2. Учение о Боге троичном в Лицах, или о Святой Троице

We have seen the perfections of God's being; saw that Scripture portrays them as such that they can only become God alone; they saw that all of them, taken together, their entirety, constitute the single being of God; but from the same Scripture we see that this one God is also threefold. This Trinity, as incomprehensible to us, is just as important and necessary. This is the fundamental truth on which they rest and from which all others flow. And therefore we need to consider it with special attention. To complete the teaching about the Trinity, let us divide it as follows: 1) let’s look at how the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments teach about this subject; 2) let us understand how this teaching is defined in Christian symbols; 3) let us pay attention to the relationship of this teaching to the mind - how it looks at this subject; 4) we will show the practical consequences arising from this teaching. Before we begin to present the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, let us see how the Church teaches about this. How and when was this teaching formed in the Church? Where to look for it and what is it like? Let's look at these questions in detail. The teaching of the Church must in this case precede the teaching of Holy Scripture because its subject is difficult to understand and incomprehensible. And therefore the mind of a private person can learn it better and more safely from Scripture, guided by the mind of the whole Church. 1. The doctrine of the Trinity has been formed in the Church for centuries, on the occasion of disputes. In the 1st century this teaching was simply Biblical; its form was the same as that found in the Bible; the explanation was simple and concise. This can be seen in the Apostolic Creed, which speaks briefly about God the Father; about God the Son - even more briefly, for it is said only: I believe... in the Son of God the Lord, and so on; indicated, that is, His Divinity alone; and even less about the Holy Spirit. The main property of this Symbol is the simplicity and spirit inherent in the Holy Scriptures. This symbol in its simplicity is found among the teachers of the Church of the 1st century: Clement and Ignatius the God-Bearer. Further explanation of this teaching began in the 2nd century. The reason for this was the heretics who appeared at that time. They were divided into three kinds: 1) Judaizing heretics, who revered Christ as a man, who before His birth did not have actual existence, but had existence only in the predestination of God the Father. The Divinity of Jesus Christ had to be proven against them. 2) Various sects of Gnostics, who, admitting many lower gods, included both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit in this class of deities. Against them it was necessary to prove the equality of Persons and their Divinity. 3) Modalistic sects, which recognized three Persons in God - either three different phenomena to the world, three different relationships, or three different forces in one God, or three subject human thoughts about the Being of God; Novatius, Praxeus, Savely, and especially Pavel Samosatsky thought so. Against them it was necessary to prove the identity of the Holy Trinity and especially the Son of God. However, despite this, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was formed at this time very little. The dishonorable honor of making this teaching more defined and more fully explained went to Arius, who lived at the beginning of the 4th century. He, tempted by certain expressions of the Holy Scriptures and writers of the Church, began to teach that the Son is the work of God the Father, created from nothing, before all ages, however, not from eternity, deified by the Father, and therefore similar to Him (ομυσοοξ). Against this heretic, the Church at the Council of Nicaea said: “I believe... in the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father.” Arius wanted to hit the Church with this; the main weapon against him is the following expression: “born, uncreated, of one essence with the Father,” that is, existing together with Him from eternity, equal to the Father in essence. It should be noted that consubstantiality was condemned in the dispute against the modalists, for they accepted one being in God or Person, and recognized the trinity only as a modification of God; at the Council of Nicea it was used against Arius, because he recognized the Son as inferior to the Father, not the same being with Him. As for the expression: first of all centuries, this expression was directed against the heretics of the 4th century. It does not go against Arius, for he taught that the Son was born about the posture of osushtor; and this other heretic taught that the Son was born not before the existence of centuries, but after. The fathers at this Council said nothing about the Holy Spirit. Arius thought lowly of the Spirit, just as everyone who thought lowly of the Son thinks even lower of the Spirit. But the fathers did not touch upon this, because it was enough for them to deal with the heresy of Arius, directed against the Son of God. The need to present a symbolic teaching about the Holy Spirit was felt by Macedonia, who recognized the Holy Spirit as the power of God - as a creature. Against this heretic, the Church said: “I believe... and in the Holy Spirit, the Life-Giving Lord, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.” In a word: Life-giving - means the personal property of the Spirit and His action or relationship to creatures; with the words: with the Father and the Son we are worshiped and glorified - His oneness with the Father and the Son, His Divinity, is shown. These expressions clearly do not contain the fullness of the teaching about the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it still remained after this to bring this teaching to its fullness. But the Councils did not do this, since they were mostly concerned with the extermination of false teaching, and not with the improvement of the true one, for, due to the many heresies, this work was enough for them. The Fifth Ecumenical Council alone, in its circular Epistle to all the Churches, which was usually done after every Council, touched upon a significant feature that distinguishes the Persons of the Holy Trinity. He says that there are three Persons in God, that these three Persons are Divine and that they are one. This feature is the most striking; but it would be necessary to explain it, and this was not done at the Ecumenical Councils. Despite what has been done at these Councils, the inquisitive human mind, even without malicious intent, can pose many more questions that cannot be answered by adhering to the Council’s teaching alone. Therefore, it was necessary to define this teaching more clearly. This definition was made by some private individuals, and one of these definitions was accepted by the entire Western and Eastern Church. This is the Symbol known as the Symbol of Athanasius the Great. It is only doubtful that it could belong to Athanasius, especially the second half of it, for it is directed against Eutyches and Nestorius, who lived after Athanasius, and in general against heretics who do not recognize two natures in Jesus Christ, such as: Monophysites, Adoptians and others. However, its authenticity in this case is unimportant, since the Church has always accepted it as a true explanation of the power found in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and a true definition of the Holy Trinity, no matter who wrote it. It reads like this: “This Catholic faith is: that there is one God in the Trinity, and we honor the Trinity in unity, below merging the hypostases, below the being dividing. There is another hypostasis of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Divinity, equal to glory, co-essential with majesty. Like the Father, like the Son, like the Holy Spirit. Thus: God the Father, God the Son, God and the Holy Spirit: both are not three gods, but one God. The Father was created from no one, neither created nor begotten. The Son of the Father Samago is, not created, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither created nor created from the Father, born below, but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing first or last: nothing more or less: but the three hypostases are whole, co-essential with themselves and equal.” The doctrine of the Trinity is presented in more detail in the catechism of Peter Mohyla. Reading it, one cannot help but be surprised at how well the Church’s teaching is embraced and explained in it. This is the teaching of the Church about the Holy Trinity! She teaches and believes: I) That in God there is difference, despite the unity of nature, that each Person is different from each other, not as a property or action, or relation of the same being, but as an independent Person or Being, having His own understanding, His own will and courage - His own way of acting. II) These three Beings in the Divine nature, having a personality, are distinguished by the fact that the first in relation to the second is a producer - a parent, in relation to the third there is a kind of producer - an inhaler. The second differs from the first in that It is produced by Him, from the third in that It comes from the Father in the manner of Sonship, and not procession, is born, and does not proceed. The third differs from the first in that it comes from Him, from the second in that It comes from the Father in the manner of procession, and not in the manner of birth - it proceeds, and is not born. Briefly, their difference is that the first Person is the Father, the second is the Son, the third is the Holy Spirit, connecting thoughts themselves with these names. III) Further teaches that these three special Persons are three Beings worthy of worship - Divine. Since we usually connect with sonship and procession the idea that the one who begat and produced existed before the one who was begotten and produced, the Church, removing this idea, teaches that in God there is nothing derivative or productive, but all Persons in God are equal. IV) Finally, it teaches that these three Beings do not exist separately, but in one nature, constitute one, are of the same essence; their existence is common; their substrate, if this term can be used here, remains the same. Here is the definition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity made by the Church. What is the purpose of this detailed definition? The goal is positive: to present the doctrine of God; but the main goal is negative: to reject errors and false views. The Church directed this teaching against two extremes; the doctrine of personality is directed against modalites; The doctrine of consubstantiality is directed against Gnostic divisions and sections. The teaching of the Church stands in the middle of these extremes. It is the experience of centuries. Its subject is to solve an important question: how is there three and one in the Divine nature, how are there three different Beings in one?.. The question is the most important, primary and most necessary! The Church solves it this way: there are three in one; There are differences in them, these differences reach the point that each of the three has its own personality - independence, despite the fact that from these three, separate in personality, one inseparable in Essence is made up. 2. Let us turn to the Holy Scriptures: what does it teach about the Holy Trinity? Does it say the same thing that the Church says? To see this, you need to keep in mind the four points of Church teaching that we have shown, you need to know: a) whether Holy Scripture teaches that there are three Persons or Beings in God; b) does it teach that these Beings are so different that they can really be called Persons who have Their own mind and Their own will - Their own activity; c) does it teach that the difference between these Persons is the same as that shown by the Church; d) does he say that these three are one and equal to the Divine nature, and e) does he suggest that they constitute one in Essence? a) For the completeness of this teaching, it would be necessary to consider separately, first as it is contained in the Old Testament, and then in the New. But there is no need to consider in detail the Old Testament teaching about the Holy Trinity. In the Old Testament it is presented in weak terms, in an indefinite form, in mere hints. For this truth, incomprehensible to us, had to be revealed little by little, and for some time remained in darkness. In the New Testament it is revealed in full detail, for here it is closely connected with all other truths. However, in the Old Testament there are quite a few hints of some kind of plurality in God. For example, Elohim: no matter how hard they try and give reasons that this is nothing more than an idiom of the Hebrew language, they cannot completely eliminate the fact that this indicates some kind of plurality in God. This includes dark indications of the plurality of Divine Persons in those places where the action or conference of many is attributed. For example, “Let us make man in Our image and after Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). It is clear that here God speaks to Himself alone, for man was created in the image of God alone. In a similar way, God says during the pandemonium: “Let us confuse their language” (Gen. 11:7). The same plurality is visible in the threefold blessing on behalf of God by Moses, for here different epithets are used and applied to one God not in vain. In addition, often in the Old Testament some extraordinary Angel comes out to act, who, in the language of the messenger, sometimes, as it were, blurts out, referring to himself the name of Jehovah. These hints were vague because certainty was inappropriate here, for it could lead the weak minds of the Jews to polytheism. However, in the Old Testament there are direct indications of those Persons who are known to us under the names of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, the second Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Word, the Son of God (John 1:1–3). The same name is also in the Old Testament. In creation itself, God only speaks. It cannot be one simple word of God. For the superstitious thought of the Phoenicians was undoubtedly based on this truth; and it is known that they attributed to their Kolpia (the voice of the mouth of God) everything that can only belong to a Person, and pointed to the active Word. This hint is made clearer in David. “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth...” (Ps. 32:6). It also refers to the Holy Spirit. In the prophets these beings of Divine nature are shown in a certain form. For example, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, His is the anointing of Me” (Isa. 61:1, sn. Rev. 11:3–11). This Spirit is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. God gives it to the prophets, judges, artists in the construction of the tabernacle, and others. In general, everything good is exalted by the Divine Spirit, and He is the giver of everything. However, everything that is said about Him in the Old Testament is unsteady; it is strong now, in the light of the New Testament. In the clearest way in relation to the Old Testament, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is set forth in non-canonical books. They especially point to the second Person of the Holy Trinity, for example, in the Book of Proverbs of Solomon (Prov. 9:1–12) and in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon (Wis. 2:12–24), where the wisdom at work is described. From all the places we cited above, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was formed in the Old Testament, passed on to the cabalists, and around the 5th century it reached such completeness that it was very close to the Christian one. As for the New Testament, it teaches that there are different Persons in God: 1) When it is commanded to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), all three Persons are put on equal terms (to baptize in the name of God means to oblige to respect, to glorify God). 2) When the apostles desire love and grace, they desire from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 15:10). “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Father and the communion of the Holy Spirit..”. (2 Cor. 13:13). It is clear that these Persons are equal; for God the Father is placed here in the middle. “According to the vision of God the Father, for holiness of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...” (1 Pet. 1:2). Here the personal relationships of Divine Persons to our salvation are shown. The Father ordained, the Holy Spirit sanctified, and the Son redeemed. The apostle explains this idea in detail, that is, the idea of ​​the insight of God the Father, when he says: “For he foreknew [them] and ordained them” (Rom. 8:29). Here are three main indications of the plurality of persons in God. If only these three places existed, then on their basis it would be possible to firmly establish the trinity in God. But to them we can add separate passages that speak either about the Divinity of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. For example, in many places Jesus Christ says that He is “one” or “another” (John 5:32); that He knows the “Father” and the Father is Him (Matthew 11:27), that He came down to declare “the will of the Father who sent Him” (John 6:38, 10:28–29). Consequently, He, as the Father, has will, understanding and power, and therefore personality. The Holy Spirit is mentioned in a similar way (1 Cor. 12:11). “The Spirit distributes to each one” various gifts (1 Cor. 12:4, 7, 11) Therefore he has will, understanding and power (John 14:10): “And I will pray the Father” (John 14:16–17). b) How great is the difference between the Divine Persons? Are They not species of one Being? Aren't these the essence of His qualities, sides, properties? Or is Their difference such that it makes them independent, personal, that each of Them must be ascribed His own mind, His own will, His own power, His own way of acting, as this is attributed to the subject - to himself? As for the Father, there is not the slightest doubt that Holy Scripture ascribes a personality to Him. The same must be said in relation to the Son. He ascribes independence to Himself and calls Himself different from the Father. “There is another,” He says, “who testifies of Me” (John 5:32). He says that He “received the commandment from the Father” and that He has power over His soul (John 10:18), and this shows His independence. This Son had glory with the Father, “before the world was not” (John 17:5), but is it possible for any simple property to have glory? or power? He wants His humanity to have this glory; but how can the personal participate in the impersonal glory? Besides this, it is said about the Word that all things were created by Him (Heb. 1:2). Also in other places such actions are attributed to Him that can only belong to Him who has His own mind, will and power - His own personality (Rom. 1:1-9, 8:3, Phil. 2:6-7). , Heb. 1:3, John 2:17–18, 21–23, 25). The identity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity is more worthy of attention due to its controversy. But the difference between this Person is sufficiently indicated in these words: “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Comforter” (John 14:16). (Here we speak about the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit; for if the temporal procession were indicated here, then the word proceeds would be an unnecessary repetition of the word I will send; moreover, in this case it would stand not in the present, but in the future tense. In addition, if we assume that Jesus Christ does not speak here about the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, then we must admit that He never spoke about the personality of the Holy Spirit; and this and in general it was necessary for the disciples, but more particularly it was necessary when Jesus Christ departed from them to the Father, and consoled them with the fact that this Comforter would take His place for them.) Further, it is said about this Spirit that He will “teach all things” (John 14:26). At the same time, one can see that those explanations, allegedly This Spirit is the spirit of teaching and similar ones, destroying the personality of the Holy Spirit, are unsuitable. His personality can be seen in the following scripture (1 Cor. 12:3-11). Here the Spirit is represented as distributing natural gifts. Thus, the Holy Spirit has His independence - His personality. c) How do these Persons differ according to Scripture, or how do they differ according to the teachings of the Church? In exactly the same way: Scripture says about the Father that He gives birth; about the Son, that He is born; about the Spirit - what comes out. There is only one doubt here: is it not only through the human nature of Jesus Christ that sonship is acquired? No, it is assimilated to Him as the Word, for in the Gospel of John. The Word is called the Only Begotten Son because it is said about Him: “he is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). This also includes the following places in the New Testament (1 John 4:9, John 3:16, 5:20). From these and other places it is clear that Jesus Christ is called the Son, and the Son not only according to humanity, but also according to Divinity. However, everything that we connect with ordinary sonship, the Holy Scripture removes from the Divine Persons. There must be something similar to sonship, only what it is, and how it happens, is incomprehensible to us. The only place of Scripture about the difference of the Holy Spirit is in the Gospel of John, that is, that He “comes forth” (John 15:26). This is again a metaphor showing that in God there is something similar to procession, but what it is and how it happens is again a mystery. Does the Holy Spirit come from the Father alone? Our Church has settled on the clearest passage of Scripture (John 15:26), and teaches that the Spirit proceeds from one Father. So, the Church, in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, teaches and believes that the Father gives birth and brings forth, the Son is born, but does not proceed, the Holy Spirit proceeds, but is not born. Note: Here it should be noted that Jesus Christ will remain the Son of God even if the second Person of the Holy Trinity were not the Son, for He is the Son of God according to humanity, as the firstborn of all creation. But the teaching of the Church and Holy Scripture says that He is the Son of God in Divinity. True, in many places of Scripture, sonship of the first kind, that is, according to humanity, is attributed to Jesus Christ; but there are places in which sonship of the second kind is indicated, that is, according to the Divinity. These places are the following: 1) “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). It says here that no one could confess the Father except the highest Being, Who was first called the Word. It is obvious that the Only Begotten Son belongs to the Divine nature, for the Man Jesus Christ was in the bosom of the Virgin, the patriarchs, and not in the bosom of the Father. 2) A strong place is the following: “For as the Father had life in Himself, so He gave the Son also life in Himself” (John 5:26). This life, this independent life, not dependent on anyone, was given to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and not as the Son of Man; for no creature, no humanity can accept this life into itself. 3) Jesus Christ calls himself one with the Father (John 5:17–18). Sonship in this sense cannot be acquired by humanity. When the Jews (John 5:18) called Him equal to God the Father, He did not lead them out of error, if it was an error. It is clear that they were not mistaken and He really is like that. This is the basis on which the teaching of the Church is based that the difference between the second Person and the first is sonship. The Third Person is called the Spirit, proceeding from the Father. Consequently, His personal character, different from the first two persons, is spirituality and procession, or that which is the Spirit and that which comes from the Father. There is only one indication that He proceeds and is not born: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter” (John 14:16), “Him I will send to you from the Father” (John 15:26). But does origination really mean a characteristic feature of the third Person? Does this text accurately indicate the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit? Is it possible to understand here a temporary procession? Is it not possible to give this meaning the following meaning: I will send Him from the Father, because He comes from the Father - is sent (εχπορενεται). This idea in hermeneutics can be accepted not without difficulty. But the Universal Church has long ago established a different meaning of this place; all the fathers understood here the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. This interpretation is a consequence of the traditions of the Universal Church, and therefore must be adhered to, and not hermeneutics, which can make mutual interpretations. The second reason why they mean eternal procession here is not entirely firm: they say that if by procession we mean a message, then there will be unnecessary repetition. This is so, if judged strictly; but it may be said that in the plain language of the Bible this repetition is possible. However, even if it were impossible to prove the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, which is not doubtful, then His personality would not be diminished in the least. For His character, according to the Scripture, is that He is Spirit; this already reveals a lot about His being - about His Face; meanwhile, the departure in this case has extremely little meaning, for the departure in our ordinary language means no more than a change of place. That is why the heretics who rebelled against the Holy Spirit did not direct their objections against this place. We can and must recognize here the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit because this is how the Ecumenical Orthodox Church defined the words of the text, and this is how all Christians believed throughout the first eight centuries. Here is a controversial question: does the Holy Spirit come from one Father, or from the Father and the Son? The text says that from one Father, which the whole Church held for at least eight centuries. Let us dwell on this subject, knowledge of which is necessary for those who live among Catholics. The most impartial research shows that the truth is on our side. The subject is most incomprehensible neither to us nor to them. But there is neither in the Scriptures nor in traditions that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. And our opponents agree that there is only one place that speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit; but there is not a word there that He came from the Son. In order not to suffer shame, they came up with the following, even more shameful dilemma: “The Son,” they say, “calls the Spirit sent from Himself”; but either the smaller is sent from the larger, or the younger from the elder. Against this false dilemma, it must be said that in God there is neither greater, nor less, nor lesser; therefore, the conclusion that this dilemma could give is false. Jesus Christ sends His Spirit due to the unity of His being; This is what the Church Fathers thought. An opinion contrary to us was formed from the following passages of Scripture. 1. “He will glorify Me, because He will receive from Mine” (John 16:14). By the word: “from Mine” they mean from My nature, that is, from Me he receives what he receives from the Father through procession. The conclusions are pathetic! The words: “and he will tell you,” immediately following the words: “he will receive from Mine,” show that the word: “from Mine” must be understood from teaching, and not from nature. Put nature instead of teaching, and obvious nonsense will come out - nature will proclaim. The words: “Everything that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15) also does not convey the same thought as opponents claim. The Son has the power to plague the Spirit. These words must be limited, personal properties must be excluded from them. “All” – excluding the power to beget the Son and produce the Holy Spirit. The opponents make the first exception, no doubt on the ground that it is a personal property of the Father; Why do they leave the second when it also constitutes a personal property? If personal properties are excluded here, then, without a doubt, all are excluded; if not, then on what basis can one be excluded? Clearly this is being done for no reason. 2. Here the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of “Christ” (Rom. 8:9). But the Holy Spirit is called Christ’s, perhaps because He appropriated Him to Himself by merit, as Christ, and not as the second Person of the Holy Trinity; and maybe for other reasons. 3. “God sent the Spirit of His Son” (Gal. 4:6). But here the Spirit is spoken of not in relation to a temporary or eternal procession, but in relation to His qualities, that is, the apostle seems to be saying: “The state of work has already passed, God has now sent us the Spirit of sonship - sonship, who adopts us and whose character is freedom.” 4. An example of the weakness of Catholics is visible even in the fact that they even based the procession of the Holy Spirit on the word “dunu” (John 20:22) from the apostles, who also brought Him down to the believers through the laying on of hands, like Jesus Christ through a breath. 5. They are also based on the words: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). But first it was noted that personal properties are not included here. In general, even the most Catholics judge this case biasedly and unscrupulously, blindly adhering to hermeneutics alone. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit is contained in only one place in the New Testament (John 15:26). The hesitations to which this place was subjected forced even one of our Russian theologians to retreat from the idea that this place speaks of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. It was Mislavsky who, publishing Prokopovich’s notes, in a remark expressed his doubts about this place. In general, it must be said against Catholics that the origin of the Holy Spirit and from the Son is not the teaching of Scripture. The Catholic Church, according to ours, until the 8th century, accepted the procession of the Holy Spirit only from the Father. Nikolai, dad, added Filioque. To confirm this innovation, they introduced into the teaching of the Church that the pope is infallible. Having removed the first innovation, it was impossible not to remove the last one; but the latter is retained, and the first is retained along with it. 6. All three Persons are equally Divine. The Father's divinity does not require proof. For where Jesus Christ and the apostles speak about Him, there He is always called the true God (John 3:33, 1 Pet. 1:2–3, 2 Cor. 1:3, Gal. 1:3–4, John 17:2–3, Matt. 11:25–26, Heb. 3:2–4, 2 Cor. 2:14–15). The divinity of the Son is proven: 1) From the names (John 1:1, Rom. 9:5). Regarding the first, they say that there is no member, and this shows that this Word is God, inferior to God the Father. But this is a subterfuge that is not worth refuting, for even without a member the Word: Θεος has the same meaning, and the one who is called by it must be attributed the same Divine properties. Likewise, there is an objection regarding the second; They take the words: “He is God above all” (Rom. 9:5) as an appeal to God the Father. But in vain: the apostle speaks here about the same Person, that is, about the Son of God, for by degrading Christ to the level of humanity by carnal birth, he had to show His true dignity - His Divinity. In addition, the Angel sent to Zechariah says: “And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord God” (Luke 1:16, 2). 2) Out of the reverence that is commanded to be given to the Son of God. “That you may honor the Son as you honor the Father” (John 5:23). If the Angel did not accept worship from John, then much less would Jesus Christ have accepted it if he had been nothing more than a simple man; it means He is worthy of such worship. And indeed, the apostles and leading Christians rendered it to Him. That the apostles worshiped is evident from the election of the apostles, from the prayer of Stephen (Acts 7:59–60) and from the exhortations of the Apostle Paul (Phil. 2:10, Heb. 1:6); that the leading Christians worshiped Jesus Christ is clear from the testimony of the pagan Pliny, whom Trajan entrusted to watch over the Christians, and who later reported to this emperor that Christians were gathering, singing songs in honor of Jesus and instructing each other. One cannot help but pay attention to the idea that is spreading today that the Second Person is not God, but man. How guilty He and the apostles are before the human race! Where could the idea of ​​pretending to be what Jesus Christ was, without actually being like that, be born, if not in the head of the sworn enemy of men? No! People who died for the truth could not lie, and Providence would never allow people to enter into such a delusion if it really were a delusion. 3) From the works accomplished by Jesus Christ. Creation and preservation are attributed to him in the same sense as to the Father (John 1:3, Col. 1:16–17, Heb. 2:10). “Bearing all things with His power” (Heb. 1:3). Here the preposition δια, if we strictly adhere to hermeneutics, creates some difficulty, and, as it were, humiliates the Son before the Father; but there are other places where the Son is directly called the Creator. Moreover, judging by the names with which we have given the Persons of the Holy Trinity, it must be so that the Father acts through the Son, for we called the Son the Word - the mind, and it is known that we always act through the word - through the mind. Moreover, the resurrection of the dead is attributed to Jesus Christ, for the decisive judgment that He will carry out cannot be accomplished without omniscience (Rev. 2:23, Jer. 17:10, Matt. 25:31, Acts 17:31, 1 Cor. 4:5, 2 Cor. 5:10). It is said that He commands nature (Matthew 4:23–24, Mark 6:48); omnipotence is attributed (John 10:28–30). “No one,” says Jesus, “can snatch them (the sheep) out of the hand of My Father” (John 10:29). But “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Consequently, “I am... Almighty” (Gen. 17:1); “and no one will snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:28, Heb. 1:1-12). 4) Finally, from His inseparability from the Father. The Son is called the image of the Father: “Who is the radiance of glory and the image of the hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3). This shows His perfect similarity and equality with the Father: “Who is in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6). since this expression is further contrasted with the expression: “in the likeness of humanity” (Phil. 2:7); and it is known that the last expression means that He was a perfect Man, therefore, the first must mean that He is a perfect God. From the passages of Holy Scripture we have cited, the Divinity of the nature of the Son of God is clearly revealed. How did the heretics claim that He is a creation, or God, but less than God the Father? Some inaccurate expressions of the Holy Scriptures have been a source of error. These are the expressions (Col. 1:15): “the firstborn of all creation” (but this expression, according to the teaching of the Universal Church, means that He was born before all creation, that is, from eternity; meanwhile, on the basis of it, the heretics constructed the idea that He was the first born among creatures); To Him all the “was” (Ps. 149:5), where creation is attributed to being incomplete, and where He is described as an instrument of the Father: “My Father... is painful to Me” (John 10:29). It is obvious that He is the lesser in relation to the Father; Jesus Christ does not know the time of judgment (Matthew 24:36), and so on. But all these doubts are easily destroyed; some are the clearest in places of Scripture, and others - by the fact that Jesus Christ in many places speaks of Himself only as a Man, and not as about God; in the latter case He would say: I and the Father are one. Those heretics who subordinate the Son to the Father rely on the entire New Testament. For in this matter in the New Testament the Son is presented as being completely dependent on the Father: he receives commandments from Him, commands in His name, works miracles, and so on. But such dependence is a necessary consequence of the embassy. If Jesus Christ took upon Himself the position of Messenger, then He must necessarily depend in everything on the One who Sent Him. We do not have and cannot have other names that could better express the relationship of the Son to the Father. Consequently, we cannot have any other concepts about this relationship. In addition, this dependence really exists if we pay attention to the earthly, human life of the God-man. We should think the same way about the Holy Spirit where He is presented as dependent on the Son, that is, this dependence is a consequence of the economy of our salvation, and mostly stems from the insufficiency of human terminology. The divinity of the Holy Spirit is affirmed on the evidence on which the divinity of the Son of God is based, namely, it is manifest: 1) From the names of God: “Thou didst not lie to man, but to God” (Acts 5:4). Opponents make the following syllogism: why did you lie to the Spirit who lives in Him? You did not lie to us, but to God, who gave us this Spirit. But this is an obvious subterfuge. For Apostle Paul, the name of the Holy Spirit and the name of God replace one another (1 Cor. 3:16, 2 Cor. 6:16, 1 Cor. 6:19). 2) From the reverence that is commanded to be given to Him: “baptizingly... in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). It is clear that everyone is also obliged to glorify the Holy Spirit, as well as to glorify the Father and the Son. 3) From the properties attributed to Him; from omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10, 1 Cor. 12:11). 4) From actions. He distributes gifts of grace (1 Cor. 12:8–10): “to whom the word of wisdom is given by the Spirit,” that is, theoretical gifts; “to another the word of reason” – practical abilities; “to another... actions of forces” - actions over the forces of nature; “to another prophecy” is the interpretation of Scripture, although one can also understand the extraordinary gift of prophesying; “to another, spiritual reasoning” - discernment of the spirit of teachings; “to another give birth to tongues” – the ability to speak different languages; “to another the tales of tongues” - interpretation of languages, the ability to translate from one language to another. There are also many places in Scripture where the Spirit is credited with perfect knowledge of the human heart. In general, the action of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is very important. If it is not Divine, then it is inconvenient to admit that the holy writers expressed themselves very carelessly. Its importance was confirmed by the Savior Himself when he said that sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this or in the next century. The heretics who rebelled against the Holy Spirit and called Him a creature deserve even less apology than those who rebelled against the Son. The reason for their errors were those passages of Scripture in which the Holy Spirit is presented as a quality of God the Father, more dependent on the Father and the Son. For example, it is said that He did not exist before the glorification of Jesus Christ, and that He then descended: “for Jesus was not glorified” (John 7:39, Acts 2:7, 33). But all these indecisive passages must be interpreted in the clearest passages, and the heretics did not do this. One cannot help but marvel at the great influence that the actions of even the Orthodox doubts of the heretics had. Gregory the Theologian, due to heretical doubts, thought that the concept of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not revealed in the Holy Scriptures. It should be noted that his view is incorrect. Looking separately at the passages of Scripture, his remark will seem true; but if you look at them collectively, this cannot be said. 7. Are these three equally Divine Persons three separate Essences, or do they constitute one? The Church says that They are of one essence; Is this what Scripture says? We know that the New and Old Testaments do not contradict themselves in any way. But in the Old Testament the unity of God’s being is instilled in the strictest way, and in the New Testament the trinity of Divine Persons is very clearly expressed. This consideration alone can serve as sure proof that the unity of the Being in God is not contrary to the trinity of Persons, and that it really exists in Him. But besides this foundation, the unity of the Being of God is also affirmed in the passages of Holy Scripture. Both the Church and Scripture teach that in God there is no tritheism, but unity. As proof of this truth, they cite the words from the First Epistle of the Apostle John: “These are three who bear witness” (1 John 5:7), and so on. But this passage speaks of unity not physical, but moral - the kind that occurs between three witnesses who affirm the same thing. For the apostle wants to prove here that Jesus is the Christ - the Messiah. And this is proven by the testimony of heaven and earth. At least, this place in this case is very unsteady. One can think that the apostle is talking about the unity of witnesses, and one can believe that he was talking about the unity of the Being of God. But the former, judging by the context, has more grounds, and there is almost no reason to assume the latter, for it is not clear that the evangelist needed to talk here about the unity of the Being of God. In general, this place is not relevant. Let's look for others: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Here a more physical unity is shown, for, as can be seen from the Gospel (John 10:28–29), with these words Jesus Christ proves that He has the same power that the Father has - limitless, Divine. But this place is shaky. Also: “He who saw Me saw the Father” (John 14:9). This means that He is the same as the Father, that is, one in essence with Him. This includes the words from the Gospel of John (John 1:1), which, to the fullest extent of hermeneutics, prove unity with the Father. If we did not know other places, then from this alone we would know that Jesus Christ is one Being with God the Father. There can be no doubt about the unity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, because in the Holy Scriptures He appears to exist in God, appears to be the thought of God, and a thought with the one to whom it belongs is always a single being. There is one place that explains the non-consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:11). However, this teaching against tritheism is strong in itself. One cannot easily fall into the error against which it is directed. You can rather fall into modalism, Arianism, Subordianism and the like. Then the Church, in accordance with Scripture, teaches that there is a trinity in God; that the difference between the three extends to the individual, that is, each Person has mental and moral independence in the same way that thinking beings differ among us. In Scripture there is only no word Person, but what we mean by this name exists; further, the Church teaches that these three are Divine and consubstantial, and Scripture says the same; it just doesn’t contain the word consubstantial; but the thought expressed by this word exists. The Church is accused of stretching this teaching to metaphysical subtleties. But this accusation is unfair... It was impossible not to enter into metaphysics, reflecting the metaphysical subtleties of the heretics. Moreover, it must also be said that in the definitions of the Councils there is no great metaphysics, and the Church used abstract language only against heretics, and where it was necessary to introduce something into general use, it expressed itself simply and publicly. The difference between Church teaching and Biblical teaching, as we said above, is that in the Bible there are no words: Person and consubstantial, but there are thoughts, therefore, there is no significant difference. The Church did not think to fully express even the teaching of Scripture about the Holy Trinity with its teaching; all the less did she think of expressing to them the very subject of this teaching. However, the holy fathers firmly adhered to the expressions of the Symbol, and we were advised to adhere to them; They only demanded that we remove all earthly thoughts from these expressions. Lactantius says: “When you hear that the second Person is the Son, do not think that the Father begot Him ex connubio alicujus.” In what relation does this first dogma of the Christian religion have to the mind? Since ancient times there has been a rumor about some kind of trinity. Some French anti-Trinians argued that all Christian Sacraments, and especially the Sacrament of the Holy Trinity, are repugnant to the mind. And most of the theologians recognize it as incompatible with reason (see “Christian Reading”, 1822, part 6, p. 187). What is this inconsistency? In that three are in one and from three one is made; Apparently this contradicts the principles of reason. Its essence began: the law of identity, contradiction, satisfied reason. But does this Sacrament contradict the principle of identity? If three Persons constituted one person, there would be a contradiction; but we say that three Persons constitute one Being; therefore, there is no contradiction. Moreover, about these imaginary contradictions it must be said in general that they are unimportant, for they arise solely from the forms of logical reason, and reason is only a part of man; there is a higher part - the mind, for which these contradictions do not exist. Here are objections that are more important and worth refuting. They are: 1) They say that by allowing trinity in the being of God, through this we introduce imperfections into Him. The Father produces, but the Son and the Holy Spirit do not. Consequently, there is a dependence of the second and third Persons on the first. But this bewilderment can only be in our language. Here it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the birth and procession, which we attribute to the Persons of the Holy Trinity, is eternal and necessary, and therefore free, for reason also calls perfect freedom necessity. So, this bewilderment, arising from a human view of the relationship of Divine Persons, immediately disappears as soon as it separates its thought from space and time. 2) Another objection, more plausible, is the following: there must be a significant difference between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, otherwise there will be none; if there is such a difference, then one of them does not have what the other has. Consequently, they have some lack, incompleteness. Against this, it must be said that these Persons differ not in the way of possession, but in the way of receiving. Their method of possession is neither better nor worse. Moreover, this difference that we have placed between them is borrowed from the environment of created beings, and God is above this environment; There is some personal difference in God, but it is incomprehensible to us. If we extend this objection further, it turns out that God is not more perfect than man, for God does not fight with obstacles; therefore, there is a difference in this regard in God, while there is no damage. The main elimination of objections of this kind is that this teaching is not subject to reason. Its origins are adapted to creatures; and the Divine nature is above everything, above the mind. And therefore, let them object - the truth will remain the truth. However, an impartial mind, looking at itself and at nature, can naturally reach such a teaching, namely: a) Accepting the teaching that the world is not eternal, the mind immediately asks: “What did God do before the creation of the world? Did He really begin to act in time, and so late at that?” The best way to eliminate this bewilderment is the doctrine of the Trinity. The activity of God was fully expressed in the work of the Son and the Holy Spirit, only not in a temporary work of the temporary, but in an eternal work of the eternal. God spoke the Word from eternity; all other creatures rushed as echoes of this word. b) The law of production, which prevails in nature, also leads the one considering it to the Sacrament of the Holy Trinity. In nature, every creature is capable of giving birth and gives birth to something similar to itself in its own form. This law must be a reflection of the law of Divine nature. Consequently, God also acts according to this law: He produces according to His own kind. c) Everywhere we see the law of triplicity. Even the ancients noticed that there was a trinity shining all over the world. Indeed, upon further exploration of the world, this becomes obvious. Thus, at the basis of the external world lies the trinity - space, time, being; the form of the world or that through which it enters the visible world, or the world of phenomena, is made up of a trinity: heat, light, heaviness; There are also three elements of the world - water, earth, air, for fire is an element in which the first three are combined, and therefore it is not counted among them; three, besides this, kingdoms of nature. In human nature, a striking threefoldness is also revealed: the threefoldness of his being - spirit, soul and body; triplicity of abilities - mind, will and feeling; tripartiteness of judgments – concept, judgment and inference. But the external and internal worlds were created in the image, therefore, there must be something similar in God - a certain triplicity. Even the mystery of combining Divine Persons in one Being was in some way reflected in nature. How many human creatures are there? One. How many people? Millions. We separate them by space, but what is space? The best philosophers have said that it is nothing. So, millions of persons, without being separated by anything, constitute one being. Should we then be perplexed that three persons can and do constitute one being? One should be more amazed at how the personality of creatures is combined with the being of God. “About Him,” says Scripture, “we live and move and we are” (Acts 17:28). Consequently, He is personally present in everyone and with everyone forms, as it were, one being. There are more mysteries for the mind here. For God and God, so to speak, can still be one, but how the creature and the Creator are one - this is the greatest mystery! But now the perplexity about the trinity in God is already passing. Now, on the contrary, it is necessary be careful not to indulge in too subtle speculations regarding the Persons of the Holy Trinity, for now almost all physical reasoning begins with the Trinity. This is because the trinity shines very clearly in nature. That is why, even in ancient times, all peoples came to the doctrine of the Trinity, such as the Indians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, even the rudest of them, such as our Mongols and Peruvians; the latter even had an inscription that clearly depicts these three faces. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity is not only not contrary to the mind, but the mind itself can even reach it. And the Bible said about him what it was, in a general sense. How should this teaching be used? It must have and has had a great influence on morality. Without humiliating the mind, it opens it up and revives it. For its main tone is the following: “You,” it says to the mind, “have not yet seen everything in the Divine nature; do not think that you will comprehend it; you still have a lot left.” With this speech it excites the mind to greater activity. With this dogma, revelation fulfilled what was required of it, that is, it told us something new, presented God from a new side, opened, so to speak, the impenetrable veil of the Divine. But since even with a small lifting of this veil, reason immediately appeared with objections, therefore revelation did not tell us more, did not raise the Divinity above the dark veil, for what then could an inquisitive reason tell us? Consequently, here God is careful for our sake: not because we do not comprehend that He wants to hide from us, but because He is hidden because His revelation would be harmful for us. Further, this teaching animates the sense of human dignity. The fall of man, the view of the world and the present state of everything, outrages us and drives us almost to despair. Now, if we know that it is determined for us to be saved, and that this salvation is divided between three powerful and beneficent Persons, then can we doubt its fulfillment? He who believes this from his heart cannot help but rejoice in his future bliss. At the same time, this teaching protects from sins. The incomplete, vague teaching of reason is too abstract from us; on the contrary, the Christian teaching about the Holy Trinity is very close to us. To sin against God is terrible for a pure heart; How terrible it must be for him to sin against These beneficent Persons! In general, the idea of ​​God in three Persons has a very strong effect on morality. Should this teaching be stuck to the people? It is necessary, and this is proven by the example of the apostles. Only when presenting it should one adhere to Biblical simplicity—one should present the actions of Persons, and not delve into their relationships. Are people familiar with these faces? I am somewhat familiar with Jesus Christ, although historically, and the Holy Spirit is extremely little known, while He is the main agent of our salvation, and it is very necessary to know Him. Therefore, in teachings we should talk most about the Holy Spirit - about His actions and relationships towards our salvation. You might be interested in: