quote:

---

Tim on process:

The Father is a Spirit, and the only begotten Son of the Father, although God of very God, who is plural, the Son remains ‘one’ with the Father, by the self-same Spirit, which is singular. Now, although the Father is a Spirit, the Spirit is only ‘what’ the Father is, and not ‘who’ the Father is, however, the Son is the image of ‘who’ the Father is. The Spirit is the breath of the Father, the voice of the Father in the only begotten Son, the Son who fulfills all the desire of the Father, and the Son who is the only begotten word, of the Father.

---

(from Ware, p. 38)

There is a Trinitarian dimension also to the most dearly loved of the single-phrase Orthodox prayers, the Jesus Prayer, an "arrow prayer" used both at work and during times of quiet. In its most common form this runs:

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner."

This is, in outward form, a prayer to the second person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ. But the other two persons are also present, although they are not names. For, by speaking of Jesus as "Son of God", we point towards the Father; and the Spirit is also embraced in our prayer, since "no one can say 'Lord Jesus', except in the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3). The Jesus Prayer is not only Christ-centered by Trinitarian.

==============

(from Ware, p. 68-70)

Lord Jesus, have mercy

In an earlier section (p. 38), we explored the Trinitarian meaning of the Jesus Prayer, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner". Let us now consider what it has to tell us about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and about our healing by and in him.

There are in the Jesus Prayer two "poles" or extreme points. "Lord...Son of God": the Prayer speaks first about God's glory, acclaiming Jesus as the Lord of all creation and the eternal Son. Then at its conclusion the Prayer turns to our condition as sinners -- sinful by virtue of the fall, sinful through our personal acts of wrongdoing: "...on me a sinner". (In its literal meaning the Greek text is yet more emphatic, saying "on me the sinner", as if I were the only one.)

So the Prayer begins with adoration and ends with penitence. Who or what is to reconcile these two extremes of divine glory and human sinfulness? There are thee words in the Prayer which give the answer. The first is "Jesus", the personal name conferred on Christ after his human birth from the Virgin Mary. This has the sense of Savior; as the angel said to Christ's foster-father St. Joseph: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21).

The second word is the title "Christ", the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah", meaning the Anointed one -- anointed, that is, by the Holy Spirit of God. For the Jewish people of the Old Covenant, the Messiah was the coming deliverer, the future king, who in the power of the Spirit would set them free from their enemies.

The third word is "mercy", a term that signifies love in action, love working to bring about forgiveness, liberation and wholeness. To have mercy is to acquit the other of the guilt which by his own efforts he cannot wipe away, to release him from the debts he himself cannot pay, to make him whole from the sickness for which he cannot unaided find any cure. The term "mercy" means furthermore that all this is conferred as a free gift: the one who asks for mercy has no claims upon the other, no rights to which he can appeal.

The Jesus Prayer, then, indicates both man's problem and God's solution. Jesus is the Savior, the anointed king, the one who has mercy. But the Prayer also tells us something more about the person of Jesus himself. He is addressed as "Lord" and "Son of God": here the Prayer speaks of his Godhead, of his transcendence and eternity. but he is addressed equally as "Jesus", that is, by the personal name which his mother and foster-father gave him after his human birth in Bethlehem. So the Prayer speaks also of his manhood, of the genuine reality of his birth as a human being.

The Jesus Prayer is thus an affirmation of faith in Jesus Christ as alike truly divine and fully human. He is the Theanthropos of "God-man", who saves us from our sins precisely because he is God and man at once. Man could not come to God, so God has come to man -- by making himself human. In his outgoing or "ecstatic" love, God unites himself to his creation in the closest of all possible unions, by himself becoming that which he has created, God, as man, fulfills the mediatorial task which man rejected at the fall. Jesus our Savior bridges the abyss between God and man because he is both at once. As we say in one of the Orthodox hymns for Christmas Eve, "Heaven and earth are united today, for Christ is born. Today has God come down to earth and man gone up to heaven".

The Incarnation, then, is God's supreme act of deliverance, restoring us to communion with himself. But what would have happened if there had never been a fall? Would God have chosen to become man, even if man had never sinned? Should the Incarnation be regarded simply as God's response to the predicament of fallen man, or is it in some way part of the eternal purpose of God? Should we look behind the fall, and see God's act of becoming man as the fulfillment of man's true destiny?

To this hypothetical question it is not possible for us, in our present situation, to give any final answer. Living as we do under the conditions of the fall, se cannot clearly imagine what God's relation to mankind would have been, had the fall never occurred. Christian writers have therefore in most cases limited their discussion of the Incarnation to the content of man's fallen state. But there are a few who have ventured to take a wider view, most notably St. Isaac the Syrian and St. Maximus the Confessor in the East, and Duns Scotus in the West. The Incarnation, says, St. Isaac, is the most blessed and joyful thing that could possibly have happened to the human race. Can it be right, then, to assign as cause for this joyful happening something which might never have occurred, and indeed ought never to have done so? Surely, St. Isaac urges, God's taking of our humanity is to be understood not only as an act of restoration, not only as a response to man's sine, but also and more fundamentally as an act of love, an expression of God's own nature. Even had there been no fall, God in his own limitless, outgoing love would still have chosen to identify himself with his creation by becoming man.

The Incarnation of Christ, looked at in this way, effects more than a reversal of the fall, more than a restoration of man to his original state in Paradise. When God becomes man, this marks the beginning of an essentially new state in the history of man, and not just a return to the past. The Incarnation raised man to a new level; the last state is higher than the first. Only in Jesus Christ do we see revealed the full possibilities of our human nature; until he is born, the true implications of our personhood are still hidden from us. Christ's birth, as St. Basil puts it, is "the birthday of the whole human race"; Christ is the first perfect man -- perfect, that is to say, not just in a potential sense, as Adam was in his innocence before the fall, but in the sense of the completely realized "likeness". The Incarnation, then, is not simply a way of undoing the effects of original sin, but it is an essential state upon man's journey from the divine image to the divine likeness. The true image and likeness of God is Christ himself, and so, from the very first moment of man's creation in the image, the Incarnation of Christ was in some way already implied. The true reason for the Incarnation, then, lies not in man's sinfulness but in his unfallen nature as being made in the divine image and capable of union with God.

quote:

---

St. Basil said, "Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture".

---

quote:

---

You, me, and POW, are three people with different essences - we have a Sinful and Holy nature. (or do we have six essences! :)) Therefore each of our sinful natures - taking us away from God will make us different for the Trinity in the fact that me, you , and POW don't always will the same thing. I don't know that comparing us and God is an appropriate analogy.

---

quote:

---

Cliffy, I'm going to go with Tim on this one. (I'm only one vote.) All three of us tend to jump around a bit (not an English major in the bunch, eh?). But when you 'slowed him down' and I could focus on what he said, well, let me show what I both follow and agree with:

quote:

---

You, me, and POW, are three people with different essences - we have a Sinful and Holy nature. (or do we have six essences! :)) Therefore each of our sinful natures - taking us away from God will make us different for the Trinity in the fact that me, you , and POW don't always will the same thing. I don't know that comparing us and God is an appropriate analogy.

---

I actually saw this sort of thing in some Eastern Orth. writer. The essence/nature that all three of us jumpy-writers share is our created human nature. (And as Tim is saying, I think, we differ from God in that none of us is uncreated, and none of us is either begotten of the other or proceeds from the others.) But lets be careful not to say that our human nature is bad. Its goodness is spoiled or foiled a bunch. But even then, it is not totally destroyed. But back to our human nature. Don't we always do the same thing? At least in so far as our created human nature is concerned. We all live and are active in living. We all respond and feel most ourselves when loving. It is sin and death of the fall that is contrary to nature. And it is that contrary antithesis that is the difference. But as to our personhood -- there we are ourselves and not the other. In Patristic terms, the Son is not the Origin, and the Father is not begotten, and the Spirit is not begotten, and the Son does not proceed. The Son does not have the relationship with the Father that the Spirit does, nor the Spirit with the Father that the Son has. So, though they agree in what they will...(confusion alert!)...there is real distinction (even if I rush to say they are not "different"). One in essence and three as to persons.

As to: "How does the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost actually work, within me?"...

That is the economy. The Trinity all work together. More another time.

---

In the beginning, God--
Father, Word, and Spirit--
called this world into being
out of nothing,
and gave it
shape and order.

Tim: "I believe the dividing of each one in the Trinity is the explicit teaching of the Scriptures, and recognizing that it is one desire, through each one expressed is important. In addition, I believe discovering the obvious need for each one in the whole and their differences in how each one relates to us is also of importance."

Tim: So do I, such as, All Things that are: are ‘of’ the Father, ‘by’ the Spirit ‘of’ the Father, and ‘through’ the Son ‘of’ the Father. I believe this to be what I have called the exclusive possession, or right of each in the union of the one true living God.

quote:

---

THE BOOK OF SAINT BASIL ON THE SPIRIT.

De Spiritu Sancto.


Chapter II

The origin of the heretics' close observation all syllables.

4. The petty exactitude of these men about syllables and words is not, as might be supposed, simple and straightforward; nor is the mischief to which it tends a small one. There is involved a deep and covert design against true religion· Their pertinacious contention is to show that the mention of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is unlike, as though they will thence find it easy to demonstrate that there is a variation in nature. They have an old sophism, invented by Aetius, the champion of this heresy, in one of whose Letters there is a passage to the effect that things naturally unlike are expressed in unlike terms, and, conversely, that things expressed in unlike terms are naturally unlike. In proof of this statement he drags in the words of the Apostle, "One God and Father of whom are all things, ... and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things·"9 "Whatever, then," he goes on, "is the relation of these terms to one another, such will be the relation of the natures indicated by them; and as the term `of whom' is unlike the term `by whom,' so is the Father unlike the Son."10 On this heresy depends the idle subtilty of these men about the phrases in question. They accordingly assign to God the Father, as though it were His distinctive portion anti lot, the phrase "of Whom;" to God the Son they confine the phrase "by Whom;" to the Holy Spirit that of "in Whom," and say that this use of the syllables is never interchanged , in order that. as I have already said, the variation of language may indicate the variation of nature.11 Verily it is sufficiently obvious that in their quibbling about the words they are endeavouring to maintain the force of their impious argument.

By the term "of whom" they wish to indicate the Creator; by the term "through whom," the subordinate agent12 or instrument;13 by the term "in whom," or "in which," they mean to shew the time or place. The object of all this is that the Creator of the universe14 may be regarded as of no higher dignity than an instrument, and that the Holy Spirit may appear to be adding to existing things nothing more than the contribution derived from place or time.

Chapter III.

The systematic discussion of syllables is derived from heathen philosophy.

5. They have, however, been led into this error by their close study of heathen writers, who have respectively applied the terms "of whom" and "through whom" to things which are by nature distinct. These writers suppose that by the term "of whom" or "of which" the matter is indicated, while the term "through whom" or "through which"15 represents the instrument, or, generally speaking, subordinate agency? Or rather-for there seems no reason why we should not take up their whole argument, and briefly expose at once its incompatibility with the truth and its inconsistency with their own teaching-the students of vain philosophy, while expounding the manifold nature of cause and distinguishing its peculiar significations, define some causes as principal,16 some as cooperative or con-causal, while others are of the character of "sine qua non," or indispensable?17

For every one of these they have a distinct and peculiar use of terms, so that the maker is indicated in a different way from the instrument. For the maker they think the proper expression is "by whom," maintaining that the bench is produced "by" the carpenter; and for the instrument "through which," in that it is produced "through" or by means of adze and gimlet and the rest. Similarly they appropriate "of which" to the material, in that the tiring made is "of" wood, while "according to which" shews the design, or pattern put before the craftsman. For he either first makes a mental sketch, and so brings his fancy to bear upon what he is about, or else he looks at a pattern previously put before him, and arranges his work accordingly. The phrase "on account of which" they wish to be confined to the end or purpose, the bench, as they say, being produced for, or on account of, the use of man. "In which" is supposed to indicate time and place. When was it produced? In this time. And where? In this place. And though place and time contribute nothing to what is being produced, yet without these the production of anything is impossible, for efficient agents must have both place and time. It is these careful distinctions, derived from unpractical philosophy and vain delusion,18 which our opponents have first studied and admired, and then transferred to the simple and unsophisticated doctrine of the Spirit, to the belittling of God the Word, and the setting at naught of the Divine Spirit. Even the phrase set apart by non-Christian writers for the case of lifeless instruments19 or of manual service of the meanest kind, I mean the expression "through or by means of which," they do not shrink from transferring to the Lord of all, and Christians feel no shame in applying to the Creator of the universe language belonging to a hammer or a saw.

Chapter IV.

That there is no distinction in the scriptural use of these syllables.

6. We acknowledge that the word of truth has in many places made use of these expressions; yet we absolutely deny that the freedom of the Spirit is in bondage to the pettiness of Paganism. On the contrary, we maintain that Scripture varies its expressions as occasion requires, according to the circumstances of the case. For instance, the phrase "of which" does not always and absolutely, as they suppose, indicate the material,20 but it is more in accordance with the usage of Scripture to apply this term in the case of the Supreme Cause, as in the words "One God, of whom are all things,"21 and again, "All things of God."22 The word of truth has, however, frequently used this term in the case of the material, as when it says "Thou shalt make an ark of incorruptible wood;"23 and "Thou shall make the candlestick of pure gold ;"24 and "The first man is of the earth, earthy;25 and "Thou art formed out of clay as I am."26 But these men, to the end, as we have already remarked, that they may establish the difference of nature, have laid down the law that this phrase befits the Father alone. This distinction they have originally derived from heathen authorities, but here they have shewn no faithful accuracy of limitation. To the Son they have in conformity with the teaching of their masters given the title of instrument, and to the Spirit that of place, for they say in the Spirit, and through the Son. But when they apply "of whom" to God they no longer follow heathen example, but "go over, as they say, to apostolic usage, as it is said, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus,"27 and "All things of God."28 What, then, is the result of this systematic discussion? There is one nature of Cause; another of Instrument; another of Place. So the Son is by nature distinct from the Father, as the tool from the craftsman; and the Spirit is distinct in so far as place or time is distinguished from the nature of tools or from that of them that handle them.

Chapter V

That "through whom" is said also in thecase of the Father, and "of whom" in the case of the San and of the Spirit.

7. After thus describing the outcome of our adversaries' arguments, we shall now proceed to shew, as we have proposed, that the Father does not first take "of whom" and then abandon "through whom" to the Son; and that there is no truth in these men's ruling that the Son refuses to admit the Holy Spirit to a share in "of whom" or in "through whom," according to the limitation of their new-fangled allotment of phrases. "There is one God and Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things."29

Yes; but these are the words of a writer not laying down a rule, but carefully distinguishing the hypostases.30

The object of the apostle in thus writing was not to introduce the diversity of nature, but to exhibit the notion of Father and of Son as unconfounded. That the phrases are not opposed to one another and do not, like squadrons in war marshalled one against another, bring the natures to which they are applied into mutual conflict, is perfectly, plain from the passage in question. The blessed Paul brings both phrases to bear upon one and the same subject, in the words "of him and through him and to him are all things."31 That this plainly refers to the Lord will be admitted even by a reader paying but small attention to the meaning of the words. The apostle has just quoted from the prophecy of Isaiah, "Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor,32 and then goes on, "For of him and from him and to him are all things." That the prophet is speaking about God the Word, the Maker of all creation, may be learnt from what immediately precedes: "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?"33 Now the word "who" in this passage does not mean absolute impossibility, but rarity, as in the passage "Who will rise up for me against the evil doers?"34 and "What man is he that desireth life?"35 and "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?"36 So is it in the passage in question, "Who hath directed [lxx., known] the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath known him?" "For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things."37 This is He who holds the earth, and hath grasped it with His hand. who brought all things to order and adornment, who poised38 the hills in their places, and measured the waters, and gave to all things in the universe their proper rank, who encompasseth the whole of heaven with but a small portion of His power, which, in a figure, the prophet calls a span. Well then did the apostle add "Of him and through him and to him are all things."39 For of Him, to all things that are, comes the cause of their being, according to the will of God the Father. Through Him all things have their continuance40 and constitution,41 for He created all things, and metes out to each severally what is necessary for its health and preservation. Wherefore to Him all things are turned, looking with irresistible longing and unspeakable affection to "the arthur"42 and maintainer" of" their "life," as it is written "The eyes of all wait upon thee,"43 and again, "These wait all upon thee,"44 and "Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing."45

8. But if our adversaries oppose this our interpretation, what argument will save them from being caught in their own trap?

For if they will not grant that the three expressions "of him" and "through him" and "to him" are spoken of the Lord, they cannot but be applied to God the Father. Then without question their rule will fall through, for we find not only "of whom," but also "through whom" applied to the Father. And if this latter phrase indicates nothing derogatory, why in the world should it be confined, as though conveying the sense of inferiority, to the Son? If it always and everywhere implies, ministry, let them tell us to what superior the God of glory46 and Father of the Christ is subordinate.

They are thus overthrown by their own selves, while our position will be on both sides made sure. Suppose it proved that the passage refers to the Son, "of whom" will be found applicable to the Son. Suppose on the other hand it be insisted that the prophet's words relate to God, then it will be granted that "through whom" is properly used of God, and both phrases have equal value, in that both are used with equal force of God. Under either alternative both terms, being employed of one and the same Person, will be shewn to be equivalent. But let us revert to our subject.

9. In his Epistle to the Ephesians the apostle says, "But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body filly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body."47

And again in the Epistle to the Colossians, to them that have not the knowledge of the Only Begotten, there is mention of him that holdeth "the head," that is, Christ, "from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered increaseth with the increase of God."48 And that Christ is the head of the Church we have learned in another passage, when the apostle says "gave him to be the head over all things to the Church,"49 and "of his fulness have all we received."50 And the Lord Himself says "He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."51 In a word, the diligent reader will perceive that "of whom" is used in diverse manners.52 For instance, the Lord says, "I perceive that virtue is gone out of me."53 Similarly we have frequently observed "of whom" used of the Spirit. "He that soweth to the spirit," it is said, "shall of the spirit reap life ever!asting."54 John too writes, "Hereby we know that he abideth in ns by(e0k) the spirit which he hath given us."55 "That which is conceived in her," says the angel, "is of the Holy Ghost,"56 and the Lord says "that which is born of the spirit is spirit."57 Such then is the case so far.

10. It must now be pointed out that the phrase "through whom" is admitted by cripture in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost alike. It would indeed be tedious to bring forward evidence of this in the case of the Son, not only because it is perfectly well known, but because this very point is made by our opponents. We now show that "through whom" is used also in the case of the Father. "God is faithful," it is said, "by whom (di' ou\) ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son,"58 and "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by (dia/) the will of God;" and again, "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God."59 And "like as Christ was raised up from the dead by (dia/) the glory of God the Father."60 Isaiah, moreover, says, "Woe unto them that make deep counsel and not through the Lord; "61 and many proofs of the use of this phrase in the-case of the Spirit might be adduced. "God hath revealed him to us," it is said, "by (dia/) the spirit;"62 and in another place, "That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by (dia/) the Holy Ghost;"63 and again, "To one is given by (dia/) the spirit the word of wisdom."64

11. In the same manner it may also be said of the word "in," that Scripture admits its use in the case of God the Father. In the Old Testament it is said through (e0n) God we shall do valiantly,65 and, "My praise shall be Continually of (e0n) thee;"66 and again, "In thy name will I rejoice."67 In Paul we read, "In God who created all things,"68 and, I "Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father; "69 and "if now at length I might have a prosperous journey by (e0n) the will of God to come to you;"70 and, "Thou makest thy boast of God."71 Instances are indeed too numerous to reckon; but what we want is not so much to exhibit an abundance of evidence as to prove that the conclusions of our opponents are unsound. I shall, therefore, omit any proof of this usage in the case of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost, in that it is notorious. But I cannot forbear to remark that "the wise hearer" will find sufficient proof of the proposition before him by following the method of contraries. For if the difference of language indicates, as we are told, that the nature has been changed, then let identity of language compel our adversaries to confess with shame that the essence is unchanged.

12. And it is not only in the case of the theology that the use of the terms varies,72 but whenever one of the terms takes the meaning of the other we find them frequently transferred from the one subject to the other. As, for instance, Adam says, "I have gotten a man through God,"73 meaning to say the same as from God; and in another passage "Moses commanded ... Israel through the word of the Lord,"74 and, again, "Is not the interpretation through God?"75 Joseph, discoursing about dreams to the prisoners, instead of saying "from God" says plainly "through God." Inversely Paul uses the term "from whom" instead of "through whom," when he says "made from a woman" (A.V., "of" instead of "through a woman").76 And this he has plainly distinguished in another passage, where he says that it is proper to a woman to be made of the man, and to a man to be made through the woman, in the words "For as the woman is from [A.V., of] the man, even so is the man also through [A.V., by] the woman."77 Nevertheless in the passage in question the apostle, while illustrating the variety of usage, at the same time corrects obiter the error of those who supposed that the body of the Lord was a spiritual body,78 and, to shew that the God-bearing79 flesh was formed out of the common lump80 of human nature, gave precedence to the more emphatic preposition.

The phrase "through a woman" would be likely to give rise to the suspicion of mere transit in the generation, while the phrase "of the woman" would satisfactorily indicate that the nature was shared by the mother and the offspring. The apostle was in no wise contradicting himself, but he shewed that the words can without difficulty be interchanged. Since, therefore, the term "from whom" is transferred to the identical subjects in the case of which "through whom" is decided to be properly used, with what consistency can these phrases be invariably distinguished one from the other, in order that fault may be falsely found with true religion?

---