The Father and the Son are not economically equal.

Ontological equality relates to equality with respect to being. Joe and Frank are ontologically equal in that they are both human. In this sense, The Father and the Son are ontologically equal in that they are both God. Economic equality relates the roles one takes in the world. Joe is the head of Frank because Joe is Frank's boss. In this sense, the Father and the Son are not economically equal because the Father is the head of Christ.

I am aware that TRINITARIANS believe ever since the second Person of the Trinity assumed a human body that the second Person of the Trinity is NOT economically equal to the first Person of the Trinity.

But my questions concern BEFORE the second Person of the Trinity assumed a human body...

1) Was the second Person of the Trinity economically equal to the first Person of the Trinity BEFORE he assumed a human nature?

2) Was the second Person of the Trinity economically equal to the first Person of the Trinity BEFORE the foundation of the world?

I think TRINITARIANS will say No and No, but I would like confirmation.


P.S.

Are you able to provide an overview of what you believe? Here is mine...

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.
 
I am aware that TRINITARIANS believe ever since the second Person of the Trinity assumed a human body that the second Person of the Trinity is NOT economically equal to the first Person of the Trinity.

But my questions concern BEFORE the second Person of the Trinity assumed a human body...

1) Was the second Person of the Trinity economically equal to the first Person of the Trinity BEFORE he assumed a human nature?

2) Was the second Person of the Trinity economically equal to the first Person of the Trinity BEFORE the foundation of the world?

I think TRINITARIANS will say No and No, but I would like confirmation.


P.S.

Are you able to provide an overview of what you believe? Here is mine...

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

Among those who call themselves Trinitarian there are those who fall on all sides of this question. I believe the primary/historical position is that the economic Trinity is eternal, but I am no expert on this.

God Bless
 
Among those who call themselves Trinitarian there are those who fall on all sides of this question. I believe the primary/historical position is that the economic Trinity is eternal, but I am no expert on this.


So what do YOU believe are the eternal roles of the three Persons of the Trinity?

A) don't know
B) the Father loves, the Son is loved, the Spirit is the love between them
C) other, please explain


P.S. Concerning the roles of the members of the Trinity, CARM says "if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity".

I believe Jesus "is" God rather than a "member" of God. Here is an overview of what I believe...

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

Feel free to critique my overview, but don't forget to answer the question. :)
 
The most concerning is when Trinitarians say that there is subordination within the ontological trinity, or even that ontologically God is 3, rather than 1.
 
So what do YOU believe are the eternal roles of the three Persons of the Trinity?

A) don't know
B) the Father loves, the Son is loved, the Spirit is the love between them
C) other, please explain


P.S. Concerning the roles of the members of the Trinity, CARM says "if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity".

Looking at the creeds, the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son(eastern Church differs here). Such doesn't happen in time; it relates to the eternal relationship between the three while not denying ontologically equality. Whether one considers such as part of the economic Trinity, I couldn't say. Your B) solution is from Aquinas. I don't know whether or not he is correct on this, but his framework is at least intriguing. Obviously, "if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity", but distinctions can be ontological, economic or relational. Trinitarians deny ontological distinctions, but we accept both economic and relational distinctions.

God Bless
 
Looking at the creeds, the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son(eastern Church differs here). Such doesn't happen in time; it relates to the eternal relationship between the three while not denying ontologically equality. Whether one considers such as part of the economic Trinity, I couldn't say. Your B) solution is from Aquinas. I don't know whether or not he is correct on this, but his framework is at least intriguing. Obviously, "if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity", but distinctions can be ontological, economic or relational. Trinitarians deny ontological distinctions, but we accept both economic and relational distinctions.

God Bless
There are many trinitarians who don't deny ontological distinctions. They would say the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father.

I personally believe "ontological trinity" is an oxymoron if you believe there is 1 God.
 
Looking at the creeds, the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son(eastern Church differs here). Such doesn't happen in time; it relates to the eternal relationship between the three while not denying ontologically equality. Whether one considers such as part of the economic Trinity, I couldn't say. Your B) solution is from Aquinas. I don't know whether or not he is correct on this, but his framework is at least intriguing. Obviously, "if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity", but distinctions can be ontological, economic or relational. Trinitarians deny ontological distinctions, but we accept both economic and relational distinctions.

God Bless

You may "accept" economic distinctions, but...

You are UNABLE to tell us WHAT the eternal economic distinctions are.

So what makes you think there are any?

And as you point out, "if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity".
 
There are many trinitarians who don't deny ontological distinctions. They would say the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father.

I personally believe "ontological trinity" is an oxymoron if you believe there is 1 God.

Subordinate does not particularly imply ontological inequality, but you are right, there are all sorts of people who call themselves Trinitarian while denying Trinitarianism.

How is believing the three persons are ontologically the same God, ergo there is only 1 God, oxymoronic?


God Bless
 
Subordinate does not particularly imply ontological inequality, but you are right, there are all sorts of people who call themselves Trinitarian while denying Trinitarianism.

How is believing the three persons are ontologically the same God, ergo there is only 1 God, oxymoronic?


God Bless
Maybe I misunderstand but the word ontological is referring to God's nature while economic would refer to the distinction in persons. Since there is only 1 God(1 nature) it doesn't make sense to call God a Trinity.

Here is a quote from Cornelius Van Til...

"Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert
that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person.... Over
against all other beings, that is, over against created beings,
we must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute
numerical identity. And even within the ontological Trinity we
must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person.
When we say that we believe in a personal God we do not
merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective
“personality” may be attached. God is not an essence that has
personality..."
 
You may "accept" economic distinctions, but...

You are UNABLE to tell us WHAT the eternal economic distinctions are.

And? My inability to explain everything so that you are satisfied is utterly irrelevant to the veracity of Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism can be true, and I may just be a poor spokesman for Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism can be true, and you may simply refuse to listen to Trinitarian explanations as to understand what they are saying. Trinitarianism can be true, and... Must I continue? Why are you making such illogical arguments? They are rhetorically meaningful, but functionally unsound. Are you trying to convince low information readers while ignoring meaningful interaction?

So what makes you think there are any?

Because, Scripture teaches the Trinity. Scripture teaches:
There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)_
The Father is that one God. (John 17:3)
The Son is that one God. (John 1:1,18; 20:28 Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1)
The Holy Spirit is that one God. (Acts 5:3-4)
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are relationally distinct. (John 14:16-17; Matthew 28:19)

Therefore, it only makes since that there are eternal distinctions. Whether there are any economic distinctions prior to creation is up for debate, especially related to what makes up an economic distinction as opposed to a simple relational distinction.


And as you point out, "if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity".

You do realize that ontological and economic distinction do not necessarily exhaust all the types of distinction that can exist between the three?

God Bless
 
Maybe I misunderstand but the word ontological is referring to God's nature while economic would refer to the distinction in persons. Since there is only 1 God(1 nature) it doesn't make sense to call God a Trinity.

Here is a quote from Cornelius Van Til...

"Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert
that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person.... Over
against all other beings, that is, over against created beings,
we must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute
numerical identity. And even within the ontological Trinity we
must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person.
When we say that we believe in a personal God we do not
merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective
“personality” may be attached. God is not an essence that has
personality..."

That opinion is a fair critique of our use of words; it does nothing to undermine the meaning of what we are trying to communicate. Cornelius Van Til is not a native English Speaker. It is well known that many of his statements are technically heterodox, if not heretical, due to Translational issues. I fully agree with what Van Til is saying in this quote. He is using person differently than how it is commonly used in English Speaking theological circles, but that's irrelevant. We are using words differently. So what; such is normal in human language. If you think "Since there is only 1 God(1 nature) it doesn't make sense to call God a Trinity.", then don't use the word Trinity. As long as you believe:

There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)_
The Father is that one God. (John 17:3)
The Son is that one God. (John 1:1,18; 20:28 Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1)
The Holy Spirit is that one God. (Acts 5:3-4)
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are relationally distinct. (John 14:16-17; Matthew 28:19)

We don't have a foundational disagreement.

God Bless
 
Whether there are any economic distinctions prior to creation is up for debate, especially related to what makes up an economic distinction as opposed to a simple relational distinction.

IF whether there are any economic distinctions prior to creation is up for debate...

And since YOU say if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity...

Then whether there is a Trinity prior to creation is up for debate...

Correct?

You do realize that ontological and economic distinction do not necessarily exhaust all the types of distinction that can exist between the three?

Trinitarians say the Ontological Trinity deals with WHAT God is, and the Economic Trinity deals with what God DOES.

And they say there cannot be any ontological distinctions.

And since you say whether there are any eternal economic distinctions is up for debate.

So what other distinctions are you referring to?

Remember, YOU say that if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity.
 
IF whether there are any economic distinctions prior to creation is up for debate...
And since YOU say if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity...
Then whether there is a Trinity prior to creation is up for debate...
Correct?

Nope, as I said "distinctions can be ontological, economic or relational". That Trinitarians deny ontological distinctions categorically and that some deny economic distinctions prior to Creation does not mean there couldn't still be relational distinctions defining the Trinity from all eternity.


Trinitarians say the Ontological Trinity deals with WHAT God is, and the Economic Trinity deals with what God DOES.\
And they say there cannot be any ontological distinctions.
And since you say whether there are any eternal economic distinctions is up for debate
So what other distinctions are you referring to?
Remember, YOU say that if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity.

Relational distinctions. I've said it like five times.

God Bless
 
Relational distinctions. I've said it like five times.

Are you able to describe the RELATIONAL DISTINCTIONS between the three members of the Trinity BEFORE CREATION?

In other words, the Bible describes how Jesus being born to Mary is a son-mother and son-father relationship.

But what does a father-son relationship mean to eternal persons (where nothing else exists)?

Such that the first and third members of the Trinity do not have. Or the second and third members.
 
Are you able to describe the RELATIONAL DISTINCTIONS between the three members of the Trinity BEFORE CREATION?

In other words, the Bible describes how Jesus being born to Mary is a son-mother and son-father relationship.

But what does a father-son relationship mean to eternal persons (where nothing else exists)?

Such that the first and third members of the Trinity do not have. Or the second and third members.
Yes, the I vs you distinction that I am having with you right now. One I recognizing another I as distinct from itself.

God Bless
 
Yes, the I vs you distinction that I am having with you right now. One I recognizing another I as distinct from itself.

God Bless

Where does the Bible show that BEFORE CREATION or FROM ETERNITY PAST someone said "I" and "you" to someone else?


P.S.

I was expecting you to say the eternal relationship between the first and second Person of the Trinity is "generation" and the relationship between the first and third Persons of the Trinity is "spiration".

But in your view that the relationships are simply being able to say "I" and "you", there is no necessity for a father or son etc.
 
Where does the Bible show that BEFORE CREATION or FROM ETERNITY PAST someone said "I" and "you" to someone else?


P.S.

I was expecting you to say the eternal relationship between the first and second Person of the Trinity is "generation" and the relationship between the first and third Persons of the Trinity is "spiration".

But in your view that the relationships are simply being able to say "I" and "you", there is no necessity for a father or son etc.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word; and, the Word was with God; and, the Word was God.

God Bless
 
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word; and, the Word was with God; and, the Word was God.

God Bless

"In the beginning" in John 1:1 refers to the same moment as "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1... In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Do you agree or disagree?

I believe that moment is the instant God created the supernatural and space-time of this universe.

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

When do you believe that moment was?
 
"In the beginning" in John 1:1 refers to the same moment as "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1... In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Do you agree or disagree?

I believe that moment is the instant God created the supernatural and space-time of this universe.

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

When do you believe that moment was?
Beginning in Genesis 1 is just the natural world and universe.
God also has a Spiritual place which would be easily believed before this natural world was created.
 
"In the beginning" in John 1:1 refers to the same moment as "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1... In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Do you agree or disagree?

I believe that moment is the instant God created the supernatural and space-time of this universe.

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

When do you believe that moment was?

The point is that whatever you consider to be the beginning, the Word already existed in relationship with God the Father.

God Bless
 
Top