian reminds us that in saving us in the way he did, God sets out to show us the nature of love. he gives us the thing most dear to him; had he anything more precious than his son, he would have given it to us. Out of that great love he does not compel our love (though he could) he aims that we come close to him by our love. This is a point made also by Ephrem the Syrian, who comments that if God had sent just one of his servants then it would not have shown the depth of his love.

St Augustine points out that unless the Father had handed over life, we could never have had life; unless life itself was slain, then death could not have died. Bede adds that the one who, through the power of divinity had created man to enjoy eternal felicity, restores us through his sacrifice.

Chrysostom warns us against the idea of reading these lines as though they mean that that there is no hell and no future punishment. There are, we should remember, two advents: the first was not to judge us but to pardon us; the second coming will be to judge us not to pardon us. He came, as He told us, to save the world; but He has told us that when He comes again in glory, the quick and the dead will be raised and judged; if He had judged first, none would have been spared; this is His great mercy, that he has given to all of us the chance to be saved. Those who do not believe condemn themselves, and when they rise, it will be to torment and not felicity. As Pope St Gregory the Great tells us, the day of judgment will not try those whose unbelief has already banished them from the sight of God. Then those who have believed will be tried.

Irenaeus writes that separation from God is death, just as separation from the light is to be plunged into the dark. We should repent and seek his face whilst it is still to be found. All too soon it will be too late.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Discussing the Trinity

01 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Faith

≈ 30 Comments

Tags

Christianity, controversy, orthodoxy, Trinity

Trinity

Yesterday’s post on the Visitation produced, as does any discussion of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the usual response from Bosco to the effect that she was ‘just a woman’ and that her son was ‘just a man’; no one claimed more than the first, but the latter is heresy. Bosco, as ever, quoted the usual verses about Jesus being the ‘Son of Man’, and between us, Servus Fidelis, myself and Bosco, went through a karaoke version of the Arian crisis. It was, therefore, refreshing to find that our relatively new commentator, Theophiletos, had managed, in the middle of moving house, to find access to the internet to post a comment which deserves rescuing from the comments section and setting out in full here. This is what he wrote:

“The fact that Jesus did not stop being God when he became incarnate is proven by Paul’s statement, “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9), and is implied by Jesus’s own statement that “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matt 12:8). After all, who has authority over the Sabbath but God who instituted the Sabbath? Jesus also said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), which, while not precise, probably should be understood to imply that Jesus is still God. Again, Jesus said, “Just as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself” (John 5:26), which expressly states that a divine attribute held by God the Father is also held by Jesus as the Son of God. The opponents of Jesus understood him to be claiming to be God (John 5:18). The logic of John 1:14 presumes that the Word of God (who was God and with God, according to John 1:1) dwelt among humanity (i.e. became incarnate) while still possessing the “glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” And the prayer of Jesus in John 17 states not only that the Father is in Jesus, but also that Jesus is in the Father, and Jesus prayed that during the time between his birth and his crucifixion. (There’s also a textual variant at John 3:13, where the reading that I suspect is correct (for various technical reasons) states that Jesus while incarnate is in fact still present in heaven.) True, Jesus did not go around saying, “I am God,” but had he done so he would simply have been misunderstood by those around him. Instead, he taught (and the Bible teaches) that he is God even while incarnate. (By the way, the incarnation didn’t stop with the crucifixion and burial; Jesus was raised bodily from the dead. So if Jesus is God and incarnate as a person now, there is no reason he couldn’t be both God and human from his birth.)

Some people say that Jesus stopped using his divine powers during his incarnation (or, as I have seen a few people state it crudely, that Jesus stopped being God), usually citing Philippians 2:6-8, that Jesus “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself.” The question is what he “emptied himself” of. It’s parallel to Paul’s phrase in the next verse that “he humbled himself,” and is explained in its own verse by “taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men.” In other words, Paul is talking about Jesus choosing to give up his divine glory and the divine prerogative of commanding worship, in order to become what we are. The paradox here is that Jesus “emptied himself” not by giving up what he had, but by taking on himself our own nature, which was empty and lacking in any virtue.

Your king analogy works better than you think. The king doesn’t cease to be the king when he takes off his crown; he just ceases to be recognizable as the king to those who do not know him. So Jesus, when he was born, did not cease to be God, but was not recognizable as God by those who did not know God.”

This seems to me as good a summary of the orthodox position as I have read in short compass, and it is a pleasure to share it with others here who wonder about how Our Lady can be the ‘Mother of God’, and want to know why it matters. It is, as St Cyril of Alexandria said long ago, the key to understanding that the Son is God and Man simultaneously, not sequentially.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Trinity and Fatherhood of God

02 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by Rob in Bible, Faith

≈ 30 Comments

Tags

Christianity, Trinity

imageMusing and contemplating the trinity is something I find myself often engaged in. I search out fresh thoughts in the scriptures and add the findings to my ever-growing notes from which I drew the following comment which relate to this post.

“if they were simply different modes in which the one God appears, then such an act of communion would not be possible.”

The understanding of the trinity that the church has come to harmonizes the diverse revelation of scripture. However God is then often described with a number of terms that are incomprehensible to the man in the street. In an attempt to communicate more simply I found a simple definition helps.

“There is one God perfectly united and existing in three eternal and personal modes”.

The difference between ‘appears’ and ‘existing’ is the difference between heterodox and orthodox.

Of course we need to go on to explain the manner of God’s unity as it is expressed in Trinitarian doctrine but the above seems to give easier access to those explanations.

“The Father alone is the one true God.”

This seems to impute deity only to the Father. As Jess said the phrase ‘startles’ and we might wonder where the room is left for Christ and the Holy Spirit – clearly things are explained as you move on but that phrase still sticks and I can’t swallow it easily. However you cut it seems to say that the Father alone (As in Father, Son and Holy Spirit is “Alone The One True God’)

Surly this ‘form of words’ cannot be precisely true or uphold the deity of the ‘The Son’ and ‘The Spirit’.

I shall have to consider how reference to ‘an article’ apply only to ‘The Father’ is to be understood but as of now am happier with the following:-

“The one true God is Our Father”

This attributes both deity and Fatherhood to the Trinity.

The way in which ‘an article’ maybe being applied to the Father (alone) might be in the contexts of the Fatherhood of the ‘Triune God’, this will require a survey through the scriptures I had not noticed before that ‘an article’ was used exclusively in this way.

‘The Son’ is begotten of ‘The Father’ and ‘The Spirit’ proceeds from the Father through the Son – which indicates a Father relationship within the trinity towards ‘The Son’ and Holy Spirit. Several texts teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Father is the correct understanding in relation to the Holy Spirit e.g. Luke 11:13; Jn.14:16 & 26; Acts 1:4, 2:33 & 38.

The term Father must be understood differently in terms of the FSS interrelationships within the Godhead than it is understood in relation to us and God as our Father.

Jesus foretelling His death said “I go to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God”. He did not say “I go to our Father etc”. Although that is how he taught us to pray.

Christians have a common relationship to the Father, Son and Spirit who gave us existence and through who we become a new creation and sons of God. Jesus eternal and un-created relationship to the Father is one of an entirely different order.

The Trinitarian God is our Father:
a) The Father is our Father Matt. 6:9;
b) The Son is a Father to us Isaiah 9:6;
c) The Holy Spirit is a Father Spirit, in Jn. 14:18.

Jesus speaking of the Holy Spirit in Jn. 14:16-17, is speaking in the context of Philip’s request to see the Father Jn. 14:8, and states:

“I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you”.

So in the Spirit’s coming Christ comes to us and in the Spirits coming we are no longer ‘orphans’ – we are no longer Fatherless. In this way Jesus applies Fatherhood to both Himself and the Holy Spirit. These passages are breathtaking clear in establishing the unity and trinity of God.

Additionally many experience a unique relationship with each of the persons of the trinity. No wonder even God’s transport is ‘Wheels within wheels’.

I think Christians often speak too glibly mixing up references to God and the Father e.g. Jesus’ statements:-

“No man comes to the Father except by me”

I’ve heard this quoted as “No one comes to God except ….” In evangelism this presents a barrier and causes un-necessary objections and was certainly untrue of Cornelius’ approach to God which was accepted and prompted the Lord’s response Acts 10:1-2 & 4. However no one comes into the intimacy of relationship with God as Father except through Jesus, while it is also true that all those reconciled to God will be reconciled through His blood.

Then again our Lord’s cry of dereliction from the cross:-

“My God, My God why have you forsaken me?”

I have heard it said the Father forsook Christ on the cross turning away from the sin He bore. What happened at the cross is the greatest mystery. I believe Fr. John would confirm it is an Orthodox saying “He reigns from the cross”. Whatever went on I do not think the trinity could have been torn asunder at the cross. The trinity created the cosmos and continually upholds it. How could ‘the stuff of the universe’ continue with a disassembled trinity?

Was it Jesus in his perfect humanity that was torn apart and God forsaken or was it His sense of God’s abandonment. This must surely be the deepest mystery of the trinity for us to comprehend but the depth of love so demonstrated is deeper.

Just my meditation – I’m interested in how those with knowledge of creeds and councils consider this.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Reflections on the Trinity

01 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by JessicaHoff in Bible, Early Church, Faith

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

Christianity, love, orthodoxy, Trinity

Icon of Jesus

One of the many delights of the internet is the ease of access to sources which might otherwise be difficult to find; one of the great pleasures of modern theology is the revival of the Orthodox contribution to it; it is one reason I like Fr Aidan Kimel’s blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy, so much. There is, in Eastern Orthodoxy, a strain of thought which seems to my poor faculties lacking, or at least little emphasised in the Western Tradition, and that is to do with mysticism and feeling and mystery; I cannot quite find the words I want, but they come close. It was a particular pleasure to find a reflection from the very Rev. Fr. John Behr, the Dean of St Vladimir’s Seminary, on the blog, especially as it was on the Trinity, upon which we have had so much discussion here. [Today’s post is an equally excellent reflection by Metropolitan Kallistos].

Fr John begins:

To avoid the confusion into which explanations often fall, it is necessary to distinguish between: the one God; the one substance common to Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and the one-ness or unity of these Three

and then startles:

The Father alone is the one true God. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the world “God” (theos) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures. This same fact is preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: “I believe in one God, the Father …”

Goodness me!  Isn’t that cutting the Creed short to fit an argument, I wondered, after all it continues to include the Son and the Holy Spirit; is Fr John really suggesting they are not ‘God’? But I read it again and saw what he means:

So there is one God and Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit, three “persons” (hypostases) who are the same or one in essence (ousia); three persons equally God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really distinct, known by their personal characteristics. Besides being one in essence, these three persons also exist in total one-ness or unity.

The Son is begotten of the Father before all worlds, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (through the Son), so there is, in Fr John’s words an ‘essential asymmetry of the relation’ between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Father being the ‘Monarch’.

This is not ‘modalism’, as Fr John emphasises. One of the features of the Divine Economy is the communion of love:

 if they were simply different modes in which the one God appears, then such an act of communion would not be possible. The similar way of expressing the divine unity is in terms of “coinherence” (perichoresis): the Father, Son and Holy Spirit indwell in one another, totally transparent and interpenetrated by the other two. This idea clearly stems from Christ’s words in the Gospel of John: “I am in the Father and the Father in me” (14:11). Having the Father dwelling in Him in this way, Christ reveals to us the Father, He is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15).

The third way in which ‘the total unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is manifest is in their unity of work or activity.’

Fr John asks, as I think we all must, what is the point of such reflections, and answers what I think I would have, had I the wisdom – namely that it stems from the attempt to answer the question of who Christ is. But he offers another purpose which lifts the spirit:

it also indicates the destiny to which we are also called, the glorious destiny of those who suffer with Christ, who have been “conformed to the image of His Son, the first-born, of many brethren” (Rom 8:29). What Christ is as first-born, we too may enjoy, in Him, when we also enter into the communion of love: “The glory which though hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one” (John 17:22).

That, to me, on about the fifth prayerful reading, seems to me a wonderful motif for the New Year just begun.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Triads, Trinity and Paraclete

08 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by JessicaHoff in Faith

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Christianity, controversy, orthodoxy

300px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-compact.svgThere are what might be called tropes in Mushtaq’s responses to me, which is why, rather than answer points seriatim which appear in various points in his long answers, I have preferred to deal with them by theme.

Thus, when I show him, as the last few posts have, that the same Church which gave us the Canon also gave us the Scriptures and must, therefore, be presumed to know how to read them, we get two kinds of answer: one, dealt with in the last post is that the real church died out with the disciples, which, as we have seen, would be to call Jesus a liar, since He said His Church would always prevail.  The other is to offer answers such as these (the italics are Mushtaq’s words):

Answer 1: (Unitarian Christians have correct meanings of father, son and holy Spirit)

Baptise in name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit doesn’t mean baptize in name of three persons of Trinity or three members of Triune God. Since Bible uses Father in meaning of Creator, Son in meaning of Loved One, and Holy Spirit in meaning of angel.

This does not stand up. Unitarians are not Christians, they do not believe in the God which His Church understands; to cite them as evidence that the Church does not understand its own Book would be like me citing Evangelical protestants as a source for saying the Koran is wrong.  The NT, as John’s Gospel and Paul and Matthew all show us, uses the words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to describe different aspects of the One God; Mushtaq’s eisegesis about ‘loved one’ and ‘creator’ have no place in Christian theology.

Another of Mushtaq’s tropes we have already seen, and that is the need to remove from the NT parts of Scripture that cannot be read in any way other than a Trinitarian one – hence the insistence that in some way John’s Gospel is not genuine; this was deal with earlier.

Another example of this is his comment here ‘Answer 2 -(Mark 16:9-20 has been expunged in many Bibles)’.  He clearly means Matthew, and no orthodox Bible omits those verses, and even if they did, there are so many other passages, the very ones which, as links on the previous posts have shown, prompted the Fathers’ long discussions, which point to the Trinity, that the only way to maintain the Islamic position is to butcher the NT, and/or insist the Church died, and/or insist Islam knows better.  This is not apologetics, it is working from a set of propositions designed to work with people with no background in theology or Patristics or Church history; which is why it isn’t working here.

Another trope is t show that a Greek word can have many meanings when translated, as though that were not self evident. So, with the unique word ‘Paraclete’, Mushtaq points out it has many translated meanings and lists them:

 

Summing up all above, it is clear that there are lots of meanings of Paraclete available, whihc one is the exact true meaning, nobody knows.

Which misses the point entirely, of course. The Church founded by Jesus, which is still with us, as Jesus promised it would be, is clear. If Muslims wish to know the Truth, they should convert and then these things, which are hidden from heretics and non-believers, would be clear.  Yes, Mushtaq, there is an authority, God, speaking through His Church has told us. Join us and you, too, will have that blessing.

A final trope is the one we sometimes see elsewhere here, which is to point out that in the ancient world there were religious practices which are not too far different from those of the early church, and then, is breath-taking leap of illogic, imply that means that the Christians adopted pagan practices; you don’t need to demonstrate this, you just assert it.  Thus, Mushtaq provides us with: ‘37  TRIPLE DEITIES / TRIADS IN PAGANS’, all of which are true, and none of which have anything to do with Christianity.  The Trinity comes, as the articles here to which I have referred him, from the attempts by the early church to understand how ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ could be one God and not three – something our poor Muslim friends still cannot grasp,

A final trope of this technique is to take passages from the Apostolic Fathers, writing when the discussions were in their early stages, and then to insist beause they did not have a fully-developed Trinitarian theology, they were not Trinitarians. The most common example is the one Mushtaq uses, which is to choose Polycarp ad show he does not use the word ‘Trinity’. But all this has been explained at length on this blog here, and here, as well as here, with further dialogue here and also here, not to mention Geoffrey’s excellent piece here, all of which show how the search of the early Church to fully comprehend who Jesus was, took more than three centuries, so to say that Polycarp did not fully understand what St Cyril did is true, but irrelevant. To say, as Mushtaq does that Polycarp was the disciple of John who wrote of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No one else in Scripture is written of in this way, not Adam, not anyone, is simply to deny that elsewhere we are told that Jesus said to baptise in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and to imply that John’s Gospel is not Scripture. Of course, that leads us, in circularity, to his main trope, which is to insist that the words do not mean what the Church founded by Jesus says they mean.

He claims the early Fathers were unitarian, but that is to read them from outside the tradition of which they were part. Equally, to cite, as Mushtaq does, a set of verses from Scripture and claim they do not mean what the Church says, is to assert oneself as better qualified to comment than the Church – and so it goes on in a vast circle of illogic.

The requirement for salvation is that you believe in Jesus. Who is Jesus? Well here and here are the answers which explain that His Church understands Him as the Second Person of the Trinity.  Step outside the Grace of God’s Church and, as Jesus told us, these things will be hidden from you. If Mushtaq will stop trying to show us that Islam, which knows nothing of Christ and His Truth, knows better, and he will humble himself to receive the Truth, all these things will be revealed to him. I pray for him and his conversion to the One True Faith.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Dialogue with a Muslim friend: Jesus & Trinity

16 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by JessicaHoff in Early Church, Faith, Islam

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

Christianity, controversy, orthodoxy

Tableau.GethsemaneThus far we have shown that Jesus wrote no book, but that he established a Church. That Church kept the traditions He established, his disciples spread His message, some in writing, some through their disciples, and some in both ways.  Those disciples clearly wrote about Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as Our Lord had told them to when they baptised; their disciples did the same thing.  To say, as Mushtaq does, that Jesus and the Apostles never talked about ‘three’ is incorrect, as my previous posts have show conclusively.

Lest Mustaq doubt that, let us take some of the passages which St Athanasius, St Cyril of Alexandria and the Cappadocian Fathers wrestled with in order to help us understand how the Trinity is God.

  • John 1:1-18 – Jesus Christ as the divine word/logos, the light and life of the world, the “only-begotten Son” of the Father
  • John 5:17-19 – “But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is still working, and I also am working.’ / For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God. / Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.’ “
  • John 10:30, 38 – “The Father and I are one.” / “…the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
  • John 14:8-11a – “Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ / Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? / Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. / Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me…’ “
  • John 17:1b-5 – “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, / since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. / And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. / I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. / So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.”

In the light of these quotations, for Mushtaq to write:

Did Blessed Jesus hear and speak term Trinity, or its definition {Trinity formula = Father is full and complete God, Son is full and complete God, Holy Spirit is full and complete God, but these are not three gods, but One full and complete God} or even Number “three” to tell about exact number of persons in Triune God? Answer is No.

is wrong. Jesus told us to baptise in the Three Names and spoke repeatedly of the Father and Himself being one, as well as of the coming of the Paraclete.  It was the search to fully understand this which occupied some of the finest Christian minds of the first three centuries after the Resurrection of Jesus.  The notion that there was no ‘orthodoxy’ before that, and that someone who believed God to be a monad was somehow ‘orthodox’ is simply incorrect. So the answer to Mushtaq’s statement that the Unitarians can be considered orthodox is that it is wrong. Who says? That Church founded by Christ. To seek to quote its own book against it as though it is not the authorised interpreter of the Apostolic deposit is, again, incorrect for the reasons given.

In a final post, I will attempt to dispose of Mushtaq’s remaining caveats.

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Revisiting the Trinity

12 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by Geoffrey RS Sales in Faith

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

Christianity, Trinity

15.HTM2Before I signed on, Jessica did an interesting series on that most mysterious of doctrines, the Trinity. We recently had a short series at chapel on ‘the fundamentals of the faith’ and I thought it might be interesting to share part of it with the audience here.

I start with this definition (James White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), 26.)

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

To those who say it is unscriptural I respond that it is the only logical deduction from three lines of argument in the Bible:

1. There is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19).

2. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God (John 8:58; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 4:30; Col. 2:9; 2 Peter 1:17).

3. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons (Matt. 3:15-17; Matt. 28:19; John 16:13-15; 2 Cor. 13:14).

To quote Kenneth Samples:

God is Triune: “He exists eternally and simultaneously as three distinct and distinguishable persons (though not separate): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three persons in the Godhead, or Divine Being, share equally and completely the one divine nature, and are therefore the same God—coequal in attributes, nature and glory. God has revealed himself as one in essence or substance (being), but three in subsistence (personhood). In terms of what God is (essence), God is one; in terms of who God is (subsistence), God is three.”

Or in the words of the Athanasian Creed:

“We worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance…The entire three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that…we worship complete unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity”

The Trinity can thus be defined as three persons in one divine essence or as one divine essence subsisting in three modes, the unity of essence being guaranteed by the consubstantiality and coinherence of the persons, the distinction of persons being manifest in their relations.”

It is correct to say “Jesus is God” but not “God is Jesus.” Why? Because to say “Jesus is God” is to predicate to Jesus the whole of the divine nature which two other Persons posses: the Father and Holy Spirit. But to say “God is Jesus” in terms of the “is” of identity is incorrect because Jesus does not exhaust what it means to speak of God. Therefore, logically speaking, we can affirm: First, “The Father is God,” “The Son is God,” and “The Holy Spirit is God” using the “is” of predication. Second, “The Father is not the Son,” “The Son is not the Spirit,” and “The Spirit is not the Father,” using the “is” of identity. And third, “God is the Trinity” and “The Trinity is God” using the “is” of identity.

All of which is what the Cappadocian Fathers said many centuries ago. But in an era when men seem inclined to forget that there is a doctrinal content to our Faith, and when some question the very notion of the Trinity, it cannot be asserted often enough that our God is a Trinity of Persons.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

A dialogue about the Trinity (part two)

10 Monday Sep 2012

Posted by JessicaHoff in Blogging, Faith

≈ 77 Comments

Tags

orthodoxy, Trinity

The second part of our dialogue is one where the need for care in these matters is even clearer.

We start here [Jabba is in italics, my response is not]

Jabba: Your claim that the Father is “not” the Son is wrong, because even though the Father and the Son are different to each other, claiming that they are “not” each other as starkly as you did is not theologically sustainable — which basically boils down to meaning that the opposite interpretation, that they “are” each other, is perfectly licit too.

Me: I was basing myself on this diagram:

which is from a Catholic source and which has been used for centuries to teach the Trinity. If one translates the top line into English one gets: ‘The Father is not the Son’. If this is not ‘theologically sustainable’, then it is not my claim which is ‘theologically unsustainable’ it is that of Jabba’s own Church. I am sorry to have to put it so starkly, but to claim that it is wrong to state that the ‘Father is not the Son’ is wrong. I did so in the context of a version of this diagram in English, and in the context of making it clear that the Father and the Son were of the same sybstance, the same nature, that they were ‘consubstantial’. I agree when Jabba says:

Jabba: One has to take an especially great degree of care when discussing any of the Mysteries or Arcana of the Faith — because these are the dogmata that are the most productive of heresies in interpretation, teaching, statement, philosophy, or belief.

But not when he writes:

My basic problem is that I think that you were not as careful as you should have been, as you are required to be.

When he writes:

The Son is different to the Father — this is sound dogma.

I am uneasy. I agree, but that wording is quite as liable to misinterpretation as the statement to which Jabba objects – with the difference that the one to which he objects has been used in catholic schools for many generations, and his own formulation has not. I would rather say with that the Church has allowed.

Jabba: The Son is not the Father, insofar as we are always very clear that the Son and the Father are One with the Holy Spirit — this too.

Me: The Son and the Holy Spirit are of one essence with the Father, if you mean this when write ‘are one with’ then I agree, but the formulation you choose is not one I read in any of the Fathers, and is as liable to be misunderstood as any other wording; I see no reason to think it superior.

Jabba: But to use such a statement as “The Son is not the Father” — or “The Son is the same as the Father” — is wrongful, because you can have no idea how people will read such a statement, and because as singular statements they do not express the fullness of the Truth.

Me: I agree that had I not used the ‘Son is not the Father’ in the context of the document reproduced above, and in the context of saying that the Father and the Son are of the one essence or nature, that would have been so; but it was very carefully used in precisely that context for precisely the reasons Jabba so rightly gives.

Jabba: You should, and this is my honest and starkly theological position, refrain from using the phrase “The Son is not the Father” ever again, and restrict yourself to such statements as “The Son is different to the Father” or “The Son and the Father are not identical” or other such paraphrases expressing more properly their differences not as a strict 1/0 either/or yes/no difference of the binary logic that is inherent to the broadly Oxonian intellectual methodology

Me: Perhaps this is where your difficulty lies Jabba?  I have no idea what the ‘Oxford intellectual methodology’ is. My own background is in Patristics, and I use only language and concepts found in the Fathers. Take me beyond the nineth century and I am lost. As the Church itself uses ‘the Father is not the Son’ (see above), and as the Church does not use the formulations you offer, if we are to exercise care, we should, err, if at all, on the side of extreme caution and use the words the Fathers used.

I am grateful to Jabba for his comments and for the chance to do what we try to do here, which is to discuss these matters in irenic fashion.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

A dialogue about the Trinity (part one)

10 Monday Sep 2012

Posted by JessicaHoff in Blogging, Faith

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, orthodoxy, Trinity

Last week, in the course of our discussions of the Trinity, my friend Jabba pointed out that there were errors in what I wrote, and he has been kind enough to expound on what they were. I’d like to spend a little time with his erudite remarks because I think it will help us go forward from where we were. The first part of our dialogue is the easiest, so I will deal with it first.

Jabba: OK, then I’m more and more convinced that you just said a couple of things by sheer and basic human error, rather than actually meaning what they more fully signify theologically and philosophically and dogmatically.

You did in fact describe the Father as being “the dynamic cause” of the Trinity — which this doctrine in Mystici Corporis Christi does not support, because it places that Cause in God, not in the Persons of the Trinity nor in any one of Them.

Me: Yes, this has to be right, and I apologise, as I did at the time, for the word ‘dynamic’ I should have stuck with the Patristic ‘begotten’ for the relationship between Father and Son, and not said anything which could even sound as though the Father was the cause of the Trinity.

This certainly shows the problem of trying to write about the Trinity, and in truth, the moment I used the word I realised it would have been better to have stayed with the Fathers and used the word ‘begotten’ and confined it to the Father and the Son, rather than strayed into the area of applying a word used on the relationship between two of the Persons, to the trinity itself.

As Jabba wisely admonished me:

Jabba: That is why the advice of St Gregory in his 32nd Oration that I posted is so extremely valuable — because he advises in the wisest and most prudential manner to always keep a humble kind of delicate reverence for the precision of the doctrines, and be correspondingly very careful never to betray them with any overzealous interpretations.

That has to be right. Indeed, I ought to have remembered the advice of St, Gregory in Oration 28, not least because it was always at the head of our Patristics reading list:

It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words is an impossibility, as one of the Greek teachers of Divinity taught, not unskilfully, as it appears to me; with the intention that he might be thought to have apprehended Him; in that he says it is a hard thing to do; and yet may escape being convicted of ignorance because of the impossibility of giving expression to the apprehension. But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him. For that which may be conceived may perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly well, at any rate imperfectly, to any one who is not quite deprived of his hearing, or slothful of understanding. But to comprehend the whole of so great a Subject as this is quite impossible and impracticable, not merely to the utterly careless and ignorant, but even to those who are highly exalted, and who love God, and in like manner to every created nature; seeing that the darkness of this world and the thick covering of the flesh is an obstacle to the full understanding of the truth.

It is with that wisdom in mind that I will deal with the second set of issues raised by our dialogue.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →

AATW writers

  • audremyers
    • Internet
    • Context
  • cath.anon
    • What Brought You to Faith?
    • 2021: Year of Hope
  • John Charmley
    • The Epiphany
    • The Magi
  • No Man's Land
    • Crowns of Glory and Honor
    • Monkeys and Mud: Evolution, Origins, and Ancestors (Part II)
  • Geoffrey RS Sales
    • Material world
    • Christianity and religion
  • JessicaHoff
    • How unbelievable?
    • How not to disagree
  • Neo
    • Christmas Eve Almost Friends
    • None Dare Call it Apostasy
  • Nicholas
    • 25th January: The Conversion of Saint Paul
    • Friday Thoughts
  • orthodoxgirl99
    • Veiling, a disappearing reverence
  • Patrick E. Devens
    • Vatican II…Reforming Council or Large Mistake?
    • The Origins of the Authority of the Pope (Part 2)
  • RichardM
    • Battle Lines? Yes, but remember that the battle is already won
  • Rob
    • The Road to Emmaus
    • The Idolatry of Religion
  • Snoop's Scoop
    • In the fight that matters; all are called to be part of the Greatest Generation
    • Should we fear being complicit to sin
  • Struans
    • Being Catholic
    • Merry Christmas Everyone
  • theclassicalmusicianguy
    • The war on charismatics
    • The problem with Protestantism

Categories

Recent Posts

  • 25th January: The Conversion of Saint Paul Tuesday, 25 January 2022
  • The Epiphany Thursday, 6 January 2022
  • The Magi Wednesday, 5 January 2022
  • Christmas Eve Almost Friends Friday, 24 December 2021
  • The undiscovered ends? Sunday, 1 August 2021
  • Atque et vale Friday, 30 July 2021
  • None Dare Call it Apostasy Monday, 3 May 2021
  • The ‘Good thief’ and us Saturday, 3 April 2021
  • Good? Friday Friday, 2 April 2021
  • And so, to the Garden Thursday, 1 April 2021

Top Posts & Pages

  • Reflections on church history
  • In The Footsteps of St. Thomas
  • 2021: Year of Hope
  • There But for The Grace of God Go I
  • God and Love
  • Dagon fish hats revisited
  • Raising Lazarus: the view from the Church Fathers
  • 2 Thessalonians 2 (Part 1)
  • Advent Book. Week 3 Day 6. The moon in Llyen
  • The greatest commandment

Archives

Blogs I Follow

  • The Bell Society
  • ViaMedia.News
  • Sundry Times Too
  • grahart
  • John Ager's Home on the Web!
  • ... because God is love
  • sharedconversations
  • walkonthebeachblog
  • The Urban Monastery
  • His Light Material
  • The Authenticity of Grief
  • All Along the Watchtower
  • Classically Christian
  • Norfolk Tales, Myths & More!
  • On The Ruin Of Britain
  • The Beeton Ideal
  • KungFuPreacherMan
  • Revd Alice Watson
  • All Things Lawful And Honest
  • The Tory Socialist
  • Liturgical Poetry
  • Contemplation in the shadow of a carpark
  • Gavin Ashenden
  • Ahavaha
  • On This Rock Apologetics
  • sheisredeemedblog
  • Quodcumque - Serious Christianity
  • ignatius his conclave
  • Nick Cohen: Writing from London
  • Ratiocinativa
  • Grace sent Justice bound
  • Eccles is saved
  • Elizaphanian
  • News for Catholics
  • Annie
  • Dominus Mihi Adjutor
  • christeeleisonblog.wordpress.com/
  • Malcolm Guite
  • Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy
  • LIVING GOD
  • tiberjudy
  • maggi dawn
  • thoughtfullydetached
  • A Tribe Called Anglican
  • Living Eucharist
  • The Liturgical Theologian
  • Tales from the Valley
  • iconismus
  • Men Are Like Wine
  • Acts of the Apostasy

Blog Stats

  • 453,435 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,577 other subscribers

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

The Bell Society

Justice for Bishop George Bell of Chichester - Seeking Truth, Unity and Peace

ViaMedia.News

Rediscovering the Middle Ground

Sundry Times Too

a scrap book of words and pictures

grahart

reflections, links and stories.

John Ager's Home on the Web!

reflecting my eclectic (and sometimes erratic) life

... because God is love

wondering, learning, exploring

sharedconversations

Reflecting on sexuality and gender identity in the Church of England

walkonthebeachblog

The Urban Monastery

Work and Prayer

His Light Material

Reflections, comment, explorations on faith, life, church, minstry & meaning.

The Authenticity of Grief

Mental health & loss in the Church

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Classically Christian

ancient, medieval, byzantine, anglican

Norfolk Tales, Myths & More!

Stories From Norfolk and Beyond - Be They Past, Present, Fact, Fiction, Mythological, Legend or Folklore.

On The Ruin Of Britain

Miscellanies on Religion and Public life

The Beeton Ideal

Gender, Family and Religious History in the Modern Era

KungFuPreacherMan

Faith, life and kick-ass moves

Revd Alice Watson

More beautiful than the honey locust tree are the words of the Lord - Mary Oliver

All Things Lawful And Honest

A blog pertaining to the future of the Church

The Tory Socialist

Blue Labour meets Disraelite Tory meets High Church Socialist

Liturgical Poetry

Poems from life and the church year

Contemplation in the shadow of a carpark

Contmplations for beginners

Gavin Ashenden

Ahavaha

On This Rock Apologetics

The Catholic Faith Defended

sheisredeemedblog

To bring identity and power back to the voice of women

Quodcumque - Serious Christianity

“Whatever you do, do it with your whole heart.” ( Colossians 3: 23 ) - The blog of Father Richard Peers SMMS, Director of Education for the Diocese of Liverpool

ignatius his conclave

Nick Cohen: Writing from London

Journalism from London.

Ratiocinativa

Mining the collective unconscious

Grace sent Justice bound

“Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope.” — Maya Angelou

Eccles is saved

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Elizaphanian

“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.”

News for Catholics

Annie

Blessed be God forever.

Dominus Mihi Adjutor

A Monk on the Mission

christeeleisonblog.wordpress.com/

“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2

Malcolm Guite

Blog for poet and singer-songwriter Malcolm Guite

Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy

The Site of James Bishop (CBC, TESOL, Psych., BTh, Hon., MA., PhD candidate)

LIVING GOD

Reflections from the Dean of Southwark

tiberjudy

Happy. Southern. Catholic.

maggi dawn

thoughtfullydetached

A Tribe Called Anglican

"...a fellowship, within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..."

Living Eucharist

A daily blog to deepen our participation in Mass

The Liturgical Theologian

legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi

Tales from the Valley

"Not all those who wander are lost"- J.R.R. Tolkien

iconismus

Pictures by Catherine Young

Men Are Like Wine

Acts of the Apostasy

  • Follow Following
    • All Along the Watchtower
    • Join 2,222 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • All Along the Watchtower
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: