# God's substance



## Davidius (Feb 5, 2008)

What does it mean for the three persons of the Trinity to be one in substance if the divine nature has no material body?

Also, are substance and nature the same thing in this context?


----------



## etexas (Feb 5, 2008)

Great question my Brother! Where are the PB wise ones?


----------



## KMK (Feb 5, 2008)

As far as I know 'homoousias' can be translated "same nature" or "same essence". I have never heard it translated "same substance".


----------



## etexas (Feb 5, 2008)

KMK said:


> As far as I know 'homoousias' can be translated "same nature" or "same essence". I have never heard it translated "same substance".


I need to look at some stuff, I am sure I have seen "substance" before. (Not taking a position on it) it could have just been poorly done.(The translation, not what you said!)


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 5, 2008)

etexas said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know 'homoousias' can be translated "same nature" or "same essence". I have never heard it translated "same substance".
> ...



Here's where you've heard it....


WSC
Q. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;[20] and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 5, 2008)

Is "substance" necessarily material? Are not the angels "spiritual substance"?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 5, 2008)

In this context I would think that "substance" is equal to "nature" or "being". It is an ontological term, I believe.


----------



## KMK (Feb 5, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



Wow do I feel dumb. But it seems that modern Christianity favors the terms 'nature' or 'essence'. Perhaps that is because the word 'substance' seems to cause confusion these days. (For the reasons stated above)


----------



## etexas (Feb 5, 2008)

KMK said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > etexas said:
> ...


Don't feel dumb, I am the one who could not remember where I saw substance used within that context. DOH!


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Feb 5, 2008)

Substance doesn't have to be material. Take for example the substance of the self in Cartesian substance dualism.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 5, 2008)

etexas said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Southern Presbyterian said:
> ...




The terms "essence" and "nature" are not new. Belgic Confession (1561)Article 8 uses the term "essense." Heidleberg Catechism Q. 25 uses "essence." 

I like the wording of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) III. 3 "...So that there are not three Gods, but three persons, consubstantial, coeternal; distinct...as touching their nature or essence, they are so joined that they are but one God; and the divine esence is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."


----------



## Davidius (Feb 6, 2008)

Cheshire Cat said:


> Substance doesn't have to be material. Take for example the substance of the self in Cartesian substance dualism.



I would argue that the implies something physical, at least in common usage (now at least). However, it looks like it can also be used metaphorically, i.e. when speaking of the "substance" of a conversation, or also when speaking of philosophy, as you and the Catechism have shown. 

I prefer "essence" (Latin _esse_, "to be") and "nature."


----------

