0

Concerning god, the Nicene Creed says:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

If I'm not mistaken- god, god, and god have these exact same attributes. All three god is "almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible"

However, god did not become a man but god did. Also, god did not speak through the prophets, but god did. What special attribute does god have that makes him distinct from god and god?

Cannabijoy
  • 2,492
  • 16
  • 45
  • Can you clarify? You seem to be unlearned in the concept of the Trinity, that God created all things, but did so through Jesus, for example. – Steve Oct 17 '16 at 03:04
  • @Steve I'm confused. When you say "God created..." which god are are you talking about? When you say Jesus, are you talking about the god-man, or the second person of the triune god? Are you saying the second person of the triune god is not "the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible?" – Cannabijoy Oct 17 '16 at 03:25
  • I'm not sure whether all Trinitarians would answer this the same way. I believe I can put together a reasonable answer but it would primarily be from a Catholic viewpoint; Orthodox Christians (for example) appear to have a slightly different perspective on how the Trinity "works". – Matt Gutting Oct 17 '16 at 03:28
  • @MattGutting If you frame your answer as Western rather than Catholic then you'll get the great majority of Protestants on board too. – curiousdannii Oct 17 '16 at 03:32
  • @MattGutting Any perspective that makes sense is okay with me. It seems Protestants agree for the most part on the Catholic interpretation, so if you could do as curiousdannii suggested that would be great. Thank you. – Cannabijoy Oct 17 '16 at 04:18
  • 1
    Your last paragraph is very badly phrased and sounds like tritheism. – curiousdannii Oct 17 '16 at 05:37
  • @curiousdannii Which part is badly phrased? I'm pretty sure I haven't misrepresented anything. There is god, "the Father", god, "the Son", and god, "the Holy Spirit"...god, god, and god...right? – Cannabijoy Oct 17 '16 at 05:50
  • @anonymouswho No absolutely not. There is only one God, who is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The three persons are distinguished from each other, but they are the same one god. – curiousdannii Oct 17 '16 at 05:54
  • @curiousdannii I know, that's why I said "all three god is..." But each "person" is still referred to as "God" individually. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't be "the son of God". He would be "the son of the triune god", which means he begats himself. I don't understand why we can say "the Father is God", "the Son is God", and "the Holy Spirit is God", but not "god, god, and god"? What's the difference? – Cannabijoy Oct 17 '16 at 06:11
  • @anonymouswho That would make a good new question :) – curiousdannii Oct 17 '16 at 06:12
  • Are you asking: "What distinguishes the Father from the Son and from the Holy Spirit?"? – Geremia Oct 17 '16 at 15:27
  • @Geremia Yeah. The only thing I can think of is he "begats". – Cannabijoy Oct 17 '16 at 15:40
  • Does this clarify? http://www.openfocusattentiontraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/trinity-symbol.jpg – Steve Oct 18 '16 at 13:34
  • @Steve Not really. It looks too much like this I'm not asking this question to compare trinitarianism to modalism, I'm just wonder what god does that god and god don't do. – Cannabijoy Oct 18 '16 at 13:39

1 Answers1

2

To be brief, mentioning one Person of God as responsible for creation of Heaven and Earth, another Person as by whom all things were made, and another as the Person giving life is not meant to exclude the other Persons in these activities. In fact, the whole Trinity participates in these three activities; nothing in the Creed excludes the other Persons from them. I may be incorrect on this next count, but I think that these three activities are connected to their respective Persons in the Creed because they are, in a sense, iconic (or representative) of who the three Persons of God are and what their relationship to one another means. The actual meaning of their ontological relationship is revelation and cannot be explained in words, but I think that tying the Father to the foundation of the being of all creation, the Son to the fabric or Logoi of creation, and the Spirit to the life or motion of creation (most importantly, of actual living things) is specifically given in the Creed as a kind of glass-darkly analogy to who these Persons are and how these persons relate to one another.

In Orthodox theology, the distinguishing is spelled out in the Creed also, namely that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (going from the Greek wording always commonly held in the East and West; the Latin adds "Proceeds from the Father and the Son" in a sense slightly different than the Greek). The Father is not given such a relationship explicitly in His clause of the creed, but it can be immediately deduced from the other two clauses: the Father is that Person from Whom the Son is begotten and from Whom the Spirit proceeds, i.e. the Father is the Person of God Who is in a sense the ground and font of the eternal, uncreated presence of the other two Persons.

Thomas Rasberry
  • 121
  • 2
  • Hmmm...are you saying the Father is not excluded from the activity of becoming a man? – Cannabijoy Oct 17 '16 at 04:11
  • 1
    I don't know enough to reflect on whether incarnation of the Father is proper, but my guess is that it is not; the Son's very Personhood is defined by His begottenness of the Father before all ages, and the Father and Spirit's Personhood are not characterized in this way, so it seems to me proper that Incarnation solely befits the Person of the Son. And I would add that the phrase here (also in my own opinion) should be "becoming man," rather than "becoming a man," which tends to imply transformation into a human person or to a solely human form exclusive of Divine; the Son did neither. – Thomas Rasberry Oct 17 '16 at 04:18
  • I might ask that as a separate question after I get a definitive answer. This is a good answer, but at least two of the three god is distinct, and one of the god became man which is very distinct. So I need to make sure god really is distinct from god and god. The Orthodox position makes more sense to me, but then we've got a problem because both god and god would come from god. That would mean god is necessary for god and god, but god and god is not necessary for god. – Cannabijoy Oct 17 '16 at 05:19
  • @anonymouswho Your top comment needs to be a separate question. At the philosophical level, good luck "excluding" God from anything, since God is generally described as being the ultimate causation of all things. – KorvinStarmast Oct 17 '16 at 15:40
  • @KorvinStarmast Okay I'll ask. – Cannabijoy Oct 18 '16 at 04:15