Trinitarian exam

[Notthemama1984]

I have a trinitarian exam next week. I have been brushing up on the subject and was curious if you saw any deficiencies or could think of something else I should study up on as well.

So far I have

OT references to the Trinity
NT References to the Trinity
References to the complete divinity of each of the Persons
Show the roles in creation each Person has
Define trinitarian heresies

I have no clue what is on the exam. It is a two hour exam on the Trinity is all I know.

Any help is appreciated.

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------

Also I know which creeds deal with the Trinity. I understand the filoque clause and the split it caused.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

See if you can obtain copies of the following:

1. Gerald Bray's The Doctrine of God

2. Robert Letham's The Holy Trinity

You have listed some necessary resources, but you will need more along the lines of the development of the Trinitarian doctrine.

For example, at at the risk of holding myself up to ridicule, suppose I wrote:

The Persons of the Trinity are not three separate divine essences. They are co-equal and co-sharers of the one divine essence of God. Hence we say, in theological terms, the three Persons of the Trinity are three personal subsistences of the one, divine, essence. The word "Person" is unfortunately become overtaken by contemporary meanings, versus what the word meant when the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated from Scripture many, many, years ago.

I do not think one can deny the Trinity and be a Christian. It is an essential of the faith, and even the rules here at CF require Trinitarianism for anyone claiming to be Christian.

God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual being. We can say the same by stating, God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual essence. Essence is that by which something is what it is, that is, its nature. The word quiddity and its derivatives (e.g., quidditive) is sometimes used when discussing essence.

Generally speaking, essence and being are interchangeable in most discussions of God. Some also use nature and essence interchangeably. But I try to avoid the use of the word nature when discussing the doctrine of God, given the word’s heavy use when discussing the Incarnation. (As a rule one should avoid polymorphisms in theological discussions, but it is impossible for some topics, especially the Incarnation.)

While there is but one essence of God, there are three distinctly different modes of subsistence in that essence, which we call Persons. Unfortunately, as I stated above, in this modern era the word person carries much more baggage than it did when the Trinitarian doctrines were being formulated. We tend to think of a person as a separately existing beings from other beings. It is generally admitted that the word person is but an imperfect expression of the idea of the Persons of the Godhead. Hence, in God there are not three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but three personal self-distinctions within the single divine essence, i.e., three modes of subsistence.

The word subsistence is the subject of much philosophical debate, especially with respect to its connection to essence and existence. At issue is how essence makes its existence known. Formally speaking, subsistence is the means of individuation of essence with respect to existence. Less philosophically, subsistence is the means by which essence exercises existence, or even more succinctly, subsistence means something that really exists.

Thus we can say that the divine essence does not exist independently along with the three Persons. The divine essence has no existence outside of and apart from the three Persons. For if the divine essence did, there would be no true unity, but a division that would lead into tetratheism.

John Feinberg notes:

“the three persons (hypostaseis / prosopoi) coinhering in the one divine nature (ousia) exist simultaneously with one another as distinct subsistences or persons. This means that the divine essence is not at one time entirely manifest as the Father (but not in or as the Son or Spirit), and then at another moment manifest exclusively as the Son, and yet again at another time solely as the Spirit. Rather, all three persons . . . exist simultaneously” (Src:No One Like Him).​

God’s essence is common to the three Persons of the Godhead, and God’s essence is not communicated from one Person to another Person. Each Person partakes of the essence of God, possessing it as one undivided essence. Portions of the essence of God are not divided up to be enjoyed by each Person, instead the whole essence is enjoyed by each, as “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells” (Col. 2:9, also John 15:16).

For each mode subsisting in the divine essence, each of the Persons has a distinct mode of subsistence, such that we can say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

Can you follow the discussion? Identify where things are a wee bit too fuzzy? Agree with anything? Violently disagree with some aspects? Able to rehabilitate the discussion more precisely and in keeping with Reformed thought? etc.

AMR

 

[Edward]

and in keeping with Reformed thought?

It's my recollection that he isn't at a reformed school.

 

[jason d]

Trinity Outline/Notes from Sunday Seminary | Sovereign Joy Community Church

Who is the Word/Logos? [John 1:1] | Sovereign Joy Community Church

 

[Notthemama1984]

Yes I am not going to Reformed school, but I wouldn't think that there is a difference between Reformed Trinitarianism and Dispensational Triniarianism (except for the formulation of the Covenant of Redemption maybe. Reformed point to redemption and see that a covenant needed to be made, but the Dispensational sees redemption and the various roles of the Godhead in redemption and leaves it right there.)

Patrick,

It seems that the quote is advocating modalism vs. orthodox trinitarianism at times. Would you agree or am I reading into the quote?

In my reading I read "essence" and "subsistence," but never three "modes of subsistence" as the quote spoke about.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I have a trinitarian exam next week. I have been brushing up on the subject and was curious if you saw any deficiencies or could think of something else I should study up on as well.

So far I have

OT references to the Trinity
NT References to the Trinity
References to the complete divinity of each of the Persons
Show the roles in creation each Person has
Define trinitarian heresies

I have no clue what is on the exam. It is a two hour exam on the Trinity is all I know.

Any help is appreciated.

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------

Also I know which creeds deal with the Trinity. I understand the filoque clause and the split it caused.

Sounds like you've got it all wrapped up with a nice pretty bow on top. As long as you know the things you mentioned in a thorough manner - you're set... academically, anyway.

The only thing I'd encourage you to consider is the practical or pastoral implications/application(s) of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes I am not going to Reformed school, but I wouldn't think that there is a difference between Reformed Trinitarianism and Dispensational Triniarianism (except for the formulation of the Covenant of Redemption maybe. Reformed point to redemption and see that a covenant needed to be made, but the Dispensational sees redemption and the various roles of the Godhead in redemption and leaves it right there.)

Patrick,

It seems that the quote is advocating modalism vs. orthodox trinitarianism at times. Would you agree or am I reading into the quote?

In my reading I read "essence" and "subsistence," but never three "modes of subsistence" as the quote spoke about.

Actually, my use of mode here is not in the context of modalism. Your assumption is a perfect example of the many issues when discussing the Trinity informally.

Again, these are the issues that an understanding of the historical development of the Trinitarian doctrines would help you see how some words used today co-opt the understanding of these same words used by the church forefathers. This polymorphism is an issue we continue to struggle with when discussing the Trinity in casual settings. Unless all terms are carefully defined, e.g., "person", "mode", "essence", "being", etc., the conversations quickly go sideways.

AMR

 

[toddpedlar]

I have a trinitarian exam next week. I have been brushing up on the subject and was curious if you saw any deficiencies or could think of something else I should study up on as well.

So far I have

OT references to the Trinity
NT References to the Trinity
References to the complete divinity of each of the Persons
Show the roles in creation each Person has
Define trinitarian heresies

I have no clue what is on the exam. It is a two hour exam on the Trinity is all I know.

Any help is appreciated.

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------

Also I know which creeds deal with the Trinity. I understand the filoque clause and the split it caused.

Don't neglect the study of the Trinity in redemption and of the three persons of the Trinity each in their distinct roles in relation to the life of the believer.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Yes I am not going to Reformed school, but I wouldn't think that there is a difference between Reformed Trinitarianism and Dispensational Triniarianism (except for the formulation of the Covenant of Redemption maybe. Reformed point to redemption and see that a covenant needed to be made, but the Dispensational sees redemption and the various roles of the Godhead in redemption and leaves it right there.)

Patrick,

It seems that the quote is advocating modalism vs. orthodox trinitarianism at times. Would you agree or am I reading into the quote?

In my reading I read "essence" and "subsistence," but never three "modes of subsistence" as the quote spoke about.

Actually, my use of mode here is not in the context of modalism. Your assumption is a perfect example of the many issues when discussing the Trinity informally.

Again, these are the issues that an understanding of the historical development of the Trinitarian doctrines would help you see how some words used today co-opt the understanding of these same words used by the church forefathers. This polymorphism is an issue we continue to struggle with when discussing the Trinity in casual settings. Unless all terms are carefully defined, e.g., "person", "mode", "essence", "being", etc., the conversations quickly go sideways.

AMR

Just to be clear, I wasn't thinking you were advocating modalism. I was thinking you were merely "testing" me.

If you do not mind, could you define how you are using "mode?"

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sorry, Boliver, I was not testing you.

By mode I do not mean mode of manifestation (Sabellianism), but mode of existence or subsistence. The mode, or particular variety of something, is that subsistence of one Person of the Trinity, while related to the other two subsistences, is distinguishable from them by incommunicable properties. Some would equate "mode" with "forms", but this is another word that carries too much philosophical baggage.

AMR

 

[Notthemama1984]

Now I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.