# Definition of Person as it relates to the Trinity



## RamistThomist

How would we define "person" when we speak of the Trinity? The Cappadocians defined--well, no they didn't--they distinguished the persons by their modes of generation. How would we define a person?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I think Vos was wise to require any such definition of "Person" as relates to the Trinity to preserve the unity of God's being, include an element common to both the human and divine personality, and allows the impersonal human nature of Jesus. Vos offers:

“Person is an independent entity, indivisible, rational, incommunicable, not sustained by another nature but possessing in itself the principle of its operation.”​
Or, “Person, with reference to the Trinity, means the divine essence in a specific mode of existence and distinguished by this specific mode of existence from that essence and the other persons.”​
Src: Vos, Geerhardus. _Reformed Dogmatics_. Ed. Richard B. Gaffin and Richard de Witt. Trans. Annemie Godbehere et al. _Vol. 1_. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013. Print.

When we start to confuse the early church's use of the word "person" with our own notions of "person", we ultimately end up in some form of modalistic heresy. Given the baggage the word "person" carries in today's culture, I usually refer to the personal _subsistences_ of the Godhead until everyone is on the same page related to how the word "person" is used in Trinitarian theological discourse. If we must insist on "person", then I tend to say that A _person_ is a distinct bearer of an essence, hence the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct persons, each with his own personal attributes, while each also shares equally the attributes of deity (i.e., the divine essence).


----------



## RamistThomist

Vos's definition is better than most I've seen. Patristic definitions did not include "mind" in the definition of person, for they had to maintain one unity of mind, will, and essence. Yet for moderns it's impossible to talk about "person" without mind or personality or a self-activating agent.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, I have heard of this quote from Francis Beckwith: "Within the nature of the one God, there are three centers of consciousness, and these three centers are distinct and personal." I can't find the source for those exact words, but here he has put it, "In the nature of the one God there are three centers of consciousness, which we call persons, and these three are equal."

If this is not a good way of expressing it, I am surely open to be corrected.

I have heard this idea expounded upon here, in this manner:
​*There Are No Analogies In Nature

*​Finally, the idea of three centers of consciousness or three distinct personalities has no analogy for us as humans. All attempts to equate the Trinity with some analogy will miserably fail. This includes trying to compare the Trinity to a human being who has intellect, feeling, and will. This is not the same as the Triune God who has three distinct centers of consciousness. Therefore it is best to admit that the Trinity has no analogy with which we can compare it.
​

Note: I just learned that around 8 years ago Dr. Beckwith turned back to Rome, though I don't think that affects his views on the Trinity. I remember maybe 44 years ago he had a small book (perhaps the same as the essay linked to above) titled _The Trinity_ which was popular and widely read among Protestants, and which was helpful to me back then when there were not many Christian books available to me.


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, I have heard of this quote from Francis Beckwith: "Within the nature of the one God, there are three centers of consciousness, and these three centers are distinct and personal." I can't find the source for those exact words, but here he has put it, "In the nature of the one God there are three centers of consciousness, which we call persons, and these three are equal."
> 
> If this is not a good way of expressing it, I am surely open to be corrected.
> 
> I have heard this idea expounded upon here, in this manner:
> ​*There Are No Analogies In Nature
> 
> *​Finally, the idea of three centers of consciousness or three distinct personalities has no analogy for us as humans. All attempts to equate the Trinity with some analogy will miserably fail. This includes trying to compare the Trinity to a human being who has intellect, feeling, and will. This is not the same as the Triune God who has three distinct centers of consciousness. Therefore it is best to admit that the Trinity has no analogy with which we can compare it.
> ​
> 
> Note: I just learned that around 8 years ago Dr. Beckwith turned back to Rome, though I don't think that affects his views on the Trinity. I remember maybe 44 years ago he had a small book (perhaps the same as the essay linked to above) titled _The Trinity_ which was popular and widely read among Protestants, and which was helpful to me back then when there were not many Christian books available to me.



Beckwith's statement, whether as a Romanist or a Protestant, is tritheistic and Social Trinitarian. Logically and biblically, there might be something to it but it (from a modern perspective, it's hard to imagine a person with a reflective self-consciousness) is not what the church has taught. They taught one mind, essence, will, and energy of operation


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ReformedReidian said:


> Vos's definition is better than most I've seen. Patristic definitions did not include "mind" in the definition of person, for they had to maintain one unity of mind, will, and essence. Yet for moderns it's impossible to talk about "person" without mind or personality or a self-activating agent.


Vos' first offered definition, while accurate, gives me pause with its use of "entity", again given how modern thinking tends to associate the term. Likewise, while I prefer his second offering, I only put it forward once the the word "mode" has been carefully defined in the context of the early church, esp. when considering modalism. It is disquieting that "mode" sends most moderns down a rabbit hole, so care must be taken when trotting out "mode of existence".

My experience has been that focusing upon the Person of Christ is the best means of discussing the Trinity. If our Lord was fully divine and human then reconciling the _Shema _and other testimony of Holy Writ follows. Get folks thinking straight about who exactly was Jesus Christ and the rest seems to fall into place. 

I usually start with: Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

Via _negativa_, one can best understand this _hypostatic union_ (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is _not_, thus from the process of elimination determine what it _must be_.

The hypostatic union is not:

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. two distinct persons (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).

I know you are aware of this, but for the benefit of the general public, the Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. All the statements above were contained the Definition. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

While men like Erickson and some within the Reformed community quitclaim a view that affirms the impersonality of the human nature assumed (see Vos' preservation points above) by the Divine Logos, I think this is the best approach to understanding the Incarnation and the Godhead in general.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ReformedReidian said:


> Vos's definition is better than most I've seen. Patristic definitions did not include "mind" in the definition of person, for they had to maintain one unity of mind, will, and essence. Yet for moderns it's impossible to talk about "person" without mind or personality or a self-activating agent.



That's an accurate summary. I think one of the problems in understanding the patristic use of hypostasis or person is that we import modern psychological concepts into the idea of person in a way that would have been considered tri-theistic as you note above. I believe the most that could be _positively_ stated as to the difference between the persons is their modes of generation - the Father begets, the Son is eternally generated by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. As you note, the classical understanding is that the Godhead has one will.


----------



## TylerRay

How about "center of activity" (borrowed from a JW friend who is trying to understand Trinitarianism)?


----------



## RamistThomist

It's not necessarily wrong, but it needs to be fleshed out.

1) the phrasing center of activity seems to place teh essence before the person. Not wrong, per se, but most people don't pray to essences qua essences.
2) It's similar to Boethius's definition of person: instantiation of a rational nature. 
3) As it is, though, it tells you nothing about the concept of person.


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vos's definition is better than most I've seen. Patristic definitions did not include "mind" in the definition of person, for they had to maintain one unity of mind, will, and essence. Yet for moderns it's impossible to talk about "person" without mind or personality or a self-activating agent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an accurate summary. I think one of the problems in understanding the patristic use of hypostasis or person is that we import modern psychological concepts into the idea of person in a way that would have been considered tri-theistic as you note above. I believe the most that could be _positively_ stated as to the difference between the persons is their modes of generation - the Father begets, the Son is eternally generated by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. As you note, the classical understanding is that the Godhead has one will.
Click to expand...


I think your dead on, thanks Rich. We must always remember that any analogy made between human concepts and God is just that an analogy. Our ectypal knowledge will never be Gods archetypal knowledge of things. So we must always keep that in mind when applying human concepts to God. We use concepts to describe God but they are limited to our understanding of things. So a word like "person" is an analogy of what "person".


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jwright82 said:


> So a word like "person" is an analogy of what "person".


Exactly, and analogies are not supposed to flow from the creature to the Creator but revealed by the Creator for our understanding. In other words, we are not to draw conclusions about Who the Persons of the Trinity are by reflecting upon how we understand human personality. That would make the Creator an image of the creature. The best we can do is to ascertain what God reveals about Himself in Scripture to figure out some way to say that He is both One and Three. We know He is One God and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God but not three Gods but One God. The early Church used the word "person" or "hypostasis" in the past to try to create some way to differentiate the Three from the One God (essence). I think that idea of person has informed how the West has contributed to the idea of the personhood of man in contrast to Eastern religions that ultimately see reality as obliterating all individuality as it ultimately melds into the One. That said, we have to reckon with all of the things that we have inherited from philosophy, culture, psychology, etc in the centuries that have followed and realize that when we now think of "person" it includes much of what the early Church would have said that each Person does not contain (i.e. each having His own will which would have been understood as Tri-theism).

This is actually a really good lecture. I don't agree with McCormack but he takes some theologians to task for their apparent lack of familiarity with Nicene-Constantinapolitan orthodoxy on the Trinity. Again, don't have to agree with his conclusions later but the first three lectures are a really good survey of history that I found very educational: Is the Reformation Over? Reflections on the Doctrine of God in Evangelical Theology | Henry Center


----------



## earl40

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't agree with McCormack but he takes some theologians to task for their apparent lack of familiarity with Nicene-Constantinapolitan orthodoxy on the Trinity. Again, don't have to agree with his conclusions later but the first three lectures are a really good survey of history that I found very educational: Is the Reformation Over? Reflections on the Doctrine of God in Evangelical Theology | Henry Center



Curious did the conclusions he came to at the end relate to this thread? 

PS. Rich I am enjoying your paper and hope to have some interaction with it one day here to encourage our Pastors to teach us in the pews how we should think of Our Lord.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

earl40 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with McCormack but he takes some theologians to task for their apparent lack of familiarity with Nicene-Constantinapolitan orthodoxy on the Trinity. Again, don't have to agree with his conclusions later but the first three lectures are a really good survey of history that I found very educational: Is the Reformation Over? Reflections on the Doctrine of God in Evangelical Theology | Henry Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curious did the conclusions he came to at the end relate to this thread?
> 
> PS. Rich I am enjoying your paper and hope to have some interaction with it one day here to encourage our Pastors to teach us in the pews how we should think of Our Lord.
Click to expand...


Well, principally in his clear articulation of how discussions in the early Church led to the parties in contest at Nicea (Arius didn't just arise out of the blue) and how the Capodoccian fathers and others wrestled with this very issue of the Persons of the Trinity. If you can get past some of the things that will rankle you it's a very good and dense survey of some things as he tries to articulate historical theology. Where he ends up (by way of Barth) is very interesting by the end of his lectures. It's piqued by historical interest and how Reformed orthodoxy needs to deal with challenges to theology and deal with the history of doctrinal development. I don't want to derail the thread into that discussion.


----------



## RamistThomist

There is some relation b/t mccormacks thoughts on person and why I started this thread. I will develop them later


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a word like "person" is an analogy of what "person".
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and analogies are not supposed to flow from the creature to the Creator but revealed by the Creator for our understanding. In other words, we are not to draw conclusions about Who the Persons of the Trinity are by reflecting upon how we understand human personality. That would make the Creator an image of the creature. The best we can do is to ascertain what God reveals about Himself in Scripture to figure out some way to say that He is both One and Three. We know He is One God and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God but not three Gods but One God. The early Church used the word "person" or "hypostasis" in the past to try to create some way to differentiate the Three from the One God (essence). I think that idea of person has informed how the West has contributed to the idea of the personhood of man in contrast to Eastern religions that ultimately see reality as obliterating all individuality as it ultimately melds into the One. That said, we have to reckon with all of the things that we have inherited from philosophy, culture, psychology, etc in the centuries that have followed and realize that when we now think of "person" it includes much of what the early Church would have said that each Person does not contain (i.e. each having His own will which would have been understood as Tri-theism).
> 
> This is actually a really good lecture. I don't agree with McCormack but he takes some theologians to task for their apparent lack of familiarity with Nicene-Constantinapolitan orthodoxy on the Trinity. Again, don't have to agree with his conclusions later but the first three lectures are a really good survey of history that I found very educational: Is the Reformation Over? Reflections on the Doctrine of God in Evangelical Theology | Henry Center
Click to expand...


Amen brother!


----------



## RamistThomist

This was my initial concern: a lot of intro level apologetics will say, "Only a _personal_ God can create personality in the universe" (and I think that is true on one level) or non-theistic systems can't account for personality (again, true). My only concern is that we are using person in a different way that really doesn't apply. We believe person has a unique mind, yet we cannot posit three unique minds to the Trinity.

This is where the early Cappadocians, despite some big problems in their theology, might have been onto something with their glossing person as "huparchos tropos." Someone could respond, "That's an inadequate definition of person." Perhaps, but I don't see a fuller alternative (and the other correct gloss: we distinguish the persons by their modes of origination only tells how the persons are different, not what a person is).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, you said, "we cannot posit three unique minds to the Trinity", and that seems sound to me.

I had posted a story in the Puritan Writers Guild forum here on PB in order to get feedback or correction on how I formulated the nature of the Triune God; no one responded, so I'll try the pertinent section here. I was trying to avoid the pitfalls mentioned above, though I don't know if I succeeded. 
Before the world began, the father of light and those two others who comprised with him the Council of Light – three centers of consciousness in one Being – decreed a plan whereby many in the foreseen lost race would be rescued, both from their captivity to the demon-prince and their grotesque and horrific condition of being. They agreed that the father’s son would go to the earth and be born into the cursed race, even taking on their flesh and nature, becoming one with them, although at the same time he was not of them, but of the father’s light.
​ 
"Council of Light – three centers of consciousness in one Being . . . They agreed that the father’s son would go to the earth and be born into the cursed race, even taking on their flesh and nature . . ."

The words "Council" and "They" — I am nervous about them. On the other hand, "three centers of consciousness in one Being" to me does not posit three unique minds or wills, but is vague enough not to say that.

When it is written in Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", the idea of a council – and plurality of some sort – in the Godhead is implied, though separate wills and minds are not. What do y'all think?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ReformedReidian said:


> we distinguish the persons by their modes of origination only tells how the persons are different, not what a person is


At least as far as the Creator goes. I was sort of musing about whether it's really true that the early Church's conception of the Godhead is bound up in classical metaphysics and so it's up for grabs (as Barth and McCormack seem to contend). I'm no scholar but it seems there is some adoption of metaphyical language as far as it could go to speak of God as far as a creature is able to speak about Him. How can we possibly come up with any definition, bound in language, that is going to define what God _is_ or, for that matter, what one of the divine Persons (or whatever term you would like) are. At best we can avoid obvious contradictions in our analogical understanding but we are limited to what our creaturely knowledge is of God's revelation of Himself. As I listened to McCormack in these lectures trying to avoid either what he thought of as classical metaphysics or modern metaphysics and constructed a doctrine of the Trinity that he claims emerges from the text, I couldn't help thinking that a metaphysics is being imported that he's not acknowledging.


----------



## RamistThomist

On one hand, I don't think the early church was absolutely metaphysical. Hilary of Poitiers says they had to deconstruct (okay, he didn't use that term) "homousios" to make it acceptable, something no pagan metaphysician would do. 

In other lectures McCormack admits he is not against all metaphysics--just the substance metaphysics that posits a "something" behind the divine essence as more real than what we get in Jesus.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ReformedReidian said:


> In other lectures McCormack admits he is not against all metaphysics--just the substance metaphysics that posits a "something" behind the divine essence as more real than what we get in Jesus.


He doesn't state he's against metaphysics but argues that classical definitions (like Person, simplicity, aseity, etc) are based on classical metaphysics and not based on Jesus as McCormack sees Him "exegeted" and so, while he doesn't freely abandon all categories, he feels free to characterize all those definitions of the Godhead as belonging to metaphysics and so they are reformable according to Sola Scriptura (or, in this case, his exegesis). I think, however, his exegesis is dependent upon a metaphysics that he's not completely putting forward.


----------



## Warren

ReformedReidian said:


> How would we define "person" when we speak of the Trinity? The Cappadocians defined--well, no they didn't--they distinguished the persons by their modes of generation. How would we define a person?


I yam wot I yam and that's all wot I yam...


----------



## RamistThomist

Warren said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would we define "person" when we speak of the Trinity? The Cappadocians defined--well, no they didn't--they distinguished the persons by their modes of generation. How would we define a person?
> 
> 
> 
> I yam wot I yam and that's all wot I yam...
Click to expand...


That's actually an interesting definition. It's defining person more in terms of an acting Subject than an instance of a nature.


----------



## Warren

ReformedReidian said:


> Warren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would we define "person" when we speak of the Trinity? The Cappadocians defined--well, no they didn't--they distinguished the persons by their modes of generation. How would we define a person?
> 
> 
> 
> I yam wot I yam and that's all wot I yam...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's actually an interesting definition. It's defining person more in terms of an acting Subject than an instance of a nature.
Click to expand...

I was hoping I contributed something with that. I was thinking of Popeye, of course, but also of Moses question to God "who shall I say sent me?":


> Exodus 3:13-15 Then Moses said unto God, Behold, when I shall come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you: if they say unto me, What is his Name? what shall I say unto them?
> 
> And God answered Moses, I AM THAT I AM. Also he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
> 
> And God spake further unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you: this is my Name forever, and this is my memorial unto all ages.


When God leaves a memorial to the end of the ages, he's declaring an oath, as a personal statement about who he is; that he's an eternal and living person, so he's able to be with his people, "even unto the end of the age". Maybe this is the Son's eternal begottenness in motion? Always new and active, yet his name (comes from the Father?) endures forever...


----------



## jwright82

Well we really haven't precisely defined what being a "person" is for us. We "know" what a person is when we meet one but we have a problem as humans defining just what a person is. Since we have such ambiguity about defining what a person is for us we must be even more careful when applying whatever we mean by "person" to God. God has revealed himself to us by way of condescension (WCF 7:1) and accommodation (Calvin), therefore we must be like Moses and humbley remove our sandles as we boldly stand on holy ground doing theology before the burning bush that we cannot explain. Since this is true we must and have to adopt philosophical terms in order to do theology but we must always use these terms in submission to scripture. 

That being said I think that the athanasion creed is sufficient in confessing what we believe about the trinity and the incarnation. But I do not believe that any confession or creed can be complete. That is why I support Vantil in saying that God is three persons and one person at the same time, of course what we mean by "person" must be different in some sense here. But we must humble ourselves as we boldly do theology from scripture and where scripture speaks we must say amen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

This thread is edifying in that Protestants should have a theology that includes a robust grasp of the apothatic, which includes saying God is one person and 3 persons at the same time, which with a bald face reading sounds horrible. I assume Van Til explained how he meant to say God is one in person and three in persons. I have little doubt if he did this the definition of person was changed in his explanation.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> This thread is edifying in that Protestants should have a theology that includes a robust grasp of the apothatic, which includes saying God is one person and 3 persons at the same time, which with a bald face reading sounds horrible. I assume Van Til explained how he meant to say God is one in person and three in persons. I have little doubt if he did this the definition of person was changed in his explanation.



I understand what CvT meant by it, though I cringe at the phrasing. If all he means is that God always speaks as one person, fine. That doesn't seem too different from saying that all the external works of the Trinity are united.


----------



## jwright82

I don't know how tp link it from my phone but the Reformed Forum episode #49 with Lane Tipton deals with CvT's views of the Trinity. I will attempt to defend him later when I get off work.


----------



## jwright82

First I think that we must recognize that CvT never thought that he was deviating from orthodox theology, maybe he did but he didn't think so. Second many solid Reformed theologians see no problem here. I think that he might object to some idea of a democracy amongst the Godhead, they don't vote or anything about what to do. No they so exhaust one another that we might say in a sense they are one person. They act as one person because they indwell one another in a way we can't understand. I understand what I mean to say we are one in agreement on some issue but we are not ontologicaly one. I cannot imagine what it would be to be one in essence with anyone. 

So God is one in essence and three in persons but he acts as one person. There is no debate amongst the Godhead, they act as one (person) to achieve their will.


----------



## jwright82

It also cannot be denied that scripture does reveal God acting as one person, in some sense. This only goes to show how difficult it is to exactly define what we mean by "person" when applied to God. The cappadocians might have been on to something by avoiding the question. This is a mystery for sure but how great is our God!


----------



## RamistThomist

I am not attacking CVT. I understand what he meant. I just think it is a bad way of speaking. I always wondered why people give Augustine a free pass in de Trinitate when he basically identified person and nature, yet when CVT does something like that everyone is up in arms.


----------



## jwright82

ReformedReidian said:


> I am not attacking CVT. I understand what he meant. I just think it is a bad way of speaking. I always wondered why people give Augustine a free pass in de Trinitate when he basically identified person and nature, yet when CVT does something like that everyone is up in arms.



Amen brother. CVT's way of speaking was sometimes his worst enemy In my humble opinion. But your reference to Augustine only shows that CVT wasn't doing anything original here. That Reformed Forum episode I mentioned really deals well with all this but I don't know how to post it, my internet access is very limited. Also my computer skills are very Stone Age in nature. My younger brothers always make fun of me for my lack of skills in this area.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

James, I couldn't get an answer to my question in post #17 above, but perhaps you can give it a shot. A story I'm working on has the phrases below, and I want to make sure I do not violate Biblical / theological truth:
"Council of Light – three centers of consciousness in one Being . . . They agreed that the father’s son would go to the earth and be born into the cursed race, even taking on their flesh and nature . . ."

The words "Council" and "They" — I am nervous about them. On the other hand, "three centers of consciousness in one Being" to me does not posit three unique minds or wills, but is vague enough not to say that.

When it is written in Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", the idea of a council – and plurality of some sort – in the Godhead is implied, though separate wills and minds are not. What do y'all think?
​
The full story is in our Puritan Writers Guild forum, and I ask because there is enough theological acumen on this board to adequately judge such sayings as I have posited. With all my heart and mind I want to be fully within the pale of strict orthodoxy, especially when I publish to the general public. Any thoughts?


----------



## jwright82

Jerusalem Blade said:


> James, I couldn't get an answer to my question in post #17 above, but perhaps you can give it a shot. A story I'm working on has the phrases below, and I want to make sure I do not violate Biblical / theological truth:
> "Council of Light – three centers of consciousness in one Being . . . They agreed that the father’s son would go to the earth and be born into the cursed race, even taking on their flesh and nature . . ."
> 
> The words "Council" and "They" — I am nervous about them. On the other hand, "three centers of consciousness in one Being" to me does not posit three unique minds or wills, but is vague enough not to say that.
> 
> When it is written in Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", the idea of a council – and plurality of some sort – in the Godhead is implied, though separate wills and minds are not. What do y'all think?
> ​
> The full story is in our Puritan Writers Guild forum, and I ask because there is enough theological acumen on this board to adequately judge such sayings as I have posited. With all my heart and mind I want to be fully within the pale of strict orthodoxy, especially when I publish to the general public. Any thoughts?



Well I am flattered but I would never consider myself worthy to answer such question but I will try. I think that your question can be tied back to the original question. If we follow the pattern of the Athanasion creed we can confess that the Father is conscious, the Son is conscious, and the Spirit is conscious, but it is not three consciousness but one consciousness. I hope that is not too extreme to say. But God in and of himself is essentially one conscious distinguished in three persons. 

God as he condescends to us and accommodates to our finite creaturenes in the economic Trinity, God as he is for us (Calvin), has properties that he takes on freely by way of covenant to reveal himself to us in our own language. That being said I think your poem is wonderful and beautiful and this only goes to show how careful we must be in ascribing any concept, in this case "person", to God. I certainly hope I step over the line in my musings.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

James, thank you for your response. It got me to thinking. I can see where my saying, “three centers of consciousness in one Being” is inadequate. But I have also found the positive assertions in the thread likewise inadequate (perhaps this shall always be the case when we seek to comprehend such a topic). On a Catholic site I found this in a discourse by Frank Sheed:
“the philosophers speak of a person as the center of attribution in a rational nature”​ 
This is the full paragraph for context:
But although my nature is the source of all my actions, although my nature decides what kind of operations are possible for me, it is not my nature that does them: I do them, I the person. Thus both person and nature may be considered sources of action, but in a different sense. The person is that which does the actions, the nature is that by virtue of which the actions are done, or, better, that from which the actions are drawn. We can express the distinction in all sorts of ways. We can say that it is our _nature_ to do certain things, but that _we_ do them. We can say that _we_ operate in or according to our _nature_. In this light we see why *the philosophers speak of a person as the center of attribution in a rational nature*: whatever is done in a rational nature or suffered in a rational nature or any way experienced in a rational nature is done or suffered or experienced by the person whose nature it is. [emphasis added.]​ 
It is similar to how James White put it on a page of his. I must confess I have an aversion to highly abstract and philosophical language and concepts. I like the old maxim, “He who says it simplest, says it best.” The saying by Sheed above is far better than what I had posited. Another simple saying is William Ames’ (on a Matthew McMahon APM page / see for full context [some typos on it]): “individual forces in one essence”, which is better than “centers of consciousness in one Being” as the former implies action and attributes, whereas the latter is more passive.

I could perhaps say they are “three distinct beings in and having one Essence”. “Council” might be an equivalent expression to Godhead. Saying too much or too little must be avoided.


----------



## jwright82

Jerusalem Blade said:


> James, thank you for your response. It got me to thinking. I can see where my saying, “three centers of consciousness in one Being” is inadequate. But I have also found the positive assertions in the thread likewise inadequate (perhaps this shall always be the case when we seek to comprehend such a topic). On a Catholic site I found this in a discourse by Frank Sheed:
> “the philosophers speak of a person as the center of attribution in a rational nature”​
> This is the full paragraph for context:
> But although my nature is the source of all my actions, although my nature decides what kind of operations are possible for me, it is not my nature that does them: I do them, I the person. Thus both person and nature may be considered sources of action, but in a different sense. The person is that which does the actions, the nature is that by virtue of which the actions are done, or, better, that from which the actions are drawn. We can express the distinction in all sorts of ways. We can say that it is our _nature_ to do certain things, but that _we_ do them. We can say that _we_ operate in or according to our _nature_. In this light we see why *the philosophers speak of a person as the center of attribution in a rational nature*: whatever is done in a rational nature or suffered in a rational nature or any way experienced in a rational nature is done or suffered or experienced by the person whose nature it is. [emphasis added.]​
> It is similar to how James White put it on a page of his. I must confess I have an aversion to highly abstract and philosophical language and concepts. I like the old maxim, “He who says it simplest, says it best.” The saying by Sheed above is far better than what I had posited. Another simple saying is William Ames’ (on a Matthew McMahon APM page / see for full context [some typos on it]): “individual forces in one essence”, which is better than “centers of consciousness in one Being” as the former implies action and attributes, whereas the latter is more passive.
> 
> I could perhaps say they are “three distinct beings in and having one Essence”. “Council” might be an equivalent expression to Godhead. Saying too much or too little must be avoided.



I don't believe it was inadequate at all, just incomplete. But like I said I loved the poem and found nothing wrong with it. Keep writing brother.


----------



## earl40

jwright82 said:


> That Reformed Forum episode I mentioned really deals well with all this but I don't know how to post it, my internet access is very limited. Also my computer skills are very Stone Age in nature. My younger brothers always make fun of me for my lack of skills in this area.



Van Til's Trinitarian Theology - Reformed Forum


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

From Muller on the discussion of what "person" means in terms of the Godhead:A divine person, then, can be identified as “an incommunicable subsistence of the divine essence,” granting that the divine essence is possessed in common by the three persons, while the persons represent incommunicable characteristics: Father, Son, and Spirit are God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son not the Spirit, and so forth. The essence is one, the persons several: thus,​essence is absolute, person relative: the persons of the Son and Spirit have an origin, the essence does not. Person generates and is generated: essence neither generates nor is generated.(Wendelin, _Christianae theologiae libri duo_, I.ii.2 (2).)​
The persons, therefore are identified according to what they have in common and how they are distinct: they have in common the numerically singular and indivisible divine essence, the essential properties, the works, dignity, and honor of God. They are distinct, however, in origin, in order, and in manner of operation, inasmuch as the Father is from himself (_a se_), the Son from the Father, and the Spirit from the Father and the Son; the Father is first, the Son second, and the Spirit third in order; and in internal operation, the Father acts _a se_, the Son from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son and the Father. (Wendelin, _Christianae theologiae libri duo_, I.ii.2 (3).)

Src: Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; Volume 4: The Triunity of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Print.​


----------



## earl40

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I could perhaps say they are “three distinct beings in and having one Essence”. “Council” might be an equivalent expression to Godhead. Saying too much or too little must be avoided.



I am not sure this would be a good thing to say in that do we not say God is one in being or one in essence? I think that we ought to stick with what our creeds describe of the being or essence of God, and proclaim that it is a mystery in that we shall never understand God "in se". To which we ought to be content to see and understand The Father and Holy Spirit, in the Son's humanity.


----------



## RamistThomist

3 distinct beings tends to sound like three concretizations of the one essence. This was a problem the Cappadocians had to overcome. There language tended to sound like God was a material entity (something which can be concretized). (I understand there is a subtle nuance between being/substance and essence, but 99% of the time they are used interchangeably).

I have no problem with Muller's gloss. Subsisting in the one essence works. That's fine. However, be prepared to answer questions along the lines of "Doesn't that prioritize essence over person?"

"Divine Council" can work if it is used analogically and only that way. Otherwise it sounds like the three put their respective minds together, but in the Trinity there is only one divine mind.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Well I am happy you have no problem with Muller's gloss, but why the quibbling question?

Distinguishing between persons and essence is not to assume between genus and species as there is no genus, "god". There is also no distinction between the three persons and the divine essence in the divine simpliciter.

How exactly can one leap to the question implying essence prioritized over person?


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Well I am happy you have no problem with Muller's gloss, but why the quibbling question?
> 
> Distinguishing between persons and essence is not to assume between genus and species as there is no genus, "god". There is also no distinction between the three persons and the divine essence in the divine simpliciter.
> 
> How exactly can one leap to the question implying essence prioritized over person?



I guess its with the language of "subsisting". It seems like a participation in the divine essence. Of course, I know the scholastics aren't saying that, but it's what it sounds like. Muller continues,



> The persons, therefore are identified according to what they have in common and how they are distinct: they have in common the numerically singular and indivisible divine essence, the essential properties, the works, dignity, and honor of God. They are distinct, however, in origin, in order, and in manner of operation


This is how the Cappadocians hinted at person, but we can't really use the term analogically anymore, since distinguishing by modes of origination doesn't really define the content.

As the "quibbling question," a lot of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics accuse the Reformed of the "person-nature" confusion. My goal, noting the Cappadocian non-definition of the term person, is that they can't even define what a person is. Eastern Orthodox theologian John Behr is very clear on that: the East cannot give a generic definition of something which is irreducibly specific.


----------



## Nomos

ReformedReidian said:


> but in the Trinity there is only one divine mind



Is mind here intended to be a metaphor for being? Or could you further explain what it would mean for three people to have the same mind?

Thanks,


----------



## Nomos

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> then I tend to say that A person is a distinct bearer of an essence



Would you say that men all share the same essence as Jesus as the Father share the same essence?


----------



## jwright82

earl40 said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Reformed Forum episode I mentioned really deals well with all this but I don't know how to post it, my internet access is very limited. Also my computer skills are very Stone Age in nature. My younger brothers always make fun of me for my lack of skills in this area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Van Til's Trinitarian Theology - Reformed Forum
Click to expand...



Thank you very much.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

This is the best I can come up with (the phrase in bold type):
Before the world began, the father of light and those two others who comprised with him the *Council of Light –* *three persons in one Being *– decreed a plan whereby many in the foreseen lost race would be rescued, both from their captivity to the demon-prince and their grotesque and horrific condition of being. They agreed that the father’s son would go to the earth and be born into the cursed race, even taking on their flesh and nature, becoming one with them, although at the same time he was not of them, but of the father’s light. [emphasis added]​ 
I am not trying to define the Trinity but just refer to it without doing violence to Biblical, confessional, or theological truth. I find that the confessional and creedal linguistic simplicity is best for such a brief mention of it as I do, and so will use only, “*the Council of Light –* *three persons in one Being*” even though it leaves much to be desired. I think saying more is saying less.

I must say that reading the posts, considering different views, and listening to the discussion on Van Til's Trinitarian Theology were all very edifying. I am grateful for the instruction.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Nomos said:


> Would you say that men all share the same essence as Jesus as the Father share the same essence?


I would not say this. Man is a composition of parts, a compound, while God is simple, having no composition of parts. The "whatness" of God (His _essence_, if you will) is His attributes. In other words, God _is_ His attributes, all of which inhere one another.

BTW, I assumed your second "as" in your statement really meant to be "and".


----------



## RamistThomist

Nomos said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> but in the Trinity there is only one divine mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is mind here intended to be a metaphor for being? Or could you further explain what it would mean for three people to have the same mind?
> 
> Thanks,
Click to expand...


It's co-extensive with being, but not synonymous.


----------

