Trinitarian terminology

Essence – The definition which makes a thing what it is. The essence is not something physical (like vanilla essence) but rather the minimal definition of a thing. So the essence of a cage would be something like ‘Is composed of bars’ and ‘is enclosed’. If an object has these properties, then it has the essence of a cage and we rightly refer to it as a cage without confusion. Having said this, the essence of a thing can be complex. What is the essence of ‘dog’? A precise definition of the canine essence would involve complicated calculations of genetic science. The essence of a thing can also be vague. What is the essence of a pile? There is no discrete number of grains that divide pile from non-pile. Since X+1 and X-1 number of grains all look the same, no definition can be made at exactly X. Despite these problems, the essence may be briefly described as the statement of the definition of a thing.

Nature – This is a concept related to essence. The nature of a thing is more specifically the essence as seen as the source of action. The essence of the human being might be the body and soul but its nature is reason and sensation.

Accident – the accidents are the properties of a thing which are extrinsic to its essence. Some things are necessarily accidents, such as height and breadth which only exist when instantiated within a particular thing that has spatial dimensions (for example, a building or person.) Other things are relatively accidental – for example, my skin colour, my hair colour, my arms and legs, are all accidents relative to me because they are not my essence; they are not what define me.

Substance – the substance is sometimes used interchangeably with essence. However, it generally refers more specifically to the individual instantiation of the essence. So the essence of a cage is ‘is composed of bars and is enclosed’ but the substance would be the actual being which is the cage. The substance is defined by its opposition to the accidents. The accidents can be changed without any change to substance. For example, wood can be broken, glazed and painted but will remain wood. The accidents have changed (size and colour) but not the substance (it is still wood.) Consequently the changes are accidental. However, if the wood is burnt to ash, it no longer constitutes wood. The accidents therefore are the properties which can undergo modification without change to the substance of the thing; the substance however is the being of a thing which cannot undergo modification without becoming another substance. In short, the substance refers to the being itself without respect to its accidents. The divine substance refers to the divine being in its unity.

Operation – the operation (deriving from the Latin ‘operari’ meaning ‘to work&rsquo😉 is the activity of the substance. The operation might be accidental (for example, my typing at this moment is only accidental to me; it is not my substance and I remain myself when I cease typing). However, operations can be the substance of a thing (for example, calculation, an operation, is definitely the substance of mathematics.)

Relation – Relation is generally the property of a thing in respect to another. A man is in essence a human being who is male, that is, generally having or having had male genitalia or hormonal regularities of a male (again, the essence of a thing can be complex and vague; in the case of gender, some would dispute whether any essence is possible.) In relation, however, a man can be a father or a brother. A relation can be spatial (my relation to my desk) or temporal (my relation to my past) or logical (the relation between antecedent and consequent). A relation always requires plurality in some kind. A father is only a father by begetting a son. A relation can be accidental or substantial. In the case of a man, the relation of paternity is accidental (a man is not inherently a father); in the case of creation, the relation of creator-creation is substantial because to be creation requires a creator.

Person – personhood is probably the hardest to define. In discussing the Trinity, all I am concerned to do is to distinguish it from being and substance so that when we say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons we are not committed to polytheism or that there are three beings. In fact, many have already distinguished being from personhood on this forum. For example, when discussing the ethics of abortion and euthanasia, some argued that while an embryo and comatose patient in a vegetative state are human beings, they are not human persons and consequently cannot be accorded the same rights. Whether this is right or not, it shows that many people already can understand that being and person are different. Using the terminology above, a more precise definition of personhood is a ‘subsistent relation’. The person is not the substance itself or another substance or an accident superimposed on the substance; it is the substance as it moves beyond itself and relates to others, knows and is known, loves and is loved. Traditionally, the difference between substance and person has been defined by ‘what’ and ‘who’. When we ask ‘What is that?’, we are asking for a statement of its substance and the answer might be ‘a man’; when we ask ‘who?’ however we are asking for a statement of relation, or a name that distinguishes him from others, and the answer might be ‘the man next to that guy’ or ‘the son of the butcher’ or ‘Jim’; the person emerges as the movement of the substance towards another, as Pope Benedict XVI explained, as Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘The person is the event or being of relativity.’ It is inherently communal. It presupposes agency, freedom, intelligence and individuality of the being. So the person simply is the subsistent relation.

The application of these to the Incarnation and Trinity:

The incarnation – since the doctrine of the incarnation arose historically before the doctrine of the Trinity, I will start with this. The doctrine of the incarnation states that Jesus Christ is both man and God, human and divine. Since to say something is a man means to say that thing has the essence of a man, then Jesus must have the human essence, and since to say that something is God is to say that thing has the divine essence, then Jesus must have the divine essence. Consequently, the doctrine of the incarnation means that Jesus has two essences, two natures and two substances – one human, the other divine. What is true of God is true of Jesus and what is true of human nature is true of Jesus. Jesus has a human nature, a body and soul; Jesus also has the divine nature, the divine spirit. The incarnation further means that Jesus has two minds, one human and one divine, and two wills, one human and one divine (although always in perfect conformity.) However, the doctrine of the incarnation teaches that there is only one person. There is one relation, Jesus the son, teaching the gospel, forgiving sins, redeeming mankind. There is only one person because the two substances work as one; they talk as one; they perform miracles as one and they die as one.

The Trinity – the doctrine of the Trinity is the obverse side of the Incarnation. The Incarnation posits two natures in one person whereas the Trinity posits three persons in one nature. Historically, the Trinity emerged between two extremes: Arianism which said that the three persons were three beings each divine (resulting in a kind of polytheism or tritheism) and Sabellianism which said that the three persons were modes or manifestations of one God (resulting in modalism.) The doctrine of the Trinity seeks to find a midway between the two. According to the Trinity, there is only one being: God. There is only one substance and nature, one mind and one will. Furthermore, God is simple. This means that there are no accidents in God (nothing which can be changed without a change to His substance) and consequently whatever is true of God is God’s essence. Thus, God’s actions are also God’s essence. When I type, it is a mere accident to my nature (typing does not define me.) But for God, being simple, what God does God is. So if God loves, He is also His loving. Loving must be His substance if He is truly simple. For this reason, especially in Catholic circles, God has been described as ‘pure action’ as well as pure being. In God, there is no difference between being and action.

It is from this that the idea of personhood develops. The Father is pre-eminently God. The Father is the source of existence and the first person of the Trinity. He is pure spirit. His first action, however, is to know and consequently know Himself. This act of knowing however cannot be accidental to His substance (because in God, there are no accidents.) In this act of self-knowing, he brought forward the idea and image of Himself – and being an act of God which cannot be an accident, it was God’s substance too. This act, while not changing the substance, introduces a relation (the Father and the Father’s self-knowing.) Consequently, according to the definitions above, there are two persons – the Father and the image and self-knowing of the Father. Since the image is generated, begotten not created, it is called the Son (the name of this relation is technically metaphorical.) Furthermore, being perfect, the Father loved the image of Himself, the Son. This is not a romantic love but an intellectual love, an evaluation of the essential good of Himself. Thus, a new act arose, the act of love, which proceeded from the Father and the Son. It too, not being an accident, was of the same being and substance but different relation. Consequently, it too was a person. The three persons of the Trinity therefore are the internal relations of action within the one being. They are all one substance and being but, being different in relation, are called distinct persons. It is important to distinguish these persons from entities; they are internal to the one entity, God, and they arise from the actions within the one substance and they are pure relations. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be equally known as Paternity, Filiation and Spiration.

The Perichoresis / circuminsession – Since the persons of the Trinity are of the same being, distinct only in relation, there is never a moment where the Father is and the Son and Holy Spirit is not. To be one person is to be God (because being that person is the act and substance of God, not an accident), however, while the person is distinct from the others in relation, he is not in being. The consequence of this is the doctrine of the Perichoresis or circumincession (or compenetrability) which says that the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.’ Each person dwells in the other (this both has philosophical grounds and scriptural grounds, as Jesus says ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me.&rsquo😉

Immanent versus economic Trinity – This explanation of the Trinity is described as ‘Immanent’ (‘immanent’ coming from the Latin ‘immanere’ meaning ‘to remain inside&rsquo😉. It describes the Trinity only in terms of internal relations, not external relations. This is how it differs from Modalism or Sabellianism which understands the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as manifestations of God to the outside world (the Father as God-creating, the Son as God-begotten-in-Mary and the Holy Spirit as God-dwelling-in-creation.) This immanent explanation however overlooks how the Trinity is involved in the economy of salvation (how Jesus becomes incarnate and uniquely performs the redemption; how the Holy Spirit uniquely descends on the apostles and teaches and comforts them.) The doctrine of the Trinity would stress both the economy and the immanence of the three persons (that is, that the persons are not just God’s external manifestations in the history of salvation, which would be Seballianism, but internal relations within God.) Hence, it is not wrong to describe the persons as manifestations of God, so long as it is also said that they really correspond to the inner life of God. It is this last point which is most controversial within Trinitarian theology: the extent to which the internal relations of God act independently within creation -- which I myself cannot explain.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The application of these to the Incarnation and Trinity:

The incarnation – since the doctrine of the incarnation arose historically before the doctrine of the Trinity, I will start with this. The doctrine of the incarnation states that Jesus Christ is both man and God, human and divine. Since to say something is a man means to say that thing has the esse ...[text shortened]... he internal relations of God act independently within creation -- which I myself cannot explain.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The application of these to the Incarnation and Trinity:

The incarnation – since the doctrine of the incarnation arose historically before the doctrine of the Trinity, I will start with this. The doctrine of the incarnation states that Jesus Christ is both man and God, human and divine. Since to say something is a man means to say that thing has the esse ...[text shortened]... he internal relations of God act independently within creation -- which I myself cannot explain.

Originally posted by galveston75
A few simple questions that I have asked a few times and not gotten an answer to is this.

Why does the Bible use the terms Father - Son?
Or the names Jehovah - Jesus?
God Almighty - God?
Why does the Holy Spirit not have a name and some other term applied to it like Son or God or nephew or whatever?

The point of these seemingly simple ques ems there would be some explination in the bible to explain to humans what our God really is?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b] Why does the Bible use the terms Father - Son?

Because these denote relations within God: the Father as begetter and Son as begotten; the Father as the eminent source of existence and the Son as the self-knowledge, word and image of the Father. These terms are justified because they refer to real relations in God.

Or the names Jehovah - oly Spirit to guide men to interpret it properly to develop the Trinitarian formula.[/b]

While there are two processions in God (Son and Holy Spirit), one of these, the procession of love, has no proper name of its own, as stated above (27, 4, ad 3). Hence the relations also which follow from this procession are without a name (28, 4): for which reason the Person proceeding in that manner has not a proper name. But as some names are accommodated by the usual mode of speaking to signify the aforesaid relations, as when we use the names of procession and spiration, which in the strict sense more fittingly signify the notionalacts than the relations; so to signify the divine Person, Who proceeds by way of love, this name " Holy Ghost" is by the use of scriptural speech accommodated to Him. The appropriateness of this name may be shown in two ways.

Firstly, from the fact that the person who is called "Holy Ghost" has something in common with the other Persons. For, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17; v, 11), "Because the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father also is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy."

Secondly, from the proper signification of the name. For the name spirit in things corporeal seems to signify impulse and motion; for we call the breath and the wind by the term spirit. Now it is a property of love to move and impel the will of the lover towards the object loved. Further, holiness is attributed to whatever is ordered to God. Therefore because the divine person proceeds by way of the love whereby God is loved, that person is most properly named "The Holy Ghost."

Originally posted by jaywill
Very good.

Worth reading more than once.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Thanks. I understand that in explaining the Trinity, I have moved far away from mere explication of the Bible. I would like to stress that this explanation of the Trinity is not extra-biblical; it is not an attempt to hijack scripture with a foreign Greek philosophy. Rather it is the result of an attempt to understand scripture, the clear indications of Jesus' humanity and divinity and at the same time God's unity.

Originally posted by galveston75
So to verify what I think your saying is this explination is not from God or the Bible but from man?

Thanks that was a clear and informative exposition of the trinity.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Thanks. I understand that in explaining the Trinity, I have moved far away from mere explication of the Bible. I would like to stress that this explanation of the Trinity is not extra-biblical; it is not an attempt to hijack scripture with a foreign Greek philosophy. Rather it is the result of an attempt to understand scripture, the clear indications of Jesus' humanity and divinity and at the same time God's unity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it seems to me Conrau that the problems you are facing are insurmountable, for you state that you have given an explanation that is not to be considered in itself as extra biblical, yet you needed to resort to ideas and terminology that in themselves are extra biblical, the very same problem that you faced when asked if God and christ were separate e ...[text shortened]... scripturally as is self evident from your attempt to explain in through non scriptural means.

Originally posted by galveston75
So to verify what I think your saying is this explination is not from God or the Bible but from man?

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. I am definitely saying that it is in the Bible, just not in the form of a creed or doctrinal formula. I am saying that it only emerged in its doctrinal form, 'one being in three persons', as a result of biblical exegesis and the Holy Spirit's governance in history.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it seems to me Conrau that the problems you are facing are insurmountable, for you state that you have given an explanation that is not to be considered in itself as extra biblical, yet you needed to resort to ideas and terminology that in themselves are extra biblical, the very same problem that you faced when asked if God and christ were separate e scripturally as is self evident from your attempt to explain in through non scriptural means.