The Orthodox Church view of the Trinity

[Ghassanid]

Nothing in all creation is as complicated as the Trinity and I'm having a real hard time understanding it. Could anyone please give me an Orthodox explanation of the Trinity by explaining it or giving me a link to a video or article. Also could someone answer these questions:
Is God the Father superior to God the Son?
Is God the Father the God of the Old Testament who speaks to the prophets and gave the ten commandments?
Is the Holy Spirit a force from God the Father or a separate entity?
What verses from the holy scriptures support a Trinitarian view instead of a non-Trinitarian view?

Thank you for youre help and if you cant help I dont blame you because this so confusing  

[Asteriktos]

There are three persons in the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but all three persons are co-equal with each other. Despite being three persons they are all one in essence. Some have likened this to three flames forming to make one flame, which isn't a perfect way of putting it, but it might start giving the basic idea. There are passages which indicate the divinity of both the Son and Holy Spirit, such as Jn. 20:28 where St. Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God," or when it is said of the Holy Spirit in Ps. 104:30: "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created." Then there are passages like at the end of Matthew: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19)

[Ghassanid]

There are three persons in the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but all three persons are co-equal with each other. Despite being three persons they are all one in essence. Some have likened this to three flames forming to make one flame, which isn't a perfect way of putting it, but it might start giving the basic idea. There are passages which indicate the divinity of both the Son and Holy Spirit, such as Jn. 20:28 where St. Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God," or when it is said of the Holy Spirit in Ps. 104:30: "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created." Then there are passages like at the end of Matthew: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19)

But sometimes Jesus says the Father is superior to him and if the Holy spirit only proceeds from the Father and not the Son should that also show that the Father is greater than the Son?

[Asteriktos]

There are three persons in the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but all three persons are co-equal with each other. Despite being three persons they are all one in essence. Some have likened this to three flames forming to make one flame, which isn't a perfect way of putting it, but it might start giving the basic idea. There are passages which indicate the divinity of both the Son and Holy Spirit, such as Jn. 20:28 where St. Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God," or when it is said of the Holy Spirit in Ps. 104:30: "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created." Then there are passages like at the end of Matthew: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19)

But sometimes Jesus says the Father is superior to him and if the Holy spirit only proceeds from the Father and not the Son should that also show that the Father is greater than the Son?

Jesus does say things like only the Father knows certain things, or that Jesus should not be called good, but these passages are understood as trying to make a point about men and activity on earth as opposed to God. In other passages Jesus says things like: "I and my Father are one" (Jn. 10:30). Regarding the Holy Spirit coming from the Father and not through the son (in essence), this is not a matter of domination or supremacy, such that the Father is somehow greater because he is the source/origin of both, they are all equal in power even if the relationships differ. If you wanted to look at it that way and said the Holy Spirit also proceeded from the Son then you'd just have a hierarchy with the Holy Spirit being the least powerful and the son being in the middle. I can't explain why it is how it is, this is just (so far as I have read) how it is.

[xariskai]

But sometimes Jesus says the Father is superior to him and if the Holy spirit only proceeds from the Father and not the Son should that also show that the Father is greater than the Son?

The following explanation if from Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk.

Economy: Gk oikonomikos = relating to arrangement of activities.
Ontology: from Gk. ontos = relating to being.

Orthodox trinitarianism:
rejects *ontological subordination* (ontology = relating to being)
accepts *economical subordination* (economy = relating to activities)

To illustrate: *ontologically*, king and subject have one genus of being: they are human. As to their genus, their humanity (homo sapiens sapiens), a king and his subjects are the same. *Economically* a king holds a higher economic position (relating to arrangement of activities) than his subjects do, however, this does not make the king's being or essence as to genus greater than a subject though the subjects are subordinate to the king as to their oikonomikos.

Specifically, as to oikonomikos, Orthodoxy affirms:
*The Monarchy of the Father* (e.g. activity)
But as to ontology, Orthodoxy affirms the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of "one being": biblically they are μονογενης/mono (one) + genis (genus).

[Ghassanid]

But sometimes Jesus says the Father is superior to him and if the Holy spirit only proceeds from the Father and not the Son should that also show that the Father is greater than the Son?

The following explanation if from Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk.

Economy: Gk oikonomikos = relating to arrangement of activities.
Ontology: from Gk. ontos = relating to being.

Orthodox trinitarianism:
rejects *ontological subordination* (ontology = relating to being)
accepts *economical subordination* (economy = relating to activities)

To illustrate: *ontologically*, king and subject have one genus of being: they are human. As to their genus, their humanity (homo sapiens sapiens), a king and his subjects are the same. *Economically* a king holds a higher economic position (relating to arrangement of activities) than his subjects do, however, this does not make the king's being or essence as to genus greater than a subject though the subjects are subordinate to the king as to their oikonomikos.

Specifically, as to oikonomikos, Orthodoxy affirms:
*The Monarchy of the Father* (e.g. activity)
But as to ontology, Orthodoxy affirms the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of "one being": biblically they are μονογενης/mono (one) + genis (genus).

Thank you this really helped!

[Severian]

But sometimes Jesus says the Father is superior to him and if the Holy spirit only proceeds from the Father and not the Son should that also show that the Father is greater than the Son?

St. Cyril also argues that when the Lord Christ says this, that He is referring to the fact that He is inferior to the Father in accordance with His human nature, while being equal with Him in accordance to the Divine nature.

He [St. Cyril] says in his third epistle to Nestorius, with the twelve anathemas attached:

"Yet we are not ignorant that while He remained God, He also became man and subject to God, according to the law suitable to the nature of the manhood. But how could He become the God or Lord of himself? [Here, He is referring to the Nestorian heresy] Consequently as man, and with regard to the measure of His humiliation, it is said that He is equally with us subject to God; thus He became under the Law, although as God He spake the Law and was the Law-giver."

[Alpo]

Nothing in all creation is as complicated as the Trinity

Oh yes there is. It's called "Christology".

[IoanC]

It's not that complicated, but it is a bit new to the human mind, it is transcendent. God is a Trinity because God is Love. As such, God cannot be just one eternal person, that would mean that interpersonal love has not been eternal. God can't be only two persons either; in such a case, love would be eternal, but it would not have a witness who also shares into this love. So, then, God must be three persons if He is to be love, the love between a Father and a Son witnessed by The Holy Spirit. All three Persons are equal because God is Love and so He is also humble. God can't be more than three persons either, that would make Him too relative, but He can create various beings that He can then make as Himself by deification (theosis). Now, if we look at God in relation to creation, we see that also God needs to be three Persons -- A Father who wants us as His children, a Son who can be an eternal model of son, and a Spirit who can make this possible by deifying us and bringing us into the same type of communion that The Father has with The Son; and, with The Holy Spirit and everybody, of course, but the main idea is that we are to be like The Son is to The Father, through the Power of The Holy Spirit. We see that even creation is gravitating towards being more like God, but without God or the creation becoming relative -- The Father does not cease to be Father, The Son does not cease to be the only-begotten Son, The Spirit does not cease to be the one Who deifies creation, and creation does not cease to be who they are either.  Another thing about The Trinity is that they are three complementary parts, but they remain One God; that is The Son is not exactly merely another just like the Father, The Son is the Logos (Word) and Icon, or Wisdom of The Father, that is The Father has no icon in and of Himself, and same with The Spirit, The Father does not have spirit in and of Himself. In a way, The Father "gives up" his Logos and Spirit through begetting The Son and proceeding His Spirit. He doesn't "give up" because He is love, so He begets and proceeds out of love. Anyway, the point is that The Father alone, even though He is the only Person in the universe who is without a cause, cannot be God only by Himself (God would not be love), and so The Father begets and proceeds. The Logos and The Spirit do belong to the Father, but The Father is not God by Himself, He is only "one third" of God, He is the Will of God, but not the Logos and the Spirit (the two other parts). Also, we tend to think that The Father is superior, but it's not at all like that -- it's true, The Son and The Spirit cannot exist without The Father being Their cause, but it's also true that The Father cannot be God by Himself (He would not be love). It would then be wrong of us to not worship the three Persons equally because they truly do deserve the same dignity.

[Father H]

Nothing in all creation is as complicated as the Trinity and I'm having a real hard time understanding it. Could anyone please give me an Orthodox explanation of the Trinity by explaining it or giving me a link to a video or article. Also could someone answer these questions:
[1]Is God the Father superior to God the Son?
[2]Is God the Father the God of the Old Testament who speaks to the prophets and gave the ten commandments?
[3]Is the Holy Spirit a force from God the Father or a separate entity?
What verses from the holy scriptures support a Trinitarian view instead of a non-Trinitarian view?

Thank you for youre help and if you cant help I dont blame you because this so confusing  

1. God the Father is the Arche of the Son and Spirit
2. The Word of God is the giver
3. The Holy Spirit is repeatedly referred to by the Lord as "He." --a person, not a thing

[NicholasMyra]

Is God the Father superior to God the Son?

Relationally, God the Father is the monarch and origin of the Trinity. So there is a relational subordination in the Trinity. But the Son and Spirit are equally "Theos" (Divine) with the Father.

In other words, there is a relational monarchy, but not an essential one.

[Achronos]

It's not that complicated, but it is a bit new to the human mind, it is transcendent. God is a Trinity because God is Love. As such, God cannot be just one eternal person, that would mean that interpersonal love has not been eternal. God can't be only two persons either; in such a case, love would be eternal, but it would not have a witness who also shares into this love. So, then, God must be three persons if He is to be love, the love between a Father and a Son witnessed by The Holy Spirit.

I've seen a popular Orthodox description of the Trinity along these lines but in different wording, can anyone link it?

[IoanC]

It's not that complicated, but it is a bit new to the human mind, it is transcendent. God is a Trinity because God is Love. As such, God cannot be just one eternal person, that would mean that interpersonal love has not been eternal. God can't be only two persons either; in such a case, love would be eternal, but it would not have a witness who also shares into this love. So, then, God must be three persons if He is to be love, the love between a Father and a Son witnessed by The Holy Spirit.

I've seen a popular Orthodox description of the Trinity along these lines but in different wording, can anyone link it?

This vid of Fr. Dumitru Staniloae talks about it: http://youtu.be/oQtx0zEiNlg
He is the inspiration for what I am saying. His theology has a lot of such thinking, very high, yet very simple.

[LBK]

3. The Holy Spirit is repeatedly referred to by the Lord as "He." --a person, not a thing

In English, yes, depending on the liturgical translation. In Greek, no. To Aghio Pnevma) is neuter, because the word pneuma is grammatically neuter. No Greek-speaker regards the neuter grammatical as in any way diminishing the Holy Spirit's place in the Holy Trinity.

[Father H]

3. The Holy Spirit is repeatedly referred to by the Lord as "He." --a person, not a thing

In English, yes, depending on the liturgical translation. In Greek, no. To Aghio Pnevma) is neuter, because the word pneuma is grammatically neuter. No Greek-speaker regards the neuter grammatical as in any way diminishing the Holy Spirit's place in the Holy Trinity.

Correct.  The term ὁδηγήσει as we find it in John 16.13 referring to the Holy Spirit leading refers to a person leading, such as in Acts 8.31 it refers to "some person" leading, and in Rev. 7.17 refers to the Lamb as Shepherd leading.  Whereas in English "it" disqualifies personhood (and thus "he" is about as close as you are going to get in some passages while translating from the Greek, which is why it is used), in the Greek neuter does not disqualify personhood. 

[xariskai]

3. The Holy Spirit is repeatedly referred to by the Lord as "He." --a person, not a thing

...In Greek, no. To Aghio Pnevma) is neuter, because the word pneuma is grammatically neuter.

Actually, in Greek yes, the Holy Spirit is repeatedly referred to by the Lord as "He." For example:

John 16:13:  "But when He [ἐκεῖνος/ekeinos: nominative masculine singular personal pronoun], the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."

In the above phrase "He, the Spirit of truth," "Spirit" is neuter; "of truth" is feminine genitive, and "He" is a masculine personal pronoun. This sort of combination is normal Koine Greek usage. This illustrates what others have said here: in Koine Greek the neuter does not simply equate to the nature of who or what is referred to by it.

In Matt 9:24 we read: "...The GIRL is not dead but asleep." "GIRL" is κοράσιον/korasion, which is nominative singular NEUTER word in Koine Greek. "GIRL" = neuter! This has nothing to do with the nature of what is signified by the word, but rather is a characteristic of the Greek language. There are plenty of similar examples.

So...

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Nothing in all creation is as complicated as the Trinity and I'm having a real hard time understanding it. Could anyone please give me an Orthodox explanation of the Trinity by explaining it or giving me a link to a video or article

What verses from the holy scriptures support a Trinitarian view instead of a non-Trinitarian view?

Thank you for youre help and if you cant help I dont blame you because this so confusing  

Dude, that is why its a Mystery

We only use the language and models as a frame of reference, as a kind of guided meditation in the same way we have prayer books and hymns.  Only God Himself can explain Himself (i.e. the Holy Trinity).

In regards to Holy Scriptures which support the Trinity: Every time "God" is mentioned in the Old Testament, both the Hebrew Elohim and also even the Greek Theo(n) can suggest a plurality, hence why in the KJV of Genesis 1 and 3 God refers to Himself as "us" and "we"

Further, the Holy Trinity was present at the Baptism of our Lord, when Our Lord was Baptised, the Spirit descended in the appearance of a Dove, and the Father spoke the Theophany, "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased."


stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Ghassanid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUy-H5MmeGU
This is interesting for anyone who is interested.

[psalm110]

I am struggling with the doctrine of the trinity How Jesus is the Son of God, when in Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. and also in Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other besides me: and there are no gods. I'm strengthening you, although you have not acknowledged me.

I am not sure how the Trinity comply's with these two verses in the Old Testament. Not sure how the trinity can agree with these verses as Jesus is the Son of God which is Begotten by God the Father, already we have a God besides God the Father

[IoanC]

I am struggling with the doctrine of the trinity How Jesus is the Son of God, when in Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. and also in Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other besides me: and there are no gods. I'm strengthening you, although you have not acknowledged me.

I am not sure how the Trinity comply's with these two verses in the Old Testament. Not sure how the trinity can agree with these verses as Jesus is the Son of God which is Begotten by God the Father, already we have a God besides God the Father

The Orthodox teaching is that God is One God, in Three Divine Persons. So, the Three Persons act as a unit.

The verses you quote don't necessarily contradict the reality of The Trinity. In the Old Testament, people did not yet know the things we now know, since the New Testament. In the past, God revealed Himself in simpler manner in order to be understood.

[IoanC]

Not sure how the trinity can agree with these verses as Jesus is the Son of God which is Begotten by God the Father, already we have a God besides God the Father

The Father is The Father, but He is worshiped together with His Son and His Spirit. There is only One God because there is only One Father, only one source. The Son is not another Father, He is a Son, and The Spirit, again, is not another Father, but The Spirit, yet, they too are two Divine Persons that complement The Father.

[psalm110]

Are there any instances in the OT where God the Father and God the Son are conversing together ?. When Moses was speaking to the burning bush he was speaking to God the Son the "preincarnate logos" right ?. Are there any verses where God the Father is speaking to Moses or any of the prophets ? Or is all his speaking done through God the Son ?.

[IoanC]

Are there any instances in the OT where God the Father and God the Son are conversing together ?. When Moses was speaking to the burning bush he was speaking to God the Son the "preincarnate logos" right ?. Are there any verses where God the Father is speaking to Moses or any of the prophets ? Or is all his speaking done through God the Son ?.

God The Father is always the speaker, and He speaks through His Son (The Word of God), and in The Holy Spirit. I am not too sure what the deal with the burning bush was. I heard it was a prefiguration of The Theotokos, other times that it was an angel, I believe. Sorry, not trying to confuse you , but I am not very sure of the answer. All I can say is that at all times God works as a Trinity, and The Father is the speaker, the will. The problem is how people perceive Him. As I said, in the OT people didn't know much about God, so they'd probably see Him as one person, or some sort of (one) entity. Regardless of this, God was still working as a Trinity. The hospitality of Abraham is probably the best example of God revealing Himself as a Trinity in the shape of three angels. Abraham surely understood that it was actually one God (in three Persons), but he probably didn't really think much of it (the way we do and worship today). I am not sure of other examples right now, but the one of Abraham is very impressive now that I realize. It's one of those things: you don't realize what you just saw, until much later.  

[Timon]

But sometimes Jesus says the Father is superior to him and if the Holy spirit only proceeds from the Father and not the Son should that also show that the Father is greater than the Son?

The following explanation if from Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk.

Economy: Gk oikonomikos = relating to arrangement of activities.
Ontology: from Gk. ontos = relating to being.

Orthodox trinitarianism:
rejects *ontological subordination* (ontology = relating to being)
accepts *economical subordination* (economy = relating to activities)

To illustrate: *ontologically*, king and subject have one genus of being: they are human. As to their genus, their humanity (homo sapiens sapiens), a king and his subjects are the same. *Economically* a king holds a higher economic position (relating to arrangement of activities) than his subjects do, however, this does not make the king's being or essence as to genus greater than a subject though the subjects are subordinate to the king as to their oikonomikos.

Specifically, as to oikonomikos, Orthodoxy affirms:
*The Monarchy of the Father* (e.g. activity)
But as to ontology, Orthodoxy affirms the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of "one being": biblically they are μονογενης/mono (one) + genis (genus).

Thank you this really helped!

This really helped me too!! Thanks!

[psalm110]

Did the early Church Fathers know Biblical Hebrew ?

[Asteriktos]

Did the early Church Fathers know Biblical Hebrew ?

Very few did (Origen and St. Jerome, most notably)...

[xariskai]

I am struggling with the doctrine of the trinity How Jesus is the Son of God, when in Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. and also in Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other besides me: and there are no gods. I'm strengthening you, although you have not acknowledged me.

I am not sure how the Trinity comply's with these two verses in the Old Testament. Not sure how the trinity can agree with these verses as Jesus is the Son of God which is Begotten by God the Father, already we have a God besides God the Father

Isaiah 48:16: “Come near unto Me, hear this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the LORD God, and His Spirit, hath sent Me.”

Orthodox Trinitarians are monotheists. Christianity has always adamantly maintained there is one true God ontologically (by nature) who is alone eternal and uncreated. Hence the Nicene Creed begins with the same confession as found in the above quoted Shema of Deut 6:4: "I believe in one God..." At the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity and the Nicene Creed is a firm and unflinching ontological monotheism.

Christianity was born as a sect of Judiasm and as such was monotheistic, but it also recognized that the Jew, Jesus of Nazareth was himself God, yet in such a way so as not to compromise the Shema of Deut. 6.4: “Here O Israel, Yahweh our Elohim, Yahweh is one.” (shema yisrael adonai eloheinu adonai echad).  In Hebrew the term echad did not necessarily speak of an absolute unity. In fact we find the term used in the creation account of Genesis 1, “and there was evening and there was morning one (echad) day.”  The point here is that a single day is composed of two parts that can be differentiated.  Elsewhere in the Pentateuch  the text speaks of all Israel (at least thousands of people, maybe millions) rose up and shouted with one (echad) voice.

Significantly, in the intertestamental period the rabbis speculated about plurality within God, especially if he had a son.  When Christianity came on the scene and claimed that Jesus was indeed God’s Son the rabbis took a defensive position and backed off on their earlier speculations and in the face of Christian claims asserted that the unity of God was not compound but absolute and undifferentiated.

Post New Testament texts dating from the late first century  put Jesus on a par with God the Father. Christians are told by the early church fathers to “Think of Jesus as God.”  In its early days the church simply affirmed the deity of Christ along with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the baptismal formula (Matt 28:19) without trying to explain it.

It was only when the church moved out of the Jewish worldview and into the Greco-Roman worldview with its Platonic preunderstandings of reality that explaining the trinity became an issue.  During the third century there were several explanations of the trinity that were advanced within the church but ultimately rejected because the church at large sensed the hidden problems within these understandings that compromised the church’s received faith.

In the year A.D. 318 a brilliant, articulate and popular Presbyter in Alexandria attacked his Bishop, Alexander for a sermon he had preached on the “Unity of the Trinity.”  Arius accused Alexander of Sabellianism (Modalism) an explanation of the trinity that the consensus of the church had adjudged to be heretical about 40 years earlier.  Sabellianism had taught that God was one  but he had revealed himself in three different ways (modes) in different ages.  In the Old Testament He had revealed himself as Father, in the gospels he had become incarnate revealing himself in the role (mode) of the Son and beginning at Pentecost He had revealed himself in the role (mode) of Holy Spirit.

Arius himself was an absolute monotheist whose worldview derived from Platonism. Plato had taught a dualist view of reality: matter was eternal, but depraved; God was eternal spirit and alone.  God could not touch or be touched by matter. Operating from this Platonic framework, Arius understood that God was an eternal undivided monad.  Because of the spirit-matter dualism in his underlying Platonic worldview, he asserted that God could not have created the material order.  Instead he created the Word, who in turn became  the creator of the world and all that it contained.   The Word was ultimately a creature.  Arius asserted that “there was [a time] when the Word was not.”  But the Word  was  rather created by God and then adopted as God’s son.  As the adopted son of the eternal God he had divine status and honor, but had “nothing proper to do with God” i.e. the Word did not participate in the divine nature and of course he was not eternal.  It was the Word who became incarnate and died and was resurrected as the scripture said, but in this activity he was still a creature, not deity.

Arius was ultimately excommunicated by Bishop Alexander. He then fled Alexandria and found sanctuary with his old friend Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia who was a powerful theological and political ally.  As Arius’ teaching spread the church experienced theological schism.  Constantine, the first Christian emperor, had hoped to use his newly adopted religion as the glue to help hold his fractured empire together.  Seeing these hopes crumbling before his eyes, he called the council of Nicaea to resolve the matter.  During the course of the council Arianism was roundly condemned by a vote of 316-2.  The position espoused by Alexander, and further developed and defended by his younger colleague Athanasius, became the faith of the Church.  The key term used to define the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son was Homoousian, i.e. the Father and the Son partake of the same eternal being.  What is significant for this discussion is that based upon the Church’s received understanding of the nature of the salvation provided by the incarnate Son, the implications of the dominant Platonic worldview were rejected when that worldview compromised the received Apostolic explanation of the Gospel.  Salvation had to be accomplished by the eternal God himself (not a superior creature, even a creature who created everything) who united himself eternally with humanity.

The implications of the homoousian were worked out over a period of about two generations particularly by the great Athanasius, and the three Cappadocian theologians—Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazaizius. This explanation of the Godhead as Trinity rather than a monad (undifferentiated unity) understood  that at the most fundamental level God was in his essence trinity: three persons (not persons in the sense of radical separateness and individuality as we use the term in the 21st century) who share a single divine life and relate to one another in a dynamic of perfect love. http://www.sacredsaga.org/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=1278210&registeredAuthorId=175701&currentPage=2

Orthodox Trinitarians are monotheists. Anyone who does not understand this has still to achieve an adequate understanding of Trinitarian theology.

No, echad means one in number.  
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0259

What is the word used where the two become one flesh in Genesis 2:24?

Echad/אֶחָ֣ד can mean one in number but it doesn't have to. Frequently it occurs as a descriptor of a plural unity.

A few examples:

וַיַּ֨עַן כָּל־ הָעָ֜ם קֹ֤ול אֶחָד֙
"...all the people [plural] answered in ONE voice" (Ex 24:3)

חֲלֹ֥ום פַּרְעֹ֖ה אֶחָ֣ד
"the dreams [/חֲלֹ֥ום/plural] of Pharaoh are ONE" (Gen 41:25)

וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד
"...they [the man and the women] shall become ONE flesh (Gen 2:25)

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוָ֗ה הֵ֣ן עַ֤ם אֶחָד֙
"YHWH said 'the people are ONE'" (Gen 11:6)

יְהוָ֥ה אֶחָֽד
YHWH is ONE (Dt 6:4)

1. Historically there are no known modalists before Noetus (c. 190 AD) and later Praxeas and Sabellius. Tertullian affirmed Sabellian modalism was contra the ancient "Rule of Faith" which was employed in all ancient churches during the first and second centuries. After Sabellianism was condemned it essentially died out until Emanuel Swedenborg revived it in the 1700s, but it was not until the twentieth century that it mushroomed after the unitarian modalist view emerged and split the nascent Pentecostal movement.

Obviously there was far too long a period before Sabellianism appeared for it to have been the position of the earliest church in any major geographic center.

2. Doctrinal. Most heresies tend to absolutize one side of a dialectical reality. Usually the culprit is intellectual rationalism:  the need to "eff the ineffable" so as to fit in the little box we call the human brain. The Ecumenical Councils view of the Trinity, accepted by Orthodox, Latin Catholics, and all major trajectories of Protestantism for the last two millennia give a much more natural reading of passages like Jn 14:25-26 in the basic affirmation -contra Sabellianism- that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are DISTINCT AND INTERACTING. This is the more natural reading of the scriptures, e.g.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." – John 14:25-26

How must a Sabellian interpret such a passage? To say these are three "Me's" which are not distinct and interacting would result in a very strained reading of  Jn 14:, such as:

But the Helper (Me), the Holy Spirit (Me) whom the Father (Me) will send in My name, He (Me) will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I (Me) said to you...?

Christ said He must go away, but that the Father would send the Spirit. If they are not distinct, how was Christ away when the Spirit descended?

Isaiah 48:16: “Come near unto Me, hear this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the LORD God, and His Spirit, hath sent Me.” [/i]

No known modalists before 190AD!  I would argue that there were no trinitarians in the first community because all of the disciples were Jews!

You and Minasoliman and Azurestone have all quoted from the gospel of John, the last gospel written.
I agree with you that the gospel of John makes some clear departures from the earlier gospels and I won't argue with you there.
I would be the last person to try and harmonize the gospel of Mark with the gospel of John.
If you prefer the gospel of John then that is fine and we will have a difficult time marrying some of the passages in John with the earliest gospel. Clearly I lean on the gospel of Mark.  And I am not a theologian and I won't even make an attempt to reconcile certain passages. I doubt it can even be done to be honest.  I think there are different voices and they are and will remain distinct.

According to Tertullian there were no Sabellians before Noetus (190 AD), but the point made was not simply that Sabellian theology was comparatively late and geographically isolated, but *in conflict with the Rule of Faith* as found in all the ancient churches of the first and second centuries. I for one would at least pause before believing a view that not only wasn't practiced anywhere in earliest Christianity, but which also conflicted with the practice which existed everywhere in ancient Christianity during its first two centuries just because it "seemed logical and biblical to me."

Your hypothesis that Sabellianism was the belief of the author of Mark's Gospel also seems on the face of it extraordinarily dubious at best. Do we know of any major scholars who argue the author of Mark's Gospel was a Sabellian?

If you admit the Gospel of John is problematic for you this further attests the disparity of your view with that of earliest Christianity. Wouldn't acceptance of four Gospels in all the major geographic centers of earliest Christianity, with no examples of early Christians accepting the Gospel of Mark while rejecting the other three also be rather problematic to the notion that you are reconstructing an original primitive faith of the church?

If the evidence from Tertullian shows Sabellianism was unknown in the churches founded by apostles before Noetus, there are lines of evidence which suggest Trinitarian theology was very early, in the writings of those who were direct disciples of an original apostle, or contemporaneous with them.

D. F. Wright, "Creeds and Confessional Forms" in Ralph Martin and Peter Davids, eds., Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (1997), p. 258 affirms that 1 Clem 46:6 (""Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace who was poured upon us?") "...is at once Trinitarian, baptismal, and interrogatory." The same author also cites Didache 7:1 (c. 60-100 AD) as "confirming evidence that a Trinitarian confession was normal at baptism probably by the end of the first century" (ibid). The Didache, or Teachings of the Apostles, was a manual of catechism widely distributed in early Christianity, e.g. in Antioch, Palestine, and Alexandria.

Justin Martyr (d. 165 at Rome) wrote "There is pronounced over the one who elects to be born again and has repented of his sins the name of God the father and Lord of the universe, the person who leads the one to be washed to the water calling him by this name alone... Also in the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit who through the prophets foretold everything about Jesus, the one to be enlightened is washed (Justin Martyr, Apol I 61.10). Wright observes the "italicized must be fairly close to the words used by the minister of baptism (not by the candidate) in the Roman church (ibid, p. 258).

The Trinitarian baptismal formula in Did 7:1 is the same as that found in Matt 28:19. I have also seen Sabellians try to argue the Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matt 28:19 was a late addition with absolutely no direct evidence and despite the fact that all extant ancient texts of Matt contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. This is especially problematic in that the Trinitarian formula appears in the Didache, which some scholars actually date slightly before the Gospel of Matthew was completed.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (from where Paul left and returned on all three of his missionary journeys) wrote "One alone is Physician. Born and unborn, God come in the flesh. The life in death. From Mary and God. At first possible, and then impossible, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ignatius to the Ephesians 7.2).

[psalm110]

Is the word Echad ? Which is used as One in Deu 6:4 is it a plural word or singular ? Did singularity of this word exist in biblical times ? I've heard that its been a recent post biblical hebrew "grammatical - Lexical word" change which means Singularity now ? Has anyone heard anything like this ?.

[Father H]

It is like the Latin e pluribus unum--out of many, one.  Think about it from a Hebrew point of view.  YHWH Eloheinu... is one.  Think of the meaning of this.  "Elohiym" (plural God) is one.  What is the purpose of even saying this except for the understanding that the plural God is one?  One would not make the statement "the church janitor Jim is one."  One might make the statement "the Church is one."  The Church while singular, is made of a plurality.  The only purpose of making the statement is that despite the plurality, the Church is one.             

[psalm110]

thanks for the clarification. Is there any Early patristic understanding of Deu 6:4 ?

[Cyrillic]

thanks for the clarification. Is there any Early patristic understanding of Deu 6:4 ?

Delivering.

[akimel]

Perhaps you might find helpful this statement of St Gregory Nazianzen:  The Creed of St Gregory the Theologian.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: The Orthodox Church view of the Trinity