Replies

Paragraph 14 of what you quote from Hippolytus is an exposition of a Trinitarian theology.

I know that St. Photius the Great considered St. Hippolytus (yes, he is venerated East and West) as one of the great opponents of Sabellius, whose modalist heresy—denying the reality of the hypostases, and seeing Father, Son and Holy Spirit as modes of expression of the One God—St. Photius saw as revived in the heresy of the filioque.

I think you confuse the Latin understanding of the Trinity with the doctrine of the Trinity per se. The Latins locate the unity of the Godhead in a common abstract Divine Essence. The Orthodox regard there as being One God because there if One Father from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. The Cappadocian Fathers, and the Greek Fathers, began their triadology with the experience of the Church from the Apostles onward: that Christ is God, that the Spirit is God, and that the Father whom they make known is God, rather than with speculation about unknowable essences.

Your characterization “one God made up of 3 manifestations” is Sabellius’ heresy, not the teaching of the Church, neither Orthodox nor Latin, and thus rightly criticized as heresy by Hippolytus. And “entities” is too imprecise.
It is not merely that God is manifested as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but that He *is* Father, Son and Holy Spirit, subsisting always and from before eternity in three hypostases. God is love, not God became love when He created something to love. Love is necessarily interpersonal. And, yes, there is but one Divine Nature, in which the three hypostases subsist, and which they make manifest.

Oh, and I will not answer your massive cut-and-paste from whoever’s commentary on triadology it was. Post it as a new thread if you want it discussed.

Thanks for your reply. I think part of the point Hippolytus was making is that the Trinity argument isn’t backed by scripture, the early teachings of the church (pre-Nicene Creed), nor by reasoned logic.

Surely you’ve read the events leading up to, & including the formulation of the creed. Constantine was hardly found to noble in his actions. The authorities claimed no direct divine intervention, thus leaving the “wise & learned” to their own devices. Hardly what the apostles taught nor envisioned.

Your mention of nothing but # 14 is somewhat conspicuous. There are many other important points, ones that frankly are hard to argue against.

I do understand your reluctance to tackle the other post as well. Others here have demurred likewise. It’s a salient argument & one that’s very difficult to refute. I cited scripture from the New Testament, as well as cogent arguments from noted theologians. You called someone out for their statement on the Trinity. I thought I would give another point of view, one that folks like Hippolytus, Origen, et al seemed to have shared.

I respect your opinion on the subject. However, yours is not the only viable option in the argument, nor necessarily the right one. After centuries, man found that the “wise’ weren’t correct about the world being flat either. It happens. What we do when it “happens” is how we will account for our stewardship in the end.

It’s an interesting topic, one that is not as cut & dry as many think. Traditions, not logic, or truth for that matter, would lead many to think otherwise.

Best wishes for a great week.