God and His Son

[darinhouston]

Paidion,

I do believe you are in error, though I probably did not explain myself very well.

You wrote:

Homer to Darin wrote:
If I understand you, your position is the same as that which I believe to be the best explanation: not three persons but one God as three simultaneous persona?

This is a position known as "Oneness" or "modalism" (in its simultaneous form), or in the early centuries: "Sabellianism". This belief predated Trinitarianism, and is currently held by the United Pentecostal Church and by the Apostolic Church.

Many people who think they are Trinitarians actually hold the Oneness position.

Persona was the word in Latin chosen by Tertullian in the 2nd century to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is why in traditional western theology it is said that that God is “three persons and one substance (or essence).” This is naturally regarded as polytheism by other monotheistic religions like Judaism and Islam. And I have a difficulty with it. It is incomprehensible when I look at Webster's definition of "person". In our modern thought, "persons" are individuals. It helps to recognize that the term “person” in the ancient world meant something somewhat different than it does to us. We tend to think of a person as a free, independent consciousness with his or her own will. If that’s the case, then we really do have three gods. Theologian Karl Barth proposed the term “mode of being” instead of “person,” but this way of phrasing things is a little too close to the old modalist heresy, which, interestingly, Tertullion was arguing against when he used "persona". In either case, the “persons” of the Trinity are distinct in role, but always work together and never apart. They share a single will and single essence, but are in relation to one another. The image the Eastern Church uses to describe this relationship–perichoresis, is the illustration we have probably all heard of the sun, in its manifestations, as an attempted anaolgy. The analogy is an ancient one; it was also used by Tertullian. And he followed the word persona with trinitas, which was a term he also coined. It was a new word; it is said that no other Latin writer had used it before.

As I have said before, we can not go very far in this matter without going into speculation. I am comfortable with "persona", as I understand it, and I think "three persons" in the modern sense of the words is too close to polytheism for comfort. Words do have a definate meaning and if we insist on non-biblical formulas as required for faith in Christ I believe we lay a burden on people that our Lord did not intend they should have to bear.

I think I need to read more of Tertullian's discussion of "persona." Do you know where he engages this discussion?

[darinhouston]

I found this...

(I guess I need to read "Against Praxeam" -- http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm)

Tertullian's main doctrinal teachings are as follows:

***
3. God, who made the world out of nothing through his Son, the Word, has corporeity though he is a spirit (De praescriptione, vii.; Adv. Praxeam, vii.). However Tertullian used 'corporeal' only in the stoic sense, to mean something with actual existence, rather than the later idea of flesh. In the statement of the Trinity, Tertullian was a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine, approaching the subject from the standpoint of the Logos doctrine, though he did not state the immanent Trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught patripassianism in Rome, he used the words, " Trinity and economy, persons and substance." The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv). "These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance." The very names "Father" and "Son" indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one (Adv. Praxeam, ix). As regards the question whether the Son was coeternal with the Father, many believe that Tertullian did not teach that. The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that for Tertullian, "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge."[13].[14] Similarly J.N.D. Kelly has stated: "Tertullian followed the Apologists in dating His “perfect generation” from His extrapolation for the work of creation; prior to that moment God could not strictly be said to have had a Son, while after it the term “Father”, which for earlier theologians generally connoted God as author of reality, began to acquire the specialized meaning of Father and Son."[15]. As regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: "In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical."[16]

***

[13]^ "Tertullian," The Catholic Encyclopedia
[14]^ B. B. Warfield in Princeton Theological Review, 1906, pp. 56, 159.
[15]^ J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Continual International Publishing Book, c1960, 2000, p. 112
[16]^ W. Le Saint, "Tertullian," The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Thompson Gale, 2003, Vol. 13, p. 837.

[Paidion]

I think I need to read more of Tertullian's discussion of "persona." Do you know where he engages this discussion?

Here is a website where you may read Tertullian's discourse against Praxeas:

Against Praxeas

[Paidion]

Persona was the word in Latin chosen by Tertullian in the 2nd century to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Actually, it is the word chosen by him to describe each one of them. "Persona" is a singular word. Tertullian believed in three personae. And what is a "persona"? As you stated it did not mean an individual consciousness, but according to Wikipedia:

"A persona, in the word's everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. This is an Italian word that derives from the Latin for "mask" or "character", derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", with the same meaning."

So Tertullian saw the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three "masks" or social roles which the One Individual played ---- not three divine Persons (as we understand the term). This is exactly the teaching of the Oneness groups of our present day.

Tertullian was not a classical Trinitarian, even though he coined the word "Trinitas" (Trinity).
He might be called a "proto-Trinitarian", but there was no essential difference between him and any other modalist. So what did he have against Praxeas? Praxeas didn't want to "divide" God into Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ---- not even as roles which the One Individual plays. According to Tertullian, Praxeus taught the the Father Himself was crucified. Tertullian, on the other hand, insisted on "a distribution of the unity", by which he seemed to mean that the One Divine Individual, played three different roles. Praxeas believed the Monarchy could not be "distributed" in this way. But both believed in a single Divine Individual. But in that case, what would it mean for Jesus to pray to His Father? What would it mean for Him to pray, "Not my will, but Yours be done"? If there is only one Divine Individual, this doesn't make sense.

I recall when I was only 19, and attended a Baptist Church, I asked a question about the Trinity (in which I believed at that time). The pastor's wife said, "Don, there's only one God, you know!" I could tell that she meant that there was only one PERSON. So I asked her how Jesus could have prayed to His Father as to another person. She replied, "Don, haven't you ever talked to yourself?" This sister thought she was a Trinitarian, but she was actually Oneness.

You're right, Homer. "Personae" are not "persons" as we understand the word today (individual entities each with its own consciousness). Many people today are more than one persona. They play several roles. For example, one persona exhibits itself at work, and a different one at home, though there is only a single individual consciousness. Sometimes we even use the English word "person" in this way. "You're a different person at work than you are at home!"

Modern Oneness people see God in exactly that way. "God in three personae" is not Trinitarian. It is Oneness.

[Homer]

Darin and Paidion,

If you google "Tertullian persona" you will find more on the subject than you care to read; everything from Catholic to Jehovah's Witness, and there is a lot in between. There are many opinions as to just what he meant. Regardless, Tertullian is by no means the final authority, and I brought him up to show that the idea of "persona" is ancient, and also different from the modern concept of "person".

He is a definition I thought might be helpful:

Persona. (Plural: personae.) Latin word translated as "person." Tertullian used this word in his trinitarian formula, "una substantia et tres personae" ("three persons in one substance"). Early Latin usage did not restrict the word to its modern meaning of a self-conscious being. At that time, it could mean a mask worn by an actor, a role in a drama, or a legal party to a contract. However, it apparently could also apply to individual persons. It did carry connotations of individualized personality that the Greek word hypostasis did not have originally. Although the Nicene Creed used hypostasis, which was later translated as "persona," Tertullian had already used persona much earlier to describe the members of the trinity.

[RickC]

2 quick comments

1) Tertullian wasn't a modalist.

2) Nor was Karl Barth, who used "modes" to describe the trinity. He did this because he felt the modern understanding of "persons" could lead to [a misconception of] tri-theism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A great book that covers the details of the historical development of the trinity---(stuff y'all have been asking about on this thread)---is Roger Olson's The Story of Christian Theology, (pages 130-200, IVP, 1999). I used to check this out so often from my library I finally decided to buy it. Very readable, though technical.

I've heard Olson's book, The Mosaic of Christian Belief, (IVP, 2002) is even better. "They say" it's used in many seminaries for Church History courses.

"While it is true that no passage of Scripture spells out the doctrine of the Trinity, it is also true that the whole of Scripture's witness to who God is and who Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are makes no sense at all without the model of the Trinity and that all alternative concepts end up doing violence to some essential aspect of revelation, Christian experience and possibly even reason itself," (The Mosaic of Christian Belief, p. 139).

I did an experiment:
Tried to come up with a better way of explaining the godhead (trinity).
Used scriptural support.
Took my time.
Worded it carefully.
Didn't skip details.
Conclusion: the doctrine, as set out centuries ago, can't be better stated or improved upon.
(then my experiment got lost in a computer crash, but no need to re-do it)....

Thanks

[Paidion]

Homer I have a two questions to help me understand your position better:

1. Do you consider yourself to be a Trinitarian?

2. Is God a single Individual conscious being? Or does the Son of God possess a different Individual consciousness from the Father, that is, is He a different "Person" (in the modern sense of "person")?

[Pierac]

Hello Paidion,

I have enjoyed reading your post. They are polite, well researched and written. I'm new here as you can see. From what I have read so far you do not believe in the trinity.

I wanted to ask your thoughts on the beginnings of Jesus, as in what moment did He come to exist, and what was the state and purpose of his being before being born of Mary if He then existed?

Thanks for taking the time to share your beliefs and research.

Peace,
Paul

[Paidion]

Greetings Pierac, and welcome to the forum!

I believe my position to be identical to first and second century Christian writers. Second century writers said that God begat (or produced or generated) His Son "before all ages". They also said that it was the first of God's acts. Thus I believe the begetting of the Son to have marked the beginning of time. There was no time "before" the beginning of time, for there was no "before". Otherwise, it would not have been the beginning of time. Thus there was never "a time at which the Son did not exist" as the Arians affirmed.

The second century writers associated Proverbs 8:22-31 with the begetting of the Son. Though it speaks of "wisdom", they believed that the Son was the personification of wisdom.

Yahweh created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.

The apostle John wrote in his gospel:

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made. John 1:3

So the Father and Son had an intimate relationship from the beginning. The Father created all things through the Son. The Son was at his side as a master workman. Even then, the Son did His Father's bidding, and did nothing without the Father. And so it was also after the Son was born as a human being.

The Father and the Son shared the name "Yahweh". Thus in Genesis 19:24, we read of two Yahwehs in a single verse, one acting on the earth with the power and authority of the other one acting from heaven:

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Second century writer Justin Martyr used this verse in his discussion with Trypho and other Jews to show that Jesus also was called "Yahweh". He believed that the Theophanies of the Old Testament were appearances of the Son of God on earth to speak to God's people.

[Pierac]

Hi Paidion,

Thank you for sharing, I want to add some information and share ideas…

Greetings Pierac, and welcome to the forum!

I believe my position to be identical to first and second century Christian writers. Second century writers said that God begat (or produced or generated) His Son "before all ages". They also said that it was the first of God's acts. Thus I believe the begetting of the Son to have marked the beginning of time. There was no time "before" the beginning of time, for there was no "before". Otherwise, it would not have been the beginning of time. Thus there was never "a time at which the Son did not exist" as the Arians affirmed.

The second century writers associated Proverbs 8:22-31 with the begetting of the Son. Though it speaks of "wisdom", they believed that the Son was the personification of wisdom.

Yahweh created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.

First we need to agree on what Begot or Begotten actually mean. What does “begotten” mean?

My Webster’s 1828 Dictionary reads as follows:

Begot
BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, pp. of get. Procreated; generated.

Now we would agree that God is eternal and timeless, thus God has no past and no future. God simply is being. Time appears to be a created phenomenon, for the benefit of his creation.

For example the term ‘Eternally Begotten’ would be a classic oxymoron.

To state it simply, if Jesus was Begotten (generated, or procreated) then there was a time Jesus did not exist. He is out of God, a creation of God.

Do you have another understanding of ‘Begotten’ different from Webster? I only ask because I want to know how you get past that word.

The apostle John wrote in his gospel:

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made. John 1:3

So the Father and Son had an intimate relationship from the beginning. The Father created all things through the Son. The Son was at his side as a master workman. Even then, the Son did His Father's bidding, and did nothing without the Father. And so it was also after the Son was born as a human being.

The Father and the Son shared the name "Yahweh". Thus in Genesis 19:24, we read of two Yahwehs in a single verse, one acting on the earth with the power and authority of the other one acting from heaven:


Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Second century writer Justin Martyr used this verse in his discussion with Trypho and other Jews to show that Jesus also was called "Yahweh". He believed that the Theophanies of the Old Testament were appearances of the Son of God on earth to speak to God's people.

There are several issues here. First your translation of John 1:3 is not quite accurate. (This is a whole post in and of it’s self, and we will cover it if you wish ). Second, you are show signs of Hellenistic influence. Almost all the early Church Fathers were well versed in Greek philosophy; and unfortunately they incorporated Christianity into their world view. The scripture are Hebraic in nature and do not mix well with Hellenistic beliefs systems.

Hebrews 1:1-2. would appear to give Justin Martyr’s belief of Jesus in the O.T. some trouble.

Heb 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, :2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages.

God spoke to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways BUT now in these last days has spoken to us in His Son. These last days Paul is talking about the messianic age. The Son was not a spokesman for God in the O.T. according to Paul.


I hope I am not coming across as rude, I’m just sharing my studies and present beliefs. I say present because, I have been wrong in the past and I see no reason why I could not be wrong in the present or future. Therefore I use the term present beliefs. I keep my mind open for the teaching of the Spirit.

Peace,
Paul