God's simplicity?

[zyzz]

How can the idea of the Trinity be reconciled with God’s simplicity? Even if one says that the Trinity is not three different entities, just three different aspects of the one God, to have three aspects is not simple.

Or is this yet another “mystery”, instead of a contradiction? The number of contradictions masquerading as “mysteries” is getting uncomfortable large.

 

[Lynxdk]

it’s a TRYangel

 

[MT1926]

How can the idea of the Trinity be reconciled with God’s simplicity? Even if one says that the Trinity is not three different entities, just three different aspects of the one God, to have three aspects is not simple.

Or is this yet another “mystery”, instead of a contradiction? The number of contradictions masquerading as “mysteries” is getting uncomfortable large.

Could you please define what you mean by God’s simplicity? Those 2 words just don’t seem like they should go together. I think this might help with the answers you get.

Matthew19:26

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

How can the idea of the Trinity be reconciled with God’s simplicity? Even if one says that the Trinity is not three different entities, just three different aspects of the one God, to have three aspects is not simple.

Or is this yet another “mystery”, instead of a contradiction? The number of contradictions masquerading as “mysteries” is getting uncomfortable large.

There’s another thread on this matter. Check it out.

My comments from the beginning of that thread:

"God’s nature is indivisible. This is the principle of divine simplicity - the transcendent divine essence, whatever it is, must be without parts.

"But the dogma of the Holy Trinity doesn’t contradict this. Indeed, it asserts that God’s essence is singular, indivisible, simple. It’s just that it mutually indwells three eternal Persons - the Father, the Son whom the Father eternally begets, and the Spirit who proceeds eternally from the Father (and, in western theology, from the Son, but I’m not touching that).

“I know it’s complicated - and we certainly all understand it far less than we think we do. But the indivisibility/simplicity/distinction-less quality of God’s nature applies, as it says, to God’s nature. The Persons who share that eternal nature are distinct.”

Also, remember that each Person of the Holy Trinity is NOT a “part” of God or an “aspect” of God. That’s not really accurate. Each person is fully God.

The Father - a distinct Person - is fully God.
The Son - a distinct Person - is fully God.
The Spirit - a distinct Person - is fully God.

God’s essence is without parts / not composite, and only one divine essence exists or could ever exist. Three eternally existing Hypostases share it.

 

[Ontheway]

it’s a TRYangel

Love this!:egyptian:

 

[GEddie]

Simplicity is (Thomistically) necessary to eternity, because anything complex can be broken down.

It’s not something that really makes sense to me either. Our minds are anything but simple, yet they arise from the spiritual soul, which supposedly is; and God’s mind would be infinitely less simple.

ICXC NIKA

 

[e_c]

This is one of the basic questions of Trinitarian theology. If God is simple (i.e., no parts), how can there be three Persons in God?

The Persons are relations. There is a way to get an oblique understanding on this. If I think of myself, in that one act there are three “me’s” as it were: the thinker, the one thought of, and the thought itself. Same with love: lover, beloved, love.

This is a basic way to begin understanding the answer to the question. Trinitarian theology is haaaaaaard and uses some very difficult vocabulary that has been historically contentious (like hypostasis vs. substance). Stick with the image I gave above (that I stole from Augustine) and you’ll be safe.

 

[porthos11]

Could you please define what you mean by God’s simplicity? Those 2 words just don’t seem like they should go together. I think this might help with the answers you get.

Matthew19:26

They do go together, and is absolutely essential to a proper understanding of God.

It means God has no parts, i.e. he is not divided and cannot be broken down in constituent elements. God’s simplicity is absolute.

 

[porthos11]

How can the idea of the Trinity be reconciled with God’s simplicity? Even if one says that the Trinity is not three different entities, just three different aspects of the one God, to have three aspects is not simple.

Or is this yet another “mystery”, instead of a contradiction? The number of contradictions masquerading as “mysteries” is getting uncomfortable large.

“Three aspects of the one God” is modalism, and is a heresy. It’s three Persons, but it does not violate simplicity because each Person is fully God, not 1/3 of God or three Gods.

 

[MT1926]

They do go together, and is absolutely essential to a proper understanding of God.

It means God has no parts, i.e. he is not divided and cannot be broken down in constituent elements. God’s simplicity is absolute.

Thank you. Makes perfect sense and I totally agree. When I read “God’s simplicity” my mind went straight to the sola fide response of God’s word is so simple that even a fifth grader can interpret it. My mistake, I might need to slow down on all the debates I have been reading I might be running on sensory overload.

Matthew 19:26

 

[ccmnxc]

Put really pithily, the Trinity is a distinction but not division within God (which is why the term “procession” has technical meaning when referring to the Trinity). To have simplicity be violated would necessitate the introduction of a division.
Where the mystery comes in is when we think in terms of “is” or “being.” Given the analogy of being that Thomists hold to, there can be various analogous but different meaning of the word “is” in saying that:

1. The Father is God
2. The Son is God
3. The Holy Spirit is God
4. None of the persons in the Godhead are each other.

If we take the word “is” as an relation of strict identity, then we run into problems, but if we take it via the analogy of being, we hold that there is a way to be such that the word “is” is analogous between statements 1-3 and statement 4 and between how we might typically use the word “is.” The mystery is how “is” is exactly supposed to be cashed out; we believe there to be an analogate of “is” that fits the formula, we just don’t know what it is given our finite intellects.