The Concept of the Most Holy Trinity - The Relationship between the Three Persons in One God

Boston Catholic Journal ^

[NYer]

The Concept of the Most Holy Trinity

The Relationship between the Three Persons in One God

 

Some doctrines perplex us more than others. Offhand, we could enumerate the following:

• The Incarnation (the infinite God is born of a woman, the Virgin Mary, and takes upon Himself our finite humanity)

• The Virginal Birth (Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the conception and birth of her Son, Jesus)

• The Immaculate Conception (Mary's being conceived in her own mother's womb without the stain of Original Sin)

• Creation ex nihilo (the creation by God of something out of nothing)

We assent to these dogmas (dogma, just by the way, is not a four letter word --- but rather, a formally revealed truth) although they remain mysteries, that is to say, they exceed the capacity of reason, while not conflicting with it. No logical contradiction can be adduced to discredit them; they simply lie beyond the province of our natural experience and the limitations inherent in reason (and reason has limitations: we need only ponder the concepts of infinity, infinite divisibility, and eternity to name a few).

Among these dogmas, or revealed truths, however, none quite so perplexes us as the notion of the Most Holy Trinity. That in and of itself it remains a profound mystery is profoundly true. However, because it pertains to the most central aspect of our faith as Catholics and Christians, inasmuch as it pertains to the Person and nature of God, we attempt to apprehend it in some measure, for only in knowing something, in knowing of its nature, can we begin to love it. We do not love what we do not know, and our knowing defectively or insufficiently results in our loving defectively or deficiently.

We wish to know God. We wish to know Him well. In fact, we are convinced --- and rightly so --- that the more we know about God, the more we will find to love in Him, and the more we love, the greater our own felicity ... especially when that love is requited.

Too often, in the minds of Christians, God is reduced to the Father: conceived as an elderly, avuncular figure with a great white beard Who is rather stern and quite distant; one Who is really very little involved in the trivial affairs of men, and so sent His Son instead, and the Son, of course, is less than the Father. What is more, the Son is more compassionate than this remote and rather irascible figure that more resembles Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, than a Father. We like Jesus --- although we fear His Father. In fact, for so many, Christian and pagan alike, Jesus was merely a man, perhaps a wise man, maybe even a prophet of sorts --- but not more. Well ... maybe ... but we are not quite sure how. The Holy Spirit? This faceless Spirit, whatever its nature, clearly cannot be that of a person, although He nevertheless figures largely in this mysterious narrative. Quite a conundrum.

Ask quite nearly every adult Catholic who has, over the past 40 years, suffered from the inexcusable negligence in Catechism, or CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine), as we call it here in America --- a negligence that lays at the feet of the Bishops who, opting for a more visible correctitude in matters social and political, have defaulted on their primary responsibility as Teachers of the Faith in their respective dioceses --- and the answer is the same, although the inflections vary: "I really don't know", or, "it is terribly unclear to me."

Many --- perhaps most --- will reply that there are three gods, or that one is superior to the other, or existed prior to the other, or in fact, that only one is God and the others are something of the nature of demiurges or lesser gods, possessed of remarkable abilities, to be sure, but rather like us in every other way.

Saint Augustine literally wrote volumes on the subject (De Trinitate), as did Saint Thomas Aquinas and many, many, other great and learned Saints. Even the the most modest compendium using the utmost concision will, very likely, avail you little in the way of understanding the most fundamental features of this doctrine, this profound mystery --- and in failing to yield understanding in whatever measure, consequently failing to motivate love for that which is not understood.

Perhaps, then, as it is said, "a picture (in this case a diagram) is worth a thousand words".  So, for the sake of  those who should be teaching and do not, or are teaching and know little of what they teach --- but most of all for the children, we present you a picture --- in the shameful absence of words.

Our motivation is simple: if you do not know God, how can you love Him?

Oh ... yes, ...God does not "look like" the conceptual drawing ... and we truly fear that we are compelled to say that ...
 

[NYer]

And there is only one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus.

The heresy of Monophysitism was rejected by the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451AD.

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

---

Definition concerning the two natures of Christ.

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul [meaning human soul] and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten — in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality [hypostasis]. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word [Logos], God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers [the Nicene Creed] has handed down to us.

Therefore, now that we have set forth all these things with a care and diligence exact in every respect, the holy and universal Synod defines once and for all that no one may profess, write up or compose, think, or teach to others, any other faith.

---

[Eagle Eye]

I’ll stick to the Bible, thanyouverymuch.

And this fairy tale about a perpetual virgin! LOL....

[stuartcr]

In order to believe that false doctrines were taught, one would have to believe there is a true doctrine. How could that be proven?

[1 spark]

Why many reject the notion of a trinity:

This is from a messianic site, that supports Jesus as the messiah...but not as God, or part of a trinity.
http://www.torahofmessiah.com/trinity_art.html

Also, Biblical Unitarians see Jesus as the son of God, but not as part of a trinity, co-equal with God. They back their position w/ scripture...and also address the gospel of John, which is always the gospel Christians use to “prove” that Jesus claimed to be God:

http://biblicalunitarian.com/html/index.php

This site denounces the trinity too (but i think they beleive Jesus was the messiah) Go here and click on Lesson 5 which clearly shows Jesus as inferior to God the Father.
http://www.hutchinsoncog.com/SysTheology/index.html

And the following sites explain the Christian reinterpretation of Jewish scripture:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/trintorah.html (”Is the Trinity Found in the Torah?” addresses the Christian re- interpretation of Gen.)

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq134.html (addresses Gen 1:26)

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html (addresses much more re: the trinity)

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html (addresses Gen 1:26)

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/ (Click on “God is one and indivisible” in the left hand column.)

[Zuriel]

**What a nice way to begin Sunday morning by calling our Lord, Jesus Christ, a liar. Matthew 16:18.**

Now that’s a accusation that won’t stick, as much as you would like it too. I never accused Peter, or any of the apostles, of misleading the church. You ASSUMED that I was implying that.

What saith Peter? “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you....”. “For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh (your best life now!??) through much wantonness.....while they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption...”(portions of 2 Peter 2).

Paul encountered false doctrine in his first missionary journey, and warned the elders of the church in Ephesus, “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Acts 20:30.

John warned of the corrupt church member, Diotrephes, in 3 John 9-11.

The entire epistle of Jude is a warning of the efforts of church corruption.

Revelation chapters 2 and 3 solidly back this up. All seven are told, “he that overcometh..” receive blessings. By the grace of God I am, and will continue to be, an overcomer.

Have a blessed day!

[Frank Sheed]

But have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour? This discussion of teamwork can go no further until we settle that major point.

Oh, and by the way, are you saved?

Frank
;-o)

[MHGinTN]

As a writer, I enjoy analogies and analogizing. I had never seen the wheel diagram and found it something that could be useful, just as my analogy to the three expressions of dimension space has been useful in conceptualizing that which is a mystery we will not know the full of on this side of the veil/vail.

You say God is Spirit, and the scriptures agree with your assertion:

John 4:23&24 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God is also greater than Spirit, as the Creator of spirits and the realm in which they dwell and have meaning. Referring to my analogy of the expressions of dimension space, we could say God is the volume of the room, the walls of the room, and everything beyond the room, but He has chosen to create realms where certain 'limits' define the realm, anything in that realm, and the qualities of the inhabitants of that realm. Then He deigned to step into those realms with an amount, an aspect of His power and majesty.

Lifting from a portion of a current writing project, there is a realm mentioned in the Bible which is completely outside of your physical sensing, yet it is less than an arm's length away from you continuously. What defines the limits of that realm? Is it some aspect of dimension Time about which we do not yet have knowledge? Possibly; I address this in the piece I'm working on. The scriptures contain several hints to this realm, not the least of which is found in the fifth chapter of Daniel. In the resurrection accounts and visitations by the risen Christ, we have indication that Jesus left the tomb without the seal broken and the stone rolled away, and he appeared in a locked room without using a door or window.

If you desire to scoff, at least become more acquainted with the subject over which you seek importance for your scoffing.

[MHGinTN]

I’m not a Catholic, but you ought to be more specific if you wish to question Mary’s perpetual virginity ... HINT: if Jesus can appear in a locked room without using the door or window, can leave a sealed rock tomb without rolling away the stone, there is little to leaving Mary’s womb without using the ‘usual’ passageway of birthing.

[MHGinTN]

ping

[NYer]

In order to believe that false doctrines were taught, one would have to believe there is a true doctrine. How could that be proven?

I presume you are referring to this statement ...

It wasn’t long after the church was born that false doctrine was taught

First off, the poster does not support his statement. Where is the evidence? Regardless, in Matt. 16:18, Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

[NYer]

What saith Peter? “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you....”. “For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh (your best life now!??) through much wantonness.....while they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption...”(portions of 2 Peter 2).

A study of the early history of the Church would clarify Peter's words. In 1st century Rome, there was another shepherd working tirelessly among God's lost sheep. Like Peter, his given name was Simon. Both men referred to themselves as apostles, thus confusing the local citizens. Both have come to Rome preaching in the name of Jesus the Nazarene, crucified God of the Christians. Though Simon of Gitto is technically a Samaritan rather than a Jew, the majority of the pagans regarded him as simply another semitic prophet.

Simon of Gitto is Simon Magus, founder of the ancient heresy called gnosticism. He was the former disciple of Philip the evangelist but apostatized to become the first person in recorded history to teach falsehood in the holy name of Jesus. Recall Christ's warning in Mt 7:15.

In Chapter XXIII, Doctrines and practices of Simon Magus and Menander, Irenaeus tells us:

1. Simon the Samaritan was that magician of whom Luke, the disciple and follower of the apostles, says, “But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime used magical arts in that city, and led astray the people of Samaria, declaring that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This is the power of God, which is called great. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had driven them mad by his sorceries.”²⁹³⁴    Acts viii. 9–11. This Simon, then—who feigned faith, supposing that the apostles themselves performed their cures by the art of magic, and not by the power of God; and with respect to their filling with the Holy Ghost, through the imposition of hands, those that believed in God through Him who was preached by them, namely, Christ Jesus—suspecting that even this was done through a kind of greater knowledge of magic, and offering money to the apostles, thought he, too, might receive this power of bestowing the Holy Spirit on whomsoever he would,—was addressed in these words by Peter: “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God can be purchased with money: thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God; for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.”²⁹³⁵    Acts viii. 20, 21, 23. He, then, not putting faith in God a whit the more, set himself eagerly to contend against the apostles, in order that he himself might seem to be a wonderful being, and applied himself with still greater zeal to the study of the whole magic art, that he might the better bewilder and overpower multitudes of men. Such was his procedure in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, by whom also he is said to have been honoured with a statue, on account of his 348 magical power.²⁹³⁶    Comp. Just. Mart., Apol., i. 26. It is generally supposed that Simon Magus was thus confounded with the Sabine god, Semo Sancus; but see our note, loc. cit. [And mine at end of the First Apology. Consult Orelli’s Inscriptions there noted.] This man, then, was glorified by many as if he were a god; and he taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit. He represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all, and he allowed himself to be called by whatsoever title men were pleased to address him.
ref

Justin Martyr, writing about AD153, addressed an impassioned defense of Christianity to the emperor himself. His book is called First Apology. In it he preserves additional details about Simon's time in Rome.

After Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods ... There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: "Simoni Deo Sancto - To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledte him as the first god.

Reading the Early Church Fathers is a good accompaniment to the Bible, for it fills in the historical blanks of that time. One of the most popular books to get you started is this one:

Rod Bennett

It is available through Amazon.com.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights!

The Hubble telescope's main 100 inch mirror taking tiny pictures of a 156 billion light years wide universe has a better chance of seeing the whole cosmos at once than any man has in imagining the fullness of the Godhead with his puny, mortal mind.

And yet God the Father reveals Himself to us in four ways: by Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, by the indwelling Holy Spirit, by His words in Scripture and by the Creation both spiritual and physical.

That one having received these revelations speaks with geometric metaphors should not be offensive to one who speaks with water, steam, ice metaphors which should not be offensive to another who speaks with a wheel metaphor and so on.

Metaphors use sensible objects to represent things which are beyond mere sensory perception. They convey in ways that words alone cannot (e.g. prophesy) and for that reason, they also can hide truth in plain view (e.g. parables.)

The bottom line is that only God knows "all that there is" - and He reveals Himself to each of us, personally, according to His own will. Our cognition (both spiritual and physical) is a gift of God.

[MHGinTN]

Maranatha Jesus!

[NYer]

I’ll stick to the Bible, thanyouverymuch.

You mean the one compiled by the Catholic Church. The list of books that comprise the Bible is referred to as the canon. There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon.

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

[MHGinTN]

The Septuagint was widely available to the first believers, especially where Jews were proselytized. Scholars had the Septuagint even in Jesus’s day, and Jesus quoted from it and other ‘apocrypha.’

[ichabod1]

Saved just this morning by His Most Precious Body and Blood!

[NYer]

The Septuagint was widely available to the first believers, especially where Jews were proselytized. Scholars had the Septuagint even in Jesus’s day, and Jesus quoted from it and other ‘apocrypha.’

Most Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. When the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) set the canon of the New Testament they also confirmed the Septuagint as the Old Testament. Further evidence of the Septuagint's acceptance by the early Church can be found in the New Testament itself. It quotes the Old Testament approximately 350 times. Three hundred of those quotes are from the Septuagint. Surely this amounts to an overwhelming endorsement by the early Church.

Some raise objections over supposed errors. One example is in Judith 1:1-7. Here Nebuchadnezzar is called the king of Assyria when in fact it is well known that he was the king of Babylon. But Judith is not a historical book; it's a religious novel. The combining of the Babylonians and the Assyrians is a representation of the enemies of Israel. Both had conquered Israel at one time or another. Judith means Jewess and she represents the whole of Judaism. The lesson of the book is to rely on God's way of deliverance no matter what the method. Similar objections are raised over verses in Tobit, which are likewise symbolic and not historical.
source

BTW, I did not realize that you are not a Catholic. You are an excellent apologetist ... kudos!

[Frank Sheed]

Praise the Lord! I say “Amen” to that!

[Frank Sheed]

The writer, Frank Sheed, in his book “Theology and Sanity” has a nice treatment of all of this in his early chapters. God, of course is outside time and space. He existed before their creation and so issues regarding this are meaningless to Him. This is why the Psalms are so beautiful when they suggest that a human life span is but a breath to the Lord.

Perhaps you’ll have a moment to read some of Sheed’s work? The work on the Trinity is quite good.

Peace in Christ Jesus!
F

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for the tip. I’ve not read anything by Frank Sheed, but it is going on my book list along with the Rod Bennett book. I need to get my list ordered before it gets bigger than my monthly budget will allow!