# Equality of the Persons of the Trinity



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 14, 2011)

I've got some questions concerning equality of the persons of the Trinity.

(1) Does one person of the Trinity have more power and/or glory than the other?

(2) Are all the persons of the Trinity dependent on each other? (presupposes unequal power)

(3) If one person of the Trinity has His own glory (due to His own working and power), does He share it with/impute it to the other persons of the Trinity?

YES, I am just totally lost! Now, help me out of this confusion before I lose my mind!


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 14, 2011)

WLC Q. 9. _How many persons are there in the Godhead?_ A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, *equal in power and glory*; although distinguished by their personal properties.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 14, 2011)

LBCF 2.3 In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 14, 2011)

So the persons of the Trinity are NOT DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER? So Jesus was not REALLY dependent on the Father and the Holy Spirit, when he lived as a man? Was it just to set to us a model of a true Christian?

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------

Furthermore, how do you explain Jesus' own words, "My _meat_ is to do the will of my Father." He could not _live_ apart from pleasing his Father. And on the other side, some great theologians have said that "The Father's eternal happiness consists of His own Son." That would mean the Father's happiness depends on the Son. Is this not Biblical?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> So the persons of the Trinity are NOT DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER? So Jesus was not REALLY dependent on the Father and the Holy Spirit, when he lived as a man? Was it just to set to us a model of a true Christian?


 
I don't know that "dependent" on each other is a helpful way to put it. All three persons complete exhaust the divine essence. If wants to put it mathematically, 100% God plus 100% God plus 100% God equals 100% God. And yet, the persons are still eternally distinct. The main category that helps us to understand this is perichoresis, the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the persons. So, rather than speak of "dependent," I would use the words "mutually indwelling." It is a happy thing, by the way, to wonder about the Three and the One. You cannot think of the One without thinking of the Three, and you cannot think of the Three without thinking about the One. Lots of mystery here, and WAY better minds than any on this board have been stopped short in trying to understand how this works.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 14, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > So the persons of the Trinity are NOT DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER? So Jesus was not REALLY dependent on the Father and the Holy Spirit, when he lived as a man? Was it just to set to us a model of a true Christian?
> ...


 
Could you directly answer my other questions:



> Furthermore, how do you explain Jesus' own words, "My meat is to do the will of my Father." He could not live apart from pleasing his Father. And on the other side, some great theologians have said that "The Father's eternal happiness consists of His own Son." That would mean the Father's happiness depends on the Son. Is this not Biblical?


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 14, 2011)

Personally I have found A'Brakel's treatment of the doctrine of God to be very helpful. It's not necessarily short reading, but eminently readable. One can access it here (chapters 3 and 4, starting on p.83 of the linked file).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 14, 2011)

Phil D. said:


> Personally I have found A'Brakel's treatment of the doctrine of God to be very helpful. It's not necessarily short reading, but eminently readable. One can access it here (chapters 3 and 4, starting on p.83 of the linked file).


 
But you cannot answer whether the Father's happiness consists of/is dependent on the Son, and vice versa?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...


 
Hmm. Difficult question to answer. It is certainly biblical to say that each person of the Trinity delights in the other. The danger of saying that the Father's happiness depends on the Son is that then the persons are not self-sufficient. Wouldn't they cease to be God that way? I would say they offer love freely to each other and delight in each other. The Son's delight is to do the will of the Father, just as the Father's delight is to will that which the Son is willing to do. Dependence is dangerous territory, in my mind.


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 14, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> But you cannot answer whether the Father's happiness consists of/is dependent on the Son, and vice versa?



First, I'm much, much less qualified than Rev. Keister (or a'Brakel!) to attempt to address such a question. 

For what it's worth, I agree that "dependent" isn't necessarily the best word to use in describing the interrelationship between the persons of the Trinity. Also, the fact that since the incarnation the Son has two distinct but undivided natures (divine and human) adds yet another dimension to consider. It seems to me much of your last question relates to this latter phenomenon. Jesus, in his humanity, clearly did "submit" his human will (at least) to the Father. 

As to something you said earlier, I don't think that to say "the Father's eternal happiness *consists*of His own Son" is quite the same as saying that it "depends" on the Son. God, as a single substance and in His immutability, is eternally self-content (to use an anthropomorphic term) and self-sufficient in His very being. As Rev. Keister said, exactly how that all works out in the sense of the Trinitarian interrelationship largely remains a mystery.


----------



## amg (Jan 14, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> So the persons of the Trinity are NOT DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER? So Jesus was not REALLY dependent on the Father and the Holy Spirit, when he lived as a man? Was it just to set to us a model of a true Christian?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------
> 
> Furthermore, how do you explain Jesus' own words, "My _meat_ is to do the will of my Father." He could not _live_ apart from pleasing his Father. And on the other side, some great theologians have said that "The Father's eternal happiness consists of His own Son." That would mean the Father's happiness depends on the Son. Is this not Biblical?


 
Cross reference with John 6.38. Jesus is not saying that He has a distinct will which is separate from the will of the Father, rather, He is saying that both He and Father have the same will and He is in subordination to the Father and He is going to do those things which He has willed before the foundations of the world according to His most holy and wise counsel. There can be no divisiveness or difference of opinion within the Godhead or in reference to the will of God, because Jehovah is one God, yet in three persons. There is perfect unity, which is something very hard for us to comprehend as sinners who so often are at difference of opinion. Jehovah is the God who changes not and with whom there is no shifting or variableness.

So often in our culture we have lost the concept of subordinate and instead made it a synonym with inferior. I think part of the confusion comes from the feminist movement which will not allow a woman to be _subordinate _to a male because it makes her _inferior_, and this is simply not the case, but this is why the feminist has concluded that the woman ought usurp the authority of the man; though that is for another post... Back on topic: Christ is in no wise inferior to the Father, nor is He superior to the Holy Ghost. W.S.C. 9 is very clear on this issue, as Phil D. pointed out. It is entirely possible to be equal in stature and submit to another who is of equal stature. When the Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands it is not saying that they are any less. Man and woman are equal, but the woman is to willfully submit, which does not imply less worth in any way.

Christ did not come as a mere example, this is liberal theology. Christ was sincere in all of His actions, if He was not sincere then it would not be a very good example nor would He be in line with Scripture, now would He? When He thanked the Father those whom He had given Him, He was sincerely thanking Him even as when He blessed the bread and gave thanks and brake it. Furthermore, God is glorified when His will is performed. Yes, He has foreordained it to be, but He is pleased and He is glorified when those things are accomplished in time nonetheless.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 14, 2011)

Here are some other thoughts. In the Scriptures Christ is called the glory of God. So, in other words, Christ is bringing glory to God. Now, does this mean that Christ brings glory to the Holy Spirit and the Father by HIS OWN works, OR does this mean that Christ could actually never do anything apart from the Holy Spirit and the Father, and so the glory of Christ's works belongs to all the persons of the Trinity?

---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------




greenbaggins said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...


 
But I thought there was ONE God, who is the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Not that they are Gods apart from each other.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------




alanmichael.gentry said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > So the persons of the Trinity are NOT DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER? So Jesus was not REALLY dependent on the Father and the Holy Spirit, when he lived as a man? Was it just to set to us a model of a true Christian?
> ...


 
Hmmmm. So, Jesus' thoughts ARE also the Father and the Holy Spirit's thoughts - not just that they are in agreement with each other. Is that what you mean?

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

Thank you all for your sincere attempt to help me understand this difficult concept of the Trinity!


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2011)

The text you bolded did in no way imply three Gods. Indeed, I thought I was rather carefully avoiding that impression. That is why I said "they are God," not "they are Gods."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 14, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> The text you bolded did in no way imply three Gods. Indeed, I thought I was rather carefully avoiding that impression. That is why I said "they are God," not "they are Gods."


 
I am coming to understand that all the persons of the Trinity are sufficient in and of themselves. I even do understand Christ's love for the Father - that He could not live apart from pleasing the Father. However, something I do not understand is Christ's dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit. What exactly did Christ not have before his baptism to his messianic office that he had after it?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > The text you bolded did in no way imply three Gods. Indeed, I thought I was rather carefully avoiding that impression. That is why I said "they are God," not "they are Gods."
> ...


 
The baptism of Jesus had to do with His inauguration into the Messianic office of prophet, priest and king. He was anointed for this purpose by the Holy Spirit, which is the superior antitype to the oil used in the Old Testament. I do not personally believe that it was some new kind of possession of the Holy Spirit that He didn't have before. Don't forget, though, that when we are talking about Jesus Christ, we are talking about someone fully human and fully divine in one person. If there is anything proper in saying that Jesus is dependent on the Holy Spirit, then it would be in relationship to His human nature, not His divine nature.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 14, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...


 
I would like to learn more about Jesus' humanity. Are there any good books out there that would help to clarify the two natures of Jesus?

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

a'Brakel seems to have some resources on it. In his book, "THE CHRISTIAN‟S REASONABLE SERVICE," a'Brakel has a section called, "The Divinity, Incarnation, and Union of the Two Natures in the One Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ". I think I will have a look at it.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...


 
a'Brakel is entirely sound and helpful. The single best Reformed theologian on the two natures of Christ is Peter Martyr Vermigli. The context of the Reformed/Lutheran debates on the Lord's Supper had some serious implications for Christology. Therefore, I would highly recommend volume 2 of the Peter Martyr Library, _Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ_. John Owen also had some extremely helpful things on Christology in his works, especially volume 1.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 14, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> But you cannot answer whether the Father's happiness consists of/is dependent on the Son, and vice versa?


 
Piper offers the following (_The Pleasures of God_):

“…the Gospel is the good news that God is the all-satisfying end of all our longings, and that even though he does not need us, and is in fact estranged form us because of our God-belittling sins, he has, in the great love with which he loved us, made a way for sinners to drink at the river of his delights through Jesus Christ. And we will not be enthralled by this good news unless we feel that he was not obliged to do this. He was not coerced or constrained by our value. He is the center of the gospel. The exaltation of his glory is the driving force of the gospel. The gospel is a gospel of grace! And grace is the pleasure of God to magnify the worth of God by giving sinners the right and the power to delight in God without obscuring the glory of God.

The Scriptures speak of God’s delight (joy, happiness) in His Son (e.g., Matthew 17:5; John 3:35; John 10:17; John 17:24-26 and more). God’s pleasure in His Son is actually pleasure in Himself. The Son is the image of God, equal with God, in fact is God, thus the delight God feels for His son is a delight in Himself. We read in 2 Corinthians 4:6, “…the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” From eternity in the face of His Son God has beheld the panorama of His own perfections and rejoices with infinite joy in this. 

Is this vanity? 

It would be vanity if our deepest joys were found looking in a mirror. We would be smug and conceited if we imitated God like this. While we are to imitate God (see Matthew 5:48; Ephesians 5:1), we are not to imitate Him in every way. Adam wanted to imitate God, to be like God in a manner that was never intended—to be self-reliant. But only God is self-reliant—we should be God-reliant. We were not created for self-contemplation, rather something greater and far more nobler—for the “contemplation and enjoyment of God!” Indeed, anything less is idolatry toward God and ultimately disappointment for ourselves. The most glorious of all beings is God and to not love and delight in Him is a tremendous loss to us and an insult to God.

How shall God not insult what is infinitely beautiful and glorious? How shall God not commit idolatry? There is only one possible answer. God must love and delight in his own beauty and perfection above all things. For us to do this in front of the mirror is the essence of vanity; for God to do it in front of his Son is the essence of righteousness.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 15, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > But you cannot answer whether the Father's happiness consists of/is dependent on the Son, and vice versa?
> ...


 
I agree we can say God finds His eternal happiness in Himself. I even agree that each person of the Trinity is happy/self-sufficient in and of Himself. However, the very reason, I think, they have the right to claim to be so is because they find their joy in one another - not that they had no reason to delight in themselves, since they all are equal in glory, but because this is the nature of their loving character. This is the very function how the Trinity works: "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” (1 Cor. 12:26) How do I know this applies to the Trinity, and not only to the Christians? Jesus, Himself, said these words, "And the glory which thou [the Father] gavest me I have given them; *that they may be one, even as we are one*:" So, the persons of the Trinity are actually not taking pleasure in themselves, but rather in one another! Not that they had no right to do so, but that they simply won’t due to their unselfish character. Realize that the scenario is not the same as with GOD versus creation – of course GOD must make Himself the standard of His creation, and focus only on Himself – but it won't be the same scenario when there are three beings equal in glory. When we get to see this seemingly selfish GOD for who He really is, when we get to see the Trinity, we won’t see the least self-centeredness as we blindly saw in GOD – we will see three infinitely glorious beings in such loving relationship with one another that we won’t be able to believe our own eyes. It won’t be this three kings sitting on their own thrones – there will be only one throne, and the three kings are so united in love to one another that they all share with one another the one throne. I don’t know about you and others, but this is the triune God I’m waiting to see some day in the heavenly places.


----------



## amg (Jan 15, 2011)

alanmichael.gentry said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > So the persons of the Trinity are NOT DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER? So Jesus was not REALLY dependent on the Father and the Holy Spirit, when he lived as a man? Was it just to set to us a model of a true Christian?
> ...


 
Hmmmm. So, Jesus' thoughts ARE also the Father and the Holy Spirit's thoughts - not just that they are in agreement with each other. Is that what you mean?

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

Thank you all for your sincere attempt to help me understand this difficult concept of the Trinity![/QUOTE]

Samuel, Jehovah is one Lord. There is but one divine thought in which there is no division nor divisiveness nor shadow of turning. He is immutable and this means that His thoughts can neither shift nor waver nor differ, He is one in all of His divine judgments and counsels and the Triune covenant of redemption is testimony to that. The counsel of God is perfect and He is one in His action.

I can see that this is a troubling area for you to wrap your mind around and I would only counsel that you not attempt to swim in the deep and vast realms of theology before you have learned to wade in the shallow waters. I believe it was Augustine who said concerning the holy Trinity, "Try to understand it and you will lose your mind. Deny it and you'll lose your soul." If I remember correctly, Augustine was instrumental in laying down the final doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, there is a time for all things- but you must remember Romans 11:33-36. Jehovah is incomprehensible.

Again, I would refer you to the W.S.C. Q. 9. That concise question and answer addresses each of your concerns. Take the time to sit down and meditate over it.


----------

