What does it mean for the three persons of the Trinity to be one in substance if the divine nature has no material body?

Also, are substance and nature the same thing in this context?

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

Great question my Brother! Where are the PB wise ones?

__________________
~etexas~

As far as I know 'homoousias' can be translated "same nature" or "same essence". I have never heard it translated "same substance".

__________________

I need to look at some stuff, I am sure I have seen "substance" before. (Not taking a position on it) it could have just been poorly done.(The translation, not what you said!)

__________________
~etexas~

Here's where you've heard it....


WSC
Q. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;[20] and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

Is "substance" necessarily material? Are not the angels "spiritual substance"?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

In this context I would think that "substance" is equal to "nature" or "being". It is an ontological term, I believe.

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

Wow do I feel dumb. But it seems that modern Christianity favors the terms 'nature' or 'essence'. Perhaps that is because the word 'substance' seems to cause confusion these days. (For the reasons stated above)

__________________

Don't feel dumb, I am the one who could not remember where I saw substance used within that context. DOH!

__________________
~etexas~

Substance doesn't have to be material. Take for example the substance of the self in Cartesian substance dualism.

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA

The terms "essence" and "nature" are not new. Belgic Confession (1561)Article 8 uses the term "essense." Heidleberg Catechism Q. 25 uses "essence."

I like the wording of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) III. 3 "...So that there are not three Gods, but three persons, consubstantial, coeternal; distinct...as touching their nature or essence, they are so joined that they are but one God; and the divine esence is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

I would argue that the implies something physical, at least in common usage (now at least). However, it looks like it can also be used metaphorically, i.e. when speaking of the "substance" of a conversation, or also when speaking of philosophy, as you and the Catechism have shown.

I prefer "essence" (Latin esse, "to be") and "nature."

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics