What is the difference between...

[Elijah John]

What is the difference between the Risen Christ and the Holy Spirit?

Which Person of the Trinity does one "invite into one's heart" in order to become "born again" and saved?

If they are the same, then how are they distinct "Persons"?

If not, how is that still Monotheism?

[marco]

Also, your recent posts on the Trinity were difficult for me because they reflect some serious misunderstandings about the traditional Trinitarian formulas. You brought up "attributes." But that is way off from the traditional formulations.

Of course I know that "attributes" are not involved in the Creed. I said:

" In other words you've transformed the Trinity from a mystery to a simple statement of component parts."

In saying this I am stating that "component parts" or "attributes" are NOT correct in a statement of the Trinity. You seemed to be in that error.

As I said, the doctrine is framed as a mystery because its plain acceptance involves illogicality. When we seek to explain away the illogicality we are no longer dealing with the Trinity, but some revised version of it. Importantly the spirit IS God; the Son IS God; they are not PART of God, as Einstein's hand is part of Einstein. You have the wrong idea here, and the reason for your error is that you are trying to rationalise the irrational.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 80 by hoghead1]

I would like to thank you for your response. And I would have if it had actually addressed the confusion I have raised. But it did not.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 81 by marco]

That isn't at all an accurate rendering to the Trinity, however. For one thing, the Trinity is an extra-biblical collection of formulations. It's rooted or implied by Scripture, yes; but there is no word "Trinity" used in the Bible, nor any of the Trinitarian formulations. The "homoousios" comes exclusively from Aristotelian substance metaphysics, and is not found in Scripture. You could say the Trinity is largely the invention of the church fathers. So there is no revealed "Trinity" to go on. All Scripture does is provide passages that identify but the Son and Spirit as Deity, but does not spell out how they are God, what exactly the differences are between the three, nor what exactly God's internal structure is. The rest was left up to us to figure out.
I am well aware that God was assumed to be wholly simple, without parts. However, the problem is that the Trinity does suggest at least three components to God. It does so by differentiating the Father, Son, and Spirit form one another. The Father is not the Son, the Son not the Father, etc. The Son suffers, but not the Father, etc. On the other hand, having given each "person" a specific, unique identity, Augustine and other fathers then turned around and tended to describe them, as being al alike. That is very obvious in Augustine's psychological model of the Trinity. Hence, they had in mind an arithmetic concept of unity--all alike, no components, and so really no Trinity. However, if you think in terms of an organic unity, then there is no problem with God having components or parts.

The Trinity was said to be a mystery simply to rationalize the muddled, irrational thinking on the par of the fathers. They went on the notion that God is a monad, and then tried to wedge into that monad the highly complex, relational machinery of the Trinity.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 82 by McCulloch]

Well, sorry. Guess I don't understand the confusion you have. Maybe you could better explain it to me some time?

[marco]

[Replying to post 81 by marco]

That isn't at all an accurate rendering to the Trinity, however.

It is the rendering of the Trinity that Christianity follows and it is sensible to discuss the Trinity that has been defined for us.

You have extracted another trio from Scripture and joined them up to produce your own trinity. I wonder why you think this is superior to what past thinkers have come up with? In any case, if you depart from the standard notion of Trinity, why take three attributes for your own design rather than, say, seven? Your selection seems arbitrary.

As I said, the orthodox Trinity is a mystery. Ergo - explanation is futile.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 84 by hoghead1]

You could clear up the confusion by providing an example, any example other than God, of something that is one essence but multiple components.

"It is complicated" does not help any more than "It is a mystery." However, complicated things can all be broken down into simpler parts. So, please, walk us through it. Step by step.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 86 by McCulloch]




[center]Word game from the pointy hatted community[/center]

You could clear up the confusion by providing an example, any example other than God, of something that is one essence but multiple components.

That's TOO easy.

I offer myself up as an example:

1. Man
2. Cat
3. Really annoying debater

My trinity was ridiculously easy to create.
I could do these all day.

So, I'm not TOO impressed by the bishops at Nicea.

The "Holy Trinity" is child's play, really.
By the way, I love the bishops' hats.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 86 by McCulloch]

I thought I made it plain that I do not hold with substance metaphysics. So I'm not the right person to ask about that.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 85 by marco]

I haven't yet presented my take on the Trinity, and I'm not sure this is the right time. And I am not sure what you mean by the "orthodox Trinity." "Trinity," singular, is a bit of a misnomer. There were a number of theories or models of the Trinity historically presented. The immanent theory, the economic, the social, the modal, the psychological, etc.
So that we don't get into a long and involved discussion here, I am content to say that the Trinity is a mystery due to questionable metaphysics being applied. If the "orthodox" want to claim it's all due to the mystery of God, so be it. On my end, I don't buy that explanation for one minute. The problem I see is that reliance on Aristotelian substance metaphysics, which have been ruled out in modern times in favor of a dynamic, relational understanding of reality.

[marco]

I haven't yet presented my take on the Trinity, and I'm not sure this is the right time.

Perhaps June 11th would do; it is the date of Trinity Sunday this year, the first Sunday after Pentecost.

The problem I see is that reliance on Aristotelian substance metaphysics, which have been ruled out in modern times in favor of a dynamic, relational understanding of reality.

You frequently mention Aristotle in a dismissive way but his view on immaterial things is as valid, surely, as any other. He regarded theology as the highest discipline but then he didn't have access to the wonders of modern science. I assume it is theology that is offering a "rational understanding of reality" rather than a study of quantum physics. That would be contentious.