Ontological and Economic Trinity

[Overcomer]

My questions are these:

What is the difference between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity? How are each defined? And what Scripture verses demonstrate each?

Please note that, for the purposes of this thread, I don't want to get off-track with arguments about whether God exists as a Trinity or not. In this thread, we're assuming that he does.

Thank you! O.

[steveb1]

My questions are these:

What is the difference between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity? How are each defined? And what Scripture verses demonstrate each?

Please note that, for the purposes of this thread, I don't want to get off-track with arguments about whether God exists as a Trinity or not. In this thread, we're assuming that he does.

Thank you! O.

Ontological Trinity = the "inner nature" of the Triune Godhead and the relationship between its three Persons.

Economic Trinity = the Trinity as it interacts with the world.

I do not believe the Trinity is found in the Jewish Bible. And I am unaware of any place in the NT where any member of the Trinity references all three Persons at once. Father references Son, Son references Father and Holy Spirit. But there is no definitive Trinitarian statement in the NT because at most its christology reflected Jewish binitarianism, not the later Christian Trinitarianism.

[shnarkle]

My questions are these:

What is the difference between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity? How are each defined? And what Scripture verses demonstrate each?

Please note that, for the purposes of this thread, I don't want to get off-track with arguments about whether God exists as a Trinity or not. In this thread, we're assuming that he does.

Thank you! O.

The ontological trinity would be the perfect holy unity e.g. "Be ye perfect as your heavenly father in heaven is perfect"

The unity is portrayed in verses that indicate his uniqueness as well as God's transcendence.

Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. Psalms 86:8
I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, Isaiah 45:5
Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee 2 Samuel 7:22
O LORD, there is none like thee 1 Chronicles 17:20

The economy of the Trinity is described in Paul's letter to the Corinthians where the Shema is expanded to show how God's economy is manifested. Here's the Shema "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord"

Paul expands it into this: "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6"

This points out that God is the origin of all things while Christ is the means by which all things come into existence.

The introduction to John's gospel also describes what's going on in a bit more detail with this: "In the beginning was the word". This verse shows that the word exists "in the beginning". The book of Revelation is full of verses that indicate that the "word of God" is also "the beginning and the end" and these titles and names refer to Christ.

The next phrase states: "and the word was with God". This distinguishes the word from God. If they are with each other they can't be each other. Next we read, "and the word was God". This indicates that the origin of the word exists in the word, and can only exist in the word. The word is essentially the ground of existence while the father is the origin of existence. What exists exists eternally because as we just read it "was" (past tense of the verb to be) "in the beginning". The word is what allows the beginning to exist. The word is what allows God to exist. The word is eternal, and eternity itself. However, this should not be conflated with the God the father as John as already ponted out that they are not the same.


The economy forces the father to exist in, with, and through the word.

The spirit is the force or power of God which is how God comes to dwell in Christ as well as anyone who is "born again" according to his will, e.g. "The spirit breathes where HE WILL, you hear the sound, but you cannot tell where he comes from or where he goes, so it is with anyone who is born of the spirit"

If the power of the spirit is resisted this is considered unforgiveable because this is where the spirit comes in contact with humanity. The son is the means of bringing the new creature into existence, but the spirit is who enters them. Those who resist are damned. The Father can't be offended in the first place because for all intents and purposes, he doesn't exist independantly anyways. The father is transcendent

[Overcomer]

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by Overcomer]

Yes, the word "unity" is the key. Too often, critics of the Trinity talk about three separate Gods which shows they have no understanding of what the Trinity is, that is, that the Triune God is one God who exists in three persons who are one in essence.

I agree that the critics of the Trinity talk about three separate gods, but I also think that their criticism extends to this idea of three persons. The reason I say this is because of my memory of the creed which states, "one in being with the father". This "one" is referring to Christ, and has to refer to Christ because he is the means of existence or being. The father's role as origin of being cannot exist separately, and AS the origin of being cannot exist independently else we are faced with an infinite regression of being.

The problem with the idea of three persons is that the origin of being cannot be anything, and the person of Christ is really the only person there can be. Even as a person this is only through the incarnation. The reason for this, at least from the standpoint of the usage of words, is that the term "person" means "a man, woman or child" and comes from the word "persona" which means "a mask" and Jesus is that mask which conceals the transcendence of God. That persona or mask is effectively what conceals the image of God, yet paradoxically Christ also simultaneously reveals the image of God.

Here is where I believe the Trinitarian doctrine as we have it today is insufficient because it articulates Christ as God when the authors don't seem to feel any need to do this. We would both agree that eternal existence is a characteristic or trait of God, right? The problem is that the authors don't make that articulation. I don't know why they wouldn't, except perhaps to alleviate this infinite regression, or as the critics would say, "Turtles all the way down".

By attributing the means of all that exists to Christ and distinguishing him from God, they take that attribute away from what most would associate with God. It is an irresistible temptation to then just assume that Christ is God, and for all practical intents and purposes he might as well be. There is no other image of God. There is no other way to see God or know God, etc. He's the fullness of the godhead in bodily form. Yet, the authors don't want to make that leap. They still show us that there is no existence apart from the word, yet God is the origin of the word, and not the word itself while eternal existence isn't God, and yet God exists in, with, and through the eternal word.

The reason I find this so fascinating is that this same phenomenon occurs when one asks who we are. It's easy to talk about who we are in terms of what we have, our possessions, our roles, careers, etc. But these things aren't who we are. We aren't talking about identification or even identity because these things are things we have, and we are not what we have. We aren't things. Who we are isn't what we are. We are not a "what", we are a who, and the same applies to God. God is not a thing. The word isn't even a thing, and the origin and means of all that exists invites us into that mystery which if we take it as I've articulated just now, doesn't seem all that mysterious anymore. The reason being that eternal existence is all that there is. There is only Christ.

This isn't to say that the father and spirit doesn't exist, but that they exist in, with, and through Christ. Not as separate entities, but as the origin of existence and God's creative power. What objectively exists can exist only through Christ the word, yet also subjectively through his spirit which is what allows one to worship.

Without the spirit, one can only be an idolater as God cannot be worshiped objectively, only the objective world can be worshipped objectively, and transcendence can never be part of the objective world. All that is left is the image or Icon of God which is Christ, and subjectively the worship of God can be accomplished through the icon. This isn't idolatry as the icon isn't God or worshipped as God, but as the way to God.

Idolaters view the idol as God rather than the icon that reveals God. It erases the subject/object dichotomy. The amazing thing is that being created in the image of God places us in that same position contingent between the two poles of transcendence and the objective created world. This is where the self must be abandoned because the self is nothing more than an abstract construction. We are not concepts. Concepts can't approach or communicate immanence.


It seems to me that it is the self that hides this fact of reality. This is why Paul points out that the new creature is conformed into the image of Christ which then places us in that position mediating between transcendence and the objective world. This isn't to say that we are mediating, but that Christ is mediating in, with, and through us subjectively. The Spirit can only dwell subjectively in the new creature. The objective world is incapable of grasping this because it can't be objectively observed.

Yet as objective agents in creation we are only too aware of this existential fact, and can see it in everyone who is created in the image of God, even if they can't see it themselves. The irony is it is precisely because of themselves that they can't see. It is because of an abstract construction of the mind that tells them they are separate from the world.

[brianbbs67]

Interesting but how does Gen. 5:3 stack up?

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth."

[shnarkle]

Interesting but how does Gen. 5:3 stack up?

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth."

This is a great quote in that it shows how after Adam and Eve's descent into self awareness, they now see only in terms of life being created in their image rather than in God's image. This is a great foreshadowing of the chiasma that is created when looking at the grand picture. In the beginning God creates man in God's image, but in the end man creates God in man's image. Here we have Adam effectively mimicking God's act of creation. The author's use of the same terms "likeness and image" so soon after the fall is no accident. It confirms his sin will continue in his offspring as they grow into maturity seeing the world in terms of their own image rather than the image of God.

[ttruscott]

Ontological Trinity = the "inner nature" of the Triune Godhead and the relationship between its three Persons.

Economic Trinity = the Trinity as it interacts with the world.

I'm a fan of the Ontological Trinity.

[brianbbs67]

Interesting but how does Gen. 5:3 stack up?

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth."

This is a great quote in that it shows how after Adam and Eve's descent into self awareness, they now see only in terms of life being created in their image rather than in God's image. This is a great foreshadowing of the chiasma that is created when looking at the grand picture. In the beginning God creates man in God's image, but in the end man creates God in man's image. Here we have Adam effectively mimicking God's act of creation. The author's use of the same terms "likeness and image" so soon after the fall is no accident. It confirms his sin will continue in his offspring as they grow into maturity seeing the world in terms of their own image rather than the image of God.

Very interesting take on it. I have considered it to mean we are facsimiles of the original pair and first sons, created in God's image. (our imperfection produces more imperfection) But, as Christ said,"If Adam was such a great man, he would not have tasted of death".

[shnarkle]

Interesting but how does Gen. 5:3 stack up?

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth."

This is a great quote in that it shows how after Adam and Eve's descent into self awareness, they now see only in terms of life being created in their image rather than in God's image. This is a great foreshadowing of the chiasma that is created when looking at the grand picture. In the beginning God creates man in God's image, but in the end man creates God in man's image. Here we have Adam effectively mimicking God's act of creation. The author's use of the same terms "likeness and image" so soon after the fall is no accident. It confirms his sin will continue in his offspring as they grow into maturity seeing the world in terms of their own image rather than the image of God.

Very interesting take on it. I have considered it to mean we are facsimiles of the original pair and first sons, created in God's image. (our imperfection produces more imperfection) But, as Christ said,"If Adam was such a great man, he would not have tasted of death".

I don't recall where Christ says that, but regardless, to taste death means effectively to die, right? Yet the texts tell us that Christ tasted death for us, therefore it can't mean to die as we all die, right? From this I would suspect that tasting death means to suffer death whereas those who Christ suffered death for are now able to put that suffering aside. They no longer fear death, or suffering from death. For them, they're already dead to this world so the body dying to them will be completely anitclimactic.

I think your illustration of us as facsimiles is apt in that when one sends a fax, there's usually a cover sheet showing the origin of the fax, but after a while people make copies without bothering to include a cover sheet showing the origin because they're just making copies "in house". Eventually people forget where the copies originated from. They don't care because they're just interested in the content. Like you say, the copies eventually develop marks, and punctuaion becomes unclear. Commas begin to look like periods, some letters become vague, and it is up to the context to decide what the meaing of the word is. When all that's really necessary is to make a copy from the original faxed copy, or better yet, just get another one faxed from the origin.

That's effectively what we're dealing with, and it then becomes our responsibility to make sure our copy is clear and matches the original perfectly.