1. **God is four-in-one.** 2. **The Body of Christ is four-in-one.** The Father, The Son, The Spirit and You. There is no participation in God's essence/Godhead, only in His energies/economy by believers. Are these **two statements** orthodox, heterodox, or heresy? #### Possible Biblical Basis: John 14:20 (NIV): > On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. John 14:23 (NIV): > Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 17:21 (NIV): > that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV): > Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; Ephesians 3:17 (NIV): > so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, Ephesians 4:4-6 (NIV): > 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. #### Arguments For: - https://conversantfaith.com/2025/06/12/four-in-one-witness-lee-and-trinitarian-ecclesiology/ : > "Witness Lee’s claim that the Body of Christ is “a four-in-one organic entity” belongs within this broad and venerable stream: a distinctive, but not discordant, contribution to the tradition of Trinitarian ecclesiology." - https://www.equip.org/articles/addressing-the-open-letters-concerns-on-the-nature-of-humanity-part-3-of-a-reassessment-of-the-local-church-movement-of-watchman-nee-and-witness-lee/ : > "On first blush a skeptic might legitimately ask, “How could believers not partake in the Godhead if they partake in God’s life and nature?” The answer, however, becomes clear when Lee is read in his own context and allowed to define his own terms. When Lee refers to the “processed God,” he is clearly speaking about the economic Trinity. It is this Trinity that becomes in a sense “four-in-one.” There is no change in the essential or ontological Trinity (what Lee is here calling the Godhead) with the deification of believers any more than there was a change in the ontological Trinity with the incarnation of Christ. According to the LC, in the outworking of God’s economy or plan of salvation, there is a process that includes progressive steps in which God the Father is embodied in the Son in incarnation, Christ is realized as the Spirit in resurrection, and ultimately the Triune God is expressed in the glorified church; but in His essential nature or Godhead, the Lord remains forever unchanged." #### Arguments Against: - https://normangeisler.com/a-response-to-cri-local-church/ : > "To illustrate the absurdity of the LC position, one final citation from Witness Lee is necessary. He wrote: “Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the ‘four-in-one’ God. These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused.” (Lee , A Deeper Study, 203-204). No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/trinity-no-4th-member/ : > "You are the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, and everything in between. Hallelujah, many times over. As our God, you are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—perfect Trinity. And you’re not looking to turn a Trio into a Quartet. We matter, but only you are the point." #### Witness Lee Quotations: - The Central Line of the Divine Revelation - Message 9: >"According to Ephesians 4:4-6, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body are all one. This is the oneness of the Body. It is altogether proper to say that the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body are four-in-one. The Triune God is three, yet He now has a fourth part, a counterpart. However, only the first three are worthy of our worship. The Triune God and His counterpart are now four-in-one." - The Central Line of the Divine Revelation - Message 11: >"The Body of Christ, the church, is four-in-one: the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. However, only the first three are worthy of our worship; the fourth, the Body, should not be deified as an object of worship." - A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing - Chapter 15: >"The Triune God and the church are four-in-one. Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the “four-in-one God.” These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused."

(Welcome God Bless You) I am very sorry for such a long question, and attempting a solution in the question. Please bear with me, first a selection of the oldest creeds before the formal/official Filioque clause: [Links to Earliest Pre- Old Roman Symbol “Proto-Creeds” https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.i.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.ii.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.iii.html ] ---------------------------------- Old Roman Symbol / Old Roman Creed - Composed in the early 2nd century? I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, [life everlasting]. Source: https://www.logos.com/grow/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins/?msockid=18dbc452ca76677c0084d13bcb516636 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Creed of Aquileia – Date 307-309 AD? Credo in Deo Patre omnipotenti invisibili et impassibili (I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible) Et in Jesu Christo, unico Filio ejus, Domino nostro (And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord) Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine (Who was born from the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary) Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus (Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried) Descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis (He descended to hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead) Ascendit in cœlos; sedet ad dexteram Patris; (He ascended to the heavens; he sits at the right hand of the Father) Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos; (Thence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead) Et in Spiritu Sancto (And in the Holy Ghost) Sanctam Ecclesiam (The Holy Church) Remissionem peccatorum (The remission of sins) Hujus carnis resurrectionem (The resurrection of this flesh) Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm -------------------------------------------------- Eusebius’ Caesarean Creed pre- 325AD: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, τὸν τῶν ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· Maker of all things visible and invisible; Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, the Word of God, 30 θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, God of God, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Light of Light, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, Life of Life, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, the only-begotten Son, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, the first-born of every creature, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον, begotten of God the Father before all ages, δἰ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· by whom also all things were made; τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, who for our salvation was made flesh and made his home among men; καὶ παθόντα, and suffered; καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, and rose on the third day; καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, and ascended to the Father; καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. and will come again in glory, to judge the quick and the dead. [Πιστεύομεν] καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 31 [We believe] also in one Holy Ghost.32 Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπε· πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος. We believe that each of these is and exists, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost; even as our Lord, when sending forth his disciples to preach, said: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ First council of Nicaea 325 AD We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm Thank you so much for bearing with me, now for the split between Catholic and Orthodox; So The dominant Eastern expression is: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” This is found in: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, not in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources; a rejection of the filioque? (Tertullian?), Augustine, (later more formulated in Aquinas’s Summa), have a type of filioque, also not found in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources ---------------------------------------------- Perhaps a bias of me – I will give key biblical support for a filioque development: “When the Helper comes… the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father…” — Gospel of John 15:26 Central to Aquinas’ teaching on procession of the Holy Spirit. John 15:26 – Spirit “comes from the Father” but also receives from the Son. John 20:22 Jesus breathes the Spirit upon disciples, illustrating the Spirit’s relational reception from the Son. Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19 – References to the Spirit as “Spirit of the Son” underscore Tertullian’s relational view. The Spirit of the Son “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts… — Epistle to the Galatians 4:6 The Spirit of Christ “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” — Epistle to the Romans 8:9 From Pauline texts “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6) or interchangeably as the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). -------------------------------------- Perhaps another bias of mine – Fathers early filioque development: [Would Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus if they read the following disagreed?] Tertullian Ontological Status of the Spirit The Spirit is distinct, yet fully divine; Tertullian rejected any notion of created or inferior status. The Spirit receives divinity from the Father via the Son, sharing fully in co-eternal glory Ambrose of Milan (4th century) In De Spiritu Sancto: The Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” In De Trinitate (c. 400–420), Augustine writes: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” ----------------------------------- An additional supplement Maximus the Confessor attempted reconciliation – I'm not sure about the Holy Catholic Churches stand on this. Maximus the Confessor introduces a two-level ontology of procession, Creation-Deification: First level: Causal Level (Ontological Origin) Greek term: (αἰτία / aitia) Ultimate origin God, the Logos, and the eternal logoi Property: personal, hypostatic Only the Father is cause Relationship: Source of all; Logos and logoi originate here Second level: Mediation / Manifestation, being and purpose only by participating in the first-level Logos Mutual implicative identity and distinction—creatures partake in divinity while remaining distinct. How what proceeds is expressed or communicated --- "Maximus’ model is non-hierarchical, avoiding Dionysian verticality, allowing movement across ontological boundaries based on participatory capacities rather than fixed ontological grades." The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and is manifested/given from the Son The Spirit can be from the Son relationally Without being caused by the Son --------------------------------- --------------------------------- God the Father (αἰτία) / Ultimate Cause │ ▼ Logos / Eternal Logoi │ ┌──────────────────┴───────────────────┐ │ │ Nature Rational Beings │ │ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │ Manifestation Level Maximus: Mediation Through Son Aquinas (reinterpreted by Maximus): Participation of Son in spiration [side note: related question by another https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35279/the-difference-between-how-the-holy-spirit-and-son-proceed-from-the-father]

Today the Universal Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity. In the Trinitarian Formula, we invoke the NAME (singular) of the Three Persons of the Trinity. In English we say: "In the NAME OF the Father, and OF the Son and OF the Holy Spirit." Note the repetition of the preposition 'OF' prefixed to each of the Three Persons, to reinforce individuality. But at the same time, we do not say: "In the NAMES of the Father, etc." Does it imply that there is but one name for all the Three Persons, and that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not individual names? My question therefore, is: What according to Trinitarians is the reason for starting of the Trinitarian Formula with "In the name…" (singular) and not "In the names…" (plural)?

I understand that the Catholic Church direct some prayers to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. For me it would be strange to address my prayers to anyone outside the Holy Trinity. Do Catholics pray to any other individuals other than God? Is praying 'to' individuals other than God widely practiced in any other denomination? If so, who do they pray to and why?

why does the doctrine of the Trinity seem incomplete or misleading , as though we can take verses from the bible and construct our dogma to explain the unexplainable . Can God be explained in another way by adding to the doctrine , or by perhaps praying and getting Gods input to create a better doctrine?---remember the trinity doctrine came out after the bible was completed , and derives conclusions beyond the intentions of the original authors and the Holy Spirit . It was formulated way after the apostles and early church fathers ----who by the way were mixed in their conclusions , they seemed to favor tertullian's conclusions , but still it is a extra biblical doctrine , or dogma, in my opinion.

Jesus taught the woman of Samaria that "God is spirit" . The answer to the Penny Catechism Q17. *What is God?* is **God is the supreme Spirit**, *who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfections.* As the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. A diagram as one below is sometimes used to explain the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. This is where it gets confusing for me. If each of the persons is God, then from the foregoing we can say > The Holy Spirit is the supreme Spirit. Since the Father and the son are each also the supreme Spirit but not the Holy Spirit, what is "spirit" in the Holy Spirit and how is it different from "spirit" in the supreme Spirit? Catholic perspective preferred but any others welcome from Christians who believe in the Blessed Trinity.

In Gospel of John 14:28, Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I,” which is often used in arguments about the relationship between the Father and the Son. Some interpret the “I” here as referring specifically to Jesus’ human nature (e.g., in an incarnational or functional sense), rather than His divine nature. However, in the same Gospel, Jesus also says in John 8:58, “before Abraham was, I am,” where the “I” appears to refer to His divine identity. My question is: On what basis do interpreters distinguish the “I” in John 14:28 as referring to Jesus’ human nature, while the “I” in John 8:58 refers to His divine nature?

For those who believe that God is outside of time, is Jesus also outside of time? On the one hand Jesus existed in time on Earth during His incarnation and perhaps as the Word of God in the Old Testament. >But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God - Heb.10:12. **Conclusion** The answers below agree that yes, Jesus' spiritual self is outside of time. His physical body was within time.

In historical Christian belief (of almost any type), it would be considered heresy to say that God the Son was created. The term "begat" is preferred, where this term does not imply creation. In such a tradition, Christ became incarnate . Is it correct/acceptable in such a tradition to refer to the body of this incarnation as being _created_? Why or why not?

In reading the answers to a [recent question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/113053/why-do-some-believers-form-factions-despite-scriptures-warning-against-division) here, the Great Schism was brought up, and consequently the filoque: which added the words to the creed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *and the Son*. In researching the filoque, it occurred to this writer that perhaps it was a needless divide. It seems that man is trying to parse and define the undefinable. The bottom line seems to be the understanding of what Jesus meant by "proceeds." >But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. ‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ The commentaries weren't very helpful - the ones that would be, mostly used the Greek which was useless to me. The lexicons give several meanings, as does the English dictionaries. Generally I use all of that plus, most importantly, *context* to try to figure out what a passage means. But the context doesn't help, even considering other passages, and I am still flummoxed. I wonder if we are going beyond Scripture in trying to figure out the nature of the Trinity. In an answer to a similar question, [What does "proceeds" mean to Greek Orthodox?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/53159/what-does-proceeds-mean-to-eastern-orthodox) this was said: >Regarding the precession of the Holy Spirit as well as the pre-eternal begetting of the Son, Gregory of Nazianzus (known as Gregory the Theologian) (329-390) is reputed to have cautioned: >>When was this begetting and this procession? This was before when itself. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds. Oration 20 This made the most sense to me. I wonder if he added being cautious about adding the filoque as well. How am I wrong? Why did the church divide over this? Note: [This commentary](https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gab/john-15.html) by Gaebelein was somewhat helpful, but still seems presumptuous to me. >In saying: whom I will send, Jesus is necessarily thinking of His approaching reinstatement in the divine condition; and in adding: from the Father, He acknowledges His subordination to the Father, even when He shall have recovered that condition. ...Most of the modern interpreters, Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss, Keil, refer the words: who proceeds from the Father, to the same fact as the preceding words: whom I will send you from the Father, to the sending of the Holy Spirit to the disciples. The attempt is made to escape the charge of tautology by saying that the first clause indicates the relation of the Spirit to Christ, and the second His relation to God ( Keil); as if in this latter were not already contained the from God, which, repeated in the second clause, would form the most idle pleonasm. It must be observed that the second verb differs entirely from the first; ἐκπορεύεσθαι , to proceed from, as a river from its source, is altogether different from to be sent: the ἐκ , out from, which is added here to παρά , from the presence of, also marks a difference. But especially does the change of tense indicate the difference of idea: whom I will send and who proceeds from. He whom Jesus will send (historically, at a given moment) is a divine being, who emanates (essentially, eternally) from the Father. An impartial exegesis cannot, as it seems to me, deny this sense. It is that the historical facts of salvation, to the view of Jesus, rest upon eternal relations, as well with reference to Himself, the Son, as to the Spirit. They are, as it were, the reflections of the Trinitarian relations. As the incarnation of the Son rests upon His eternal generation, so the mission of the Holy Spirit is related to His eternal procession from the very centre of the divine being. The context is not in the least contradictory to this sense, as Weiss thinks; on the contrary, it demands it. What Jesus sends testifies truly for Him only so far as it comes forth from God.

In a recent debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Justin Smith , Dr. James White argues for a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6, claiming that Paul deliberately echoes the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one” – Deut 6:4) and “expands” it. According to this argument, Paul: - Retains the Shema’s monotheistic framework - Identifies “one God” with the Father - Identifies “one Lord (κύριος)” with Jesus Christ - Uses the same κύριος / θεός vocabulary found in the Septuagint rendering of Deut 6:4 This is taken to imply that Paul includes Jesus within the unique divine identity of YHWH, without abandoning Jewish monotheism. **My question is directed to Christians who affirm the doctrine of the Trinity:** **Apart from later creeds or patristic theology, what exegetical and hermeneutical arguments support reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a deliberate reworking or “expansion” of the Shema?** More specifically: - Does the immediate literary context of 1 Corinthians 8 support this reading? - What linguistic or intertextual indicators suggest Paul is intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 6:4? - How should the distinction between “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” be understood without collapsing them into modalism or separating them into two gods? Would you agree with Dr. White’s interpretation? If so, on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments? If not, what other interpretations of 1 Corinthians 8:6 exist that are in support of the trinity doctrine, and on what biblical and contextual grounds, rather than post‑biblical theological developments?

Why can't God exist as One when there's no point of Him existing in 3 forms that too after death of Jesus. Why is Trinity necessary as it gets confusing everytime you try to pray to God. Furthermore, there are many questions (Look at them ) than answers when it comes to Jesus calling God as one at many places in the Bible. My question is if God can manifest in 3 forms, there is a higher chance of him existing in more than 3 forms? Isn't it. Why stop at 3? So it would have been much better if God existed as one in all respects for there would be no contradictions. If God is Sufficient in all Respects, then What's the need of Holy Spirit Or Jesus to exist. What's their role in running the affairs of this Universe. Ain't God as one, sufficient?

THE CLOSET VERSE REGARDING TRINITY IN THE BIBLE HAS BEEN THROWN OUT . The Verse in the Bible which is closest to Trinity and is often quoted by Christian missionaries is first Epistle of John Chapter 5 Verse 7 ... "**For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and holy ghost; and these three are one**" In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different cooperating denominations, this verse which is the keystone of the Christian faith has been removed as an interpolation, as a fabrication, as a concoction. According to them this verse does not exist in the original manuscripts, therby eliminating another lie from the English R.S.V... P. S : You can't have a word of God being corrupted like that?? Do you?

I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15779/5729

Does the cause-effect and begotten doctrine of the Eastern and Roman Catholic Church imply a division or multiplication in the nature of God? Unitarian God (Father) begets or caused into effect the second person- Son, who is subordinate to the Father. I am not using *Subordinate* in the sense of having a lesser divine and different substance/essence than the Father, but when they say "begotten not made", and that the Father alone is uncaused seem to imply that the Father begot the Son like a living creature begets its offspring. The offspring of God is not created from outside substance (like man from dust) but literally *derived, generated, caused or begotten* from the Father's divine nature, and he is equally divine. The Son is lesser in rank by the virtue of "generation", and the Spirit "proceeds". The words begotten and proceed are used, but seem to imply causation and generation. As though the Monarch, Unitarian God generated the (co-divine persons) Son and the Spirit, transforming into Multipersonal or the Trinity. The topics on "begotten, not made " and the "Monarchy of the Father " doctrine and the doctrines of "eternal generation", "eternal sonship" and "eternally begotten" generated this question. The language and these phrases in their creeds have resulted in confusion and debate; One might even say that such a literal generation of the divine persons undermines the doctrine of Immutability or the unchangeable nature of God. > Eastern Orthodox - Wiki > > According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the **Son is derived from the > Father who alone is without cause or origin.** This is not > subordinationism, and the same doctrine is asserted by western > theologians such as Augustine. In this view, the Son is co-eternal > with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son. However, this view is sometimes > misunderstood as a form of subordinationism by Western Christians, who also asserts the same view even when not using the technical term i.e. > Monarchy of the Father. Western view is often viewed by the Eastern > Church as being close to Modalism. > > **Catholics** > > The Catholic Church also believes that the Son is > begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the > Father through and from the Son. Catholic theologian John Hardon > wrote that subordinationism "denies that the second and third persons > are consubstantial with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity." Arius "made a formal heresy of" subordinationism. > > The International Theological Commission wrote that "many Christian > theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god > (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge." > Subordinationism was "latent in some of the Apologists and in > Origen." The Son was, for Arius, in "an intermediate position > between the Father and the creatures." Nicaea I "defined that the Son > is consubstantial (*homoousios*) with the Father. In so doing, the > Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply > altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, > metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and > effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the > notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes > of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created."

According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal. Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine? If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?

In both the **Roman Catholic** and **Eastern Orthodox** traditions, the first seven Ecumenical Councils are regarded as being guided by the Holy Spirit, and their dogmatic definitions (the Creeds) are considered infallible. The Catholic catechism states: > *The **infallibility** promised to the Church **is also present in the body of bishops when**, together with Peter's successor, **they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.** When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." **This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself**.* The Eastern Orthodox view is the following: > *The Church venerates the **Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils** because Christ has established them as “lights upon the earth,” guiding us to the true Faith. “Adorned with the robe of truth,” the doctrine of the Fathers, based upon the preaching of the Apostles, has established one faith for the Church. The Ecumenical Councils, are the highest authority in the Church. **Such Councils**, **guided by** the grace of **the Holy Spirit**, and accepted by the Church, **are infallible**.* However, a direct comparison between the original Creed of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD) reveals what appears to be a reversal of technical terminology.

The Anathema of "hypostasis"

The original 325 Creed concluded with a series of anathemas. The final clause states: > *"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not'... or that the > Son of God is of a different **hypostasis** (ὑποστάσεως) or substance > (οὐσίας)... the holy catholic and apostolic church anathematizes."* In 325, ***hypostasis*** was synonymous with ***ousia*** (essence). To claim the Son was a different hypostasis than the Father was a mark of Arianism. Yet, by the Council of 381, this anathema was removed, and "Orthodoxy" began to require the confession of three hypostases (the Cappadocian formula). ---------- If these Creeds are ***infallible*** and ***Spirit-led***, how do theologians address the following: - **The Problem of Reversal:** How can a document be "infallible" if a later council must remove an anathema and adopt the very terminology (***different hypostases***) that was previously condemned? - **The Problem of Anachronism:** If the definition of hypostasis was "refined" or changed in 381, then it seems anachronistic to read these later technical distinctions back into the 325 Council, or even into the Biblical text itself. Does this imply that "Orthodoxy" is a moving target of vocabulary rather than a static "deposit of faith"? I am looking for answers that cite reputable theologians regarding how the Church maintains the "immutability" of truth while essentially "correcting" or radically expanding its infallible formulas.

In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered co-eternal, meaning none was created or came into existence at a different time. However, in John 3:16, Jesus is described as **“the only begotten Son,”** which seems to imply that He had a beginning. How do Trinitarians reconcile this idea of Jesus being begotten with the belief that He is co-eternal with the Father? I’m looking for theological explanations or interpretations that address this apparent tension in Scripture.

Trinitarians believe that God exists as three distinct but equal persons (yes, I'm simplifying), known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They also believe that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit: > Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child **of the Holy Ghost**. > — Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) > … that which is conceived in her is **of the Holy Ghost**. > — Matthew 1:20 How do Trinitarians explain why the title "Father" is given to a person in the Trinity other than "The Holy Spirit"? ### Note: What I am looking for is an official explanation by the Church that explicitly addresses this naming confusion. Ideally, there would also be an explanation of whether this event was effected by God's impersonal spirit (power), or by the third Person.

Jesus is high priest to his god currently. Is his god the triune god? If not, why do trinitarians have a different god than Jesus' "Only True God"? Does this not define 2 gods in their theology? For example... John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the triune god and the Logos was the triune god....." Remember there is only 1 God. Its very simple. Ask yourself... Is my god the same as Jesus' god? If your god is not ONLY the person of the Father (like Paul's), but rather a 3 person being, wouldn't that mean there are 2 different gods being served? The triune god. And Jesus' god? I imagine Trinitarians will say their God is also the Father. But they can only claim 1 god. So is it the Father or the being? Which is the best answer between the 2? Y is defined as the complete composition of X,Z,and W. Y needs to be all 3. If we define Y (the Trinity) as being completely comprised of X (the Father), Z (the Son), and W (the Holy Spirit), then logically, if Y encompasses multiple distinct entities, it cannot ever equal just one of those entities (X). X can never equal Y. This leaves us with 2 different gods being served. How do Trinitarians get around this logical failure?