Ok ty, is it then wrong to refer to the Son and Holy Spirit as God? Or the Holy Trinity as God?
I don't think so, no -- not if you're talking to theologically-read trinitarians. But what I think Fr. Tom's talking about here is how some heretical groups talk about "the God who is Trinity" -- modalism, in other words -- where we have "the God" who IS the Father, who is ALSO the Son AND the Holy Spirit.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here with my (very) limited Greek abilities and say that, imo, when Christ or the Spirit is talked about as "God," the word
theos can also mean "divine," or describe something as having the nature of God. So "in the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God" -- because God the Father is not Himself completely without His Word which has been with Him from eternity, though the Word is not the One Who spoke Him, nor the Breath (
pnevma, or "spirit") which was used to speak said Word eternally -- "and the Word was...divine." "God," or "of the nature of God," in the same way that "God" (read: The Father) is divine.
Being "one in essence" is very much highlighted this way.
I really like how Frs. Tom Hopko, John Behr, and others have recently tackled the way in which the Trinity can be presented to others in more "semetic" terms -- particularly to Muslims and Jews, who do believe in one "person" as God, together with His Eternal Word and the Breath or Living Spirit of that One God. Now, the differences in what Jews, Christians and Muslims believe are the
activities of said God-with-Word-and-Spirit can and should definitely be discussed (for they are myriad), but at least this is a way in which we can begin to find common ground about the
nature of the Godhead.
