*Exactly* three persons in one God?

[St_Veronica]

Racer X:

Something like, “The Godhead is comprised of exactly three Persons, no more, no less.”

That would be the sort of thing I’m looking for. Please provide the paragraph number.

That is like Jews saying, if there were more persons than one in God, don’t you think He would have revealed it to Moses? I don’t make any presumptions about what God would and would not reveal to us; I only know what He has revealed: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Beyond that I can say nothing with certainty.

I already provided the citation in an earlier post…just scroll up.

The Church has said it is a Trinity…a Trinity can only be 3…no more no less.

Have you read the Bible? I think it’s pretty clear about there not being any more revelation.

I’m not sure what the point is to your exercise here…you’ve already said you believe in the Trinity. If you accept the Trinity then the rest is moot.

SV

 

[Racer_X]

meep:

I wasn’t aware that he addressed that–you’re better-read than me.

Nah. Just a good googler.

However, I was talking about clarification that “Trinity” meant three. A trinity is a group of exactly three things. Hence the “tri”. If it were possible that there were more persons in God, I doubt that they would say God is a trinity, but would instead say God includes a trinity or is at least a trinity. “Is” is a statement of identity. At least, that’s how I read it.

From my perspective, that reading of it is very bold. The Trinity is simply the word which has been used to designate the three Persons in God. I might be wrong of course, but I have seen nothing to indicate that it supposed to be an exhaustive term.

Please bear in mind here, that my stance is from a humble attempt to avoid any false beliefs about God. I am not saying that there are more than three persons. I affirm that there are indeed three persons. As to whether there more, I don’t claim to know.

But let me ask you, if you could ask the Pope for an infallible statement on the matter, what would you expect the response to be?

Probably something like, “I can’t. We know of three. As to whether God is more, that has not been revealed.”

 

[Racer_X]

St Veronica:

The Church has said it is a Trinity…a Trinity can only be 3…no more no less.

Forgive me. I know you think I’m being stubborn. But I’m just being careful. I don’t see the use of the word Trinity as anything more than short-hand term for “the three persons”. It is not like the term triangle, which excludes any other type of polygon.

If a door to a room opens up and one at a time three people stick their heads out and say hi, we can say with certainty that there are three people in the room, but not there are only three people in the room. The public revelation of the nature of God seems to me be like that. Unless I see something explicitly saying, “THERE ARE NO MORE THAN THREE” I will continue to refrain from having an opinion about it.

Have you read the Bible? I think it’s pretty clear about there not being any more revelation.

That is wrong. The Bible emphatically states there will be another revelation: it’s called the Second Coming of Christ.

Do you really think that when you meet God face to face you will learn nothing more about Him than what is in the apostolic deposit of faith? The finality of revelation is simply that there will be no more public revelation given to the Church until the end times.

I’m not sure what the point is to your exercise here…you’ve already said you believe in the Trinity. If you accept the Trinity then the rest is moot.

I was just curious about whether the Church has made a definitive statement regarding it. So far, the answer appears to be no. I didn’t expect all the argument. But then if the Church had indeed made a definitive statement, there wouldn’t be any argument, would there?

It seems there are many who are comfortable with coming to various conclusions about things divine. I, however, prefer not to speculate about that which is not certain. If it is not certain, then we probably don’t need to know right now. But in order to know which things are certain and which are not, I have to pose the question, don’t I?

Thanks for all the answers. - RX

 

[ServusChristi]

Racer X:

I was just curious about whether the Church has made a definitive statement regarding it. So far, the answer appears to be no. I didn’t expect all the argument. But then if the Church had indeed made a definitive statement, there wouldn’t be any argument, would there?

The Church has made a definitive statement. There are EXACTLY THREE. That is the Dogma of the Trinity. It is as definitive as it gets. No more persons in the Trinity. The Church has decided this dogmatically.

 

[Racer_X]

ServusChristi:

The Church has made a definitive statement. There are EXACTLY THREE. That is the Dogma of the Trinity. It is as definitive as it gets. No more persons in the Trinity. The Church has decided this dogmatically.

So you say. But where? Until I see something using the phrase “exactly three,” “no more than three”, or “three and only three,” I will refrain from making any conclusion.

From my point of view it looks like you other posters think that

“there are three persons in one God”
+
“the Church has not explicitly said that we do not know if there are more”​

“there are exactly three”

But that does not follow logically. There are an immense number of questions that the Church does not have the answer but has not explicitly said, “we do not have the answer.”

I will continue to interpet silence as just that: silence.

Don’t think that I am stubbornly choosing to refrain from believing that there three and only three Persons. I would be happy to see a statement of that fact from the Church. I want to know just as much about God as I can. But I will not profess more than I know.

 

[hawkeye]

Racer X:

I see that many of you are of the impression that the Church teaches that there are exactly three persons in one God, and no more than three. That is what I would like to find out, **but as yet I have seen no official statement to that effect. **

I personally am of no opinion as to whether there are any other persons within God beyond the three revealed to His Church. I’m just curious as to whether the Church has made a definitive statement on this question or not.

Again, I say that unless God explicitly told us so, it would be extremely conceited to assume–given there are more than one person in God–that He has revealed all His personalities to us humans.

How did God create this planet ? by his word, have a look at the Tilma of Mary in Mexcio, to Juan Diego, do you understand this picture ? if you don’t, get back to me, bye Stephen Michael Francis Maguire.

I don’t believe that there has been more than one incarnation of God. I can’t say one way or the other. But I strongly doubt that it is heresy. Has the Church really proclaimed that out of the gazillion stars out there it is a certainty that God has taken the form of a creature on this planet only?

If turns out there has been lively debate for centuries about the hypothetical existence of extraterrestials, the significance of the earthly Christ-event for them, whether they would be in a fallen state or not, and whether there might be other Incarnations for other races’ sakes. In short, the Church has not declared that the Christ-Incarnation is a unique event in the entire history of the Universe. But it is certainly unique within human history.

 

[hawkeye]

Racer X:

So you say. But where? Until I see something using the phrase “exactly three,” “no more than three”, or “three and only three,” I will refrain from making any conclusion.

From my point of view it looks like you other posters think that

“there are three persons in one God”
+
“the Church has not explicitly said that we do not know if there are more”​

“there are exactly three”

But that does not follow logically. There are an immense number of questions that the Church does not have the answer but has not explicitly said, “we do not have the answer.”

I will continue to interpet silence as just that: silence.

Don’t think that I am stubbornly choosing to refrain from believing that there three and only three Persons. I would be happy to see a statement of that fact from the Church. I want to know just as much about God as I can. But I will not profess more than I know.

Ok, read about the Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, tell me what you perceive to be the truth.

 

[Baruch]

Racer X:

Does the Church teach that there are three and only three persons within the one God? Or do we only say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the three persons which have been revealed to the Church but leave open the question of whether there are more?

Are we not to hold fast to what has been delivered to us either in Scripture or Tradition (2 Thess 2:15)? Neither has anything to say except for 3 Persons no more no less. That is why the Church in its infallible councils refers to God as the Trinity which means none other than Tri-unity or three in one no more no less. Trust me, when God has revealed Himself as three Persons, He is not hiding other persons of the Godhead. That is not in keeping with His revelation or His Being. The Church would be in error by calling God Trinity when in fact God is not. The Church does not have to define that there is no fourth or fifth or sixth person because it knows of no such teaching to reject.

 

[thisismyusrname]

Racer X:

Please note that I am not arguing that there are more than three persons in God. But the two statements

(1) There are three persons in one God.
(2) There are three and only three persons in one God.

are not equivalent. So far I have only seen Church statements of form (1), not (2).

The Catholic Church teaches the existence of a Trinitarian God - Tri-, meaning three - not simply a polypersonal God. That is what the Trinity means - One God in three Persons, Three Persons in One God. No more, no less of either.

 

[Digitonomy]

tobias:

Though the old testament is not explicit on the matter I do believe there is implicit revelation of the Trinity. When Abraham is told his wife will concieve a child in her old age he is met with a theophany which is triune, remember that he is met by three men(messangers of God) to whom Abraham says ‘Lord.’ He also has a similar experience prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah.

I would not read too much into this. In Genesis 19, where the end of the Sodom story is told, there are actually only two angels staying in Lot’s house. This seems to follow from Genesis 18:22

So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord.

Earlier there had been three men, so the most logical conclusion is that one of the “men” had been the Lord, and the other two angels. The second most logical way to read it is that the Lord was distinct from the three men, and all three men went to Sodom, where one inexplicitly disappeared. Third, you could argue that the three men of Chapter 18 and the two angels of Chapter 19 are distinct, but you’re still stuck with 18:22 where the Lord is distinguished from “the men,” presumably the other two.

 

[metal1633]

Racer X:

Nah. Just a good googler.

From my perspective, that reading of it is very bold. The Trinity is simply the word which has been used to designate the three Persons in God. I might be wrong of course, but I have seen nothing to indicate that it supposed to be an exhaustive term.

Please bear in mind here, that my stance is from a humble attempt to avoid any false beliefs about God. I am not saying that there are more than three persons. I affirm that there are indeed three persons. As to whether there more, I don’t claim to know.

Probably something like, “I can’t. We know of three. As to whether God is more, that has not been revealed.”

You are being stuborn. You are not just being carefull. You are carelessly treading in the deep waters of heresy. STOP. The Church has defined that “God is Triune.” The word Trinity isnt simply there to designate the Three Persons. Thats what thier names are for. Trinity describes Gods Nature. He is TRIUNE. He is Triune in His internal relationships. It is what He IS. As I said before, we will certainly learn more about God but we will not learn that He is OTHER than what He has revealed. More Persons would be OTHER. More Persons would not be a Trinity and the Church has defined that God IS TRIUNE.

THE END

 

[OhioBob]

metal1633:

You are being stuborn. You are not just being carefull. You are carelessly treading in the deep waters of heresy. STOP. The Church has defined that “God is Triune.” The word Trinity isnt simply there to designate the Three Persons. Thats what thier names are for. Trinity describes Gods Nature. He is TRIUNE. He is Triune in His internal relationships. It is what He IS. As I said before, we will certainly learn more about God but we will not learn that He is OTHER than what He has revealed. More Persons would be OTHER. More Persons would not be a Trinity and the Church has defined that God IS TRIUNE.
THE END

Not that I want to throw gas on this fire, but I had another thought (dangerous thing, that). Now I preface this by admitting that I am a theological light weight (whoa that I were also a physical light weight, but that is another story). But the coffee is kicking in, so I’ll toss this thought out there and brace myself for the onslaught…

In a sense I think we are getting the “Church has defined that God IS TRIUNE” thing upside down. It seems that the Church definition of the trinity was in response to controversies throughout the centuries over the three ways that God has revealed himself (as Father and Creator, as Incarnate Word to man and as Paraclete or Spirit). God didn’t say “trinity”, we did, to try to comprehend the mysteries of his revelation.

In response to challenges that there were three Gods, or a heirarchy with God the Father on top, or Christ as “God in a man suit”, the Church eventually defined the Trinity - One God in three Divine Persons. The definition of the Trinity was the Church’s answer to the questions and the way of understanding God’s revelation to man. The doctrine developed to counter heresies and permit the meager mind of man to appreciate the transcendent God to the extent that such a thing is possible.

That being said, I still think that it is egocentric of man to presume that we know everything there is to know about God. The fact that we now understand the mysteries of God as the Creator, God as the incarnate Savior and God as spiritual strengthener as a “Trinity” of one God in three divine persons does not preclude the possibility that there are aspects to God that he did not choose to reveal to man.

Is it not possible that there are aspects to God that are entirely beyond human comprehension even with the most profound theological insight? And that God only revealed to man what man would be able to comprehend in order to guide us to salvation?

None of these questions “carelessly tread in the deep waters of heresy”. No one is questioning the Church’s interpretation of Divine revelation on this thread or arguing anything different than a triune understanding. It’s an academic exercise, but isn’t that what these boards are for?

In a way, Racer-X’s original question expressed a more humbling perspective. That being the possibility that regardless of our understanding of revelation, God transcends our full comprehension. And that we may come to learn more about God when we come into his presence. That seems to be the foundation of the development of doctrine. Doctrine doesn’t contradict itself, but it can develop a more complete (complete, not necesarily total) understanding over time.

That knowledge will not be in conflict with God’s revelation to man, but it may expand upon it much as the mustard plant expands upon the mustard seed.

In such a perspective I find humility, not heresy. But that’s just me.

Blessings.

 

[headman13]

St. Veronica, it is the heresy of “Modalism” or “Monarchianism” “Apollinarianism” to say that the 3 Persons of the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity are “expressions” of the One God. The Persons of the Trinity–and yes, there are ONLY 3—are eternal and consistent, not just “expressions”. “The Father is eternal, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son” Read the Athanasian Creed. “The Father is Holy, the Son is Holy, the Spirit is Holy, And yet there are not three Holy Ones, but One Who is Holy” The Athanasian Creed has been a tremendous help to me.

St. Augustine of Hippo wrote a 12 volume explanation of the Holy Trinity. And yet his symbol in hagiography is *not a pile of dusty books, but a little boy with a sand bucket. * One day St. Augustine was walking beside the sea and he saw this kid with a bucket running back and forth from the sea to a hole he had dug in the beach. Back and forth he would go, dumping water from the sea into the hole in the beach.Really curious, Augustine asked the little boy, “What are you doing, my son?” The child replied, “Why, I’m trying to empty the sea into this hole I’ve dug,with my little bucket.” Augustine realized that that was exACTly what he was trying to do in explaining the Nature of God. “That’s why it’s called faith…I don’t understand it, but I believe it…”

 

[St_Veronica]

headman13:

St. Veronica, it is the heresy of “Modalism” or “Monarchianism” “Apollinarianism” to say that the 3 Persons of the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity are “expressions” of the One God. The Persons of the Trinity–and yes, there are ONLY 3—are eternal and consistent, not just “expressions”. “The Father is eternal, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son” Read the Athanasian Creed. “The Father is Holy, the Son is Holy, the Spirit is Holy, And yet there are not three Holy Ones, but One Who is Holy” The Athanasian Creed has been a tremendous help to me.

"

Perhaps you missed the other posts address this. As I said in another post, it was bad choice of words on my part.

SV

 

[headman13]

Yes, I had missed that. It is VERY hard to expalin the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity withOUT veering off into one error of the other. Yet, it is the very essence of our holy catholic faith.

 

[headman13]

Yes, I had missed that. It is VERY hard to explain the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity withOUT veering off into one error of the other. Yet, it is the very essence of our holy catholic faith.

 

[thomist]

In re: rx’s question, does the Church teach definitively (=dogmatically) that there are “only” three persons in the Godhead and no more? Yes. In definitions given in various councils, and repeated in others, the Catholic Church has said that God’s “nature” is Trinity. three-persons-in one-God. The word “nature” means ‘what-ness’, so when we ask "what’ something is, we are asking its ‘nature’. In saying that the ‘whatness’ (=“nature”) of God is Triune, the Church is saying that THAT IS ‘what’ God is i.e., that and nothing else.

Saying this DOES NOT mean that we have exhausted all that can be known about God! It’s just a humble human acceptance of God’s reality as revealed to us, and then more and more fully ‘understood’ as centuries of prayer and life in Christ progressed. The doctrinal formulae were a defense of the revealed truth which was directly the result of attacks upon it by various heresies. As such, these definitions were specifically worded in response to them, but in defining Trinity as God’s “nature”, God’s People (populo Dei) - under the influence and guidance of God Himself, by the way! - made it clear that it’s three only.

The Catholic Church is - by ‘nature’! - Divine AND human! In matters of belief and right behavior She CANNOT make a mistake. Therefore we can trust Her statements about the ‘nature’ of God, because He Himself is the source of those statements.

**The reason that the Church has not formally said, “There are three and no more than three Divine Persons” is because no heretic has yet caused enough of a commotion to merit such a further clarification - Dogmas are only defined in defense! **

Of course, if Rx really wants an EXPLICIT denunciation of the heresy of more than three Persons in the One God, he can make a big enough fuss about it and the Church - as She has in the past - will do so. Again, Dogmas are only defined in defense of the truth.

 

[metal1633]

OhioBob:

Doctrine doesn’t contradict itself, but it can develop a more complete (complete, not necesarily total) understanding over time.

That knowledge will not be in conflict with God’s revelation to man, but it may expand upon it much as the mustard plant expands upon the mustard seed.

In such a perspective I find humility, not heresy. But that’s just me.

Blessings.

A development that finds God to NOT be Triune WOULD be a contradiction. It would be in conflict with what has been revealed. We WILL definitly learn more about the Father and the Son and the Spirit. What we will NOT learn is that God is something other than Triune. God has revealed Himself in His inner being to us as a Trinity. That is the Dogma, that Gods Nature is Triune. Any development will be in the realm of further understanding of the Trinity, not a new understanding of another Divine Person. If there are 4, or 5 or any other number of Divine Persons then God would NOT be a Trinity and the Dogma as revealed to us by God would be a lie. God does not lie.

 

[quintessential5]

OhioBob and RacerX I completely agree! It seems that we’re just going in circles with the “three only” and the “at least three” arguments. But I really do think everyone is reading into the Trinity doctrine too much when they assert that it means three and three only. I won’t continue to beat the issue to death. I do just want to clarify two things:

1. Don’t think that OhioBob, RacerX, or I are being heretical. If the Church said “There are three and only three Persons in God” I’m sure we would drop this “more than three” discussion right away.
2. Personally, I think there are only three Persons that make up God. RacerX wondered if perhaps aliens exist would God become that species of alien to atone for their sins. I think that He would not. Just as Israel was the chosen people through whom God brought Jesus into the world, so too I think would Earthlings be a chosen species to the rest of the universe. Christ’s sacrifice was “once for all”. I believe we would be called to baptize the aliens in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Orson Scott Card considers this interesting idea in his (fictional) book Speaker for the Dead (an excellent read, I highly recommend it).

 

[Myhrr]

This subject is one I’ve enjoyed thinking about over the years. I haven’t put those thoughts into any kind of order, perhaps it’s time I did so, because I usually only think about it when viewing such things as different belief systems and find myself incorporating different perspectives of ‘the trinity’ as a sort of prism through which to look at them.

I also think that the Trinitarian definition was specific to the arguments at the time about the nature of Christ in relationship and place and not an attempt to define God.

The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - what did the Church understand by these terms at that time? What is the Father? Christ said that no one comes to the Father but by Him, can there be a Father without a Mother?

Immediately here we’re talking about relationship within God. Perhaps like the Jews do it would be easier to differentiate that idea somehow, let me call that GOD for now, GOD is that which according to Christianity created male and female in ‘their one image and likeness’ (post 25), in other words by using the term Father it is implicit that there is a Mother, GOD doesn’t contradict himself to become male only even if the limitations of our usual grammar constructs can’t express this. The second creation story about Adam can’t invalidate that first statement in Genesis I and shouldn’t be used in place of it.

In the Trinity is the relationship of Father to Son and, as the still ongoing arguments between the RCC and the Orthodox Churches show, there are huge differences in understanding exactly what that relationship is, but, that Father is defined as being the one in heaven and not some other place. This again is a limitation of GOD, but must have meant something particular to Christ when He said it.

And so on for the other terms in the Nicene/Constantinople creed -none of the terms used is actually defined. Is there any discussion about this among the early fathers? I don’t recall any, but my reading isn’t that extensive.

The ongoing arguments about the Immaculate Conception appear to be similarly confused with each side talking past each other because of differing views of place and relationship.