How to reconcile the Trinity with Utter Simplicity

[CatholicSoxFan]

No, I use simple as “not made up of parts”, “having no distinctions.”

It’s really easy to see. Either God is simple and then there is no distinction in God, e.g. as in God’s essence is God’s existence, which means that, as opposed to created beings, there is no distinction between god’s essence and god’s existence. If we apply this to the three persons, this means that the Father IS the Son and IS the Holy Spirit and the Son IS the Father etc.
That is, the Son is an a point of view, a way of speaking about God.
Or there is a real distinction to be made between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which means God is not ultimately simple.

As was explained previously in this thread, the persons of God are not “parts” of Him.

Your interpretation of Dawkin’s argument is wrong here, but even it were correct, my argument is completely different.

They’re different arguments, but they make exactly the same fallacy.

 

[JamesCaruso]

As was explained previously in this thread, the persons of God are not “parts” of Him.

They’re different arguments, but they make exactly the same fallacy.

Are the persons in God distinct only in terms of their origin?

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Are the persons in God distinct only in terms of their origin?

The fact that they’re distinct persons doesn’t make them “parts”, was my point.

 

[belorg]

There’s no reason there would be four persons in the nature of God. It would involve knowing or loving Himself twice over which would not produce a person that is not already in the Trinity. Besides, how does one’s knowledge of himself become twice infinity?

There is no reason for three persons either. Knowing and loving yourself only takes one person.

As to your point about God not being simple if He has ultimate knowledge, I don’t see how it follows that He is not simple. We’re using human concepts of persons and applying them to God to see distinctions. In reality, personhood is analogous to the Trinity in that I can know myself and love myself, but my limited knowledge and loving do not manifest the way that the first person does so I only have one real person (as far as humans are concerned). There are no such limitations in God, hence He is simple.

There are three distinct aspects in Him, so He is not simple.
Even if those aspects are necessary in order for Him to be all-loving and all-knowing, they are still distinct and mean that a being who is all-knowing and all-loving cannot be simple.

 

[belorg]

The simplicity of God, if I understand it correctly, has to do with the fact that God has no extension in space or time. He has no parts, thus he cannot “come apart.” His being is not extended in space or time, as are our bodies. Simplicity does not have to do with distinctions, and has nothing to do with the distinction between person and nature. One can speak of God’s intellect and will as faculties of his being without positing that they are distinct “parts,” any more than a human intellect and will are “parts” of us–they are faculties of our soul.

That is a misunderstanding of divine simplicity, at least the way Thomists see this simplicity. God is Pure Act, so, there is no diffrence between His inteleect and His will. And there is no diffrence between His first and second person either.

 

[belorg]

As was explained previously in this thread, the persons of God are not “parts” of Him.

If they are really distinct in any way, then yes, they are parts.

 

[gmx2014]

I have a question on the Trinity; we believe that God is three persons, and a person is a mind. We also believe that God is utterly simple; He is pure mind. How do we reconcile the two? Wouldn’t the two taken together mean that the Trinity would be three carbon copies of the same God, something which we don’t believe?

To be so simple, I understand the triune to be: Mind + Heart + Body (body is the House or Home of the Soul, or at least, it should be!).

Consider, the Sign of The Cross:

In the name of the Father (touch the forehead, Mind)
In the name of the Son (touch the chest, Heart)
In the name of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit (touch the shoulders)

What this means is, to Unite Mind and Heart, as One, to govern over all that one should and should not do, which is symbolized by the shoulders. This, is proper governance.

To further one’s understanding, refer to John 14:6

Which means, if Christ is symbolized by the Heart, and if God is thought to be Mind, then one must first go through Christ. This means, Love and acceptance of Christ, is the gateway to the Mind, or to the Higher Mind.

When the Heart and Mind are united, as One, well, I cannot help but smile

 

[tonyrey]

If they are really distinct in any way, then yes, they are parts.

The physical category of parts does not apply to spiritual entities which are timeless and spaceless. Like persons truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are indivisible. They either exist or they don’t. It is absurd to refer to half a person!

The three divine Persons are inextricably united by perfect Love. One divine Person would be the apotheosis of egoism…

 

[tonyrey]

There is no reason for three persons either. Knowing and loving yourself only takes one person.

One divine Person would be the apotheosis of egoism! To love oneself for all eternity is to be in hell not heaven.

There are three distinct aspects in Him, so He is not simple.
Even if those aspects are necessary in order for Him to be all-loving and all-knowing, they are still distinct and mean that a being who is all-knowing and all-loving cannot be simple.

Where there is Perfect Love there is perfect unity. Even in this world love implies a temporary loss of identity because we forget ourselves when we are concerned about another person. For a while we cease to exist - for ourselves.

 

[belorg]

One divine Person would be the apotheosis of egoism! To love oneself for all eternity is to be in hell not heaven.

What you are saying here is that if God were only one person, he would be egoistic. Therefore, God cannot be one person hence God cannot be simple.

 

[belorg]

The physical category of parts does not apply to spiritual entities which are timeless and spaceless. Like persons truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are indivisible. They either exist or they don’t. It is absurd to refer to half a person!

They are parts by analogy.

 

[JimG]

That is a misunderstanding of divine simplicity, at least the way Thomists see this simplicity. God is Pure Act, so, there is no diffrence between His inteleect and His will. And there is no diffrence between His first and second person either.

I haven’t read Thomas Aquinas for awhile. And yet I am quite sure that he didn’t say what you just said!

 

[balto]

There is no reason for three persons either. Knowing and loving yourself only takes one person.

If your knowing and loving are finite then yes, there is only a need for one person. If your knowing and loving are infinite, then the knowledge of yourself is as equal to your actual person. Same thing with loving between you and the perfect knowledge of yourself.

There are three distinct aspects in Him, so He is not simple.
Even if those aspects are necessary in order for Him to be all-loving and all-knowing, they are still distinct and mean that a being who is all-knowing and all-loving cannot be simple.

Not necessarily. We perceive distinctions because we cannot comprehend the infinite nature of God in its entirety. How about this analogy: it would be like looking at white light through a filter that blocks out certain wavelengths. We can shift the range of wavelengths on the filter and see distinct colors but never understand completely what white light looks like (because we can’t look at it unfiltered). Maybe the Trinity is like that in that our finite understanding causes us to see distinctions between the Persons when there are none because we’re looking at the Trinity through the filter of human personhood.

 

[belorg]

I haven’t read Thomas Aquinas for awhile. And yet I am quite sure that he didn’t say what you just said!

Of course he didn’t say it. He couldn’t say it because that would have been considered a heresy.

But he should have, because it follows logically from what Pure Act is supposed to mean.

 

[belorg]

If your knowing and loving are finite then yes, there is only a need for one person. If your knowing and loving are infinite, then the knowledge of yourself is as equal to your actual person.

God is supposed to be an infinite person, so it follows that His loving is infinite, refecting His infinite personality.

Not necessarily. We perceive distinctions because we cannot comprehend the infinite nature of God in its entirety. How about this analogy: it would be like looking at white light through a filter that blocks out certain wavelengths. We can shift the range of wavelengths on the filter and see distinct colors but never understand completely what white light looks like (because we can’t look at it unfiltered). Maybe the Trinity is like that in that our finite understanding causes us to see distinctions between the Persons when there are none because we’re looking at the Trinity through the filter of human personhood.

What you are saying here is that God is only perceived to be three persons, whereas in reality God is only one person. That is the common sense view lots of protestant denominations, as well as non-dogmatic Catholics take, but to orthodox Catholicism, it is a heresy to say that the Trinity is just the way we humans precieve of God.

 

[tonyrey]

They are parts by analogy.

Therefore inadequate! But don’t be disheartened. All descriptions of God are analogous…

 

[belorg]

Therefore inadequate! But don’t be disheartened. All descriptions of God are analogous…

Therefore, saying that God is a Trinity is inadequate too.

 

[balto]

What you are saying here is that God is only perceived to be three persons, whereas in reality God is only one person.

No, that’s not what I am saying. That is what Sabellianism teaches. I’m saying that we’re using the word “person” in an analogical sense rather than a univocal one. It’s not the case that humans have the epitome of personness and God should be compared to that standard. Sabellianism would essentially deny that there is any such thing as perfect knowledge or perfect loving in God and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essentially just masks that God wears at different times. Maybe the analogy I gave wasn’t quite accurate (it was an analogy after all) but the point I was trying to get across was that there are not three concrete entities swirling around in the nature of God.

God is supposed to be an infinite person, so it follows that His loving is infinite, refecting His infinite personality.

Precisely, and His knowing of Himself in infinite and equal in every way to Himself. If it were not, then His knowledge would be finite. Likewise for the perfect love between Himself and the knowledge of Himself. If His knowledge were finite then there really would be a distinction between Himself and His knowledge of Himself. This relationship is a father-son relationship of immanent procession. The Holy Spirit proceeds from a relationship of love between the Father and Son which is said to be a “spiration.” Hence Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the nature of God. Sabellianism denies all of these relationships which diminishes omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

 

[balto]

Here are some useful links for interested parties.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

The relevant portions are found under the subtitle “The Dogma of the Holy Trinity.” Especially interesting are CCC:254-255 which speaks of the three Persons as having separate origins in the Godhead, however it points out that they exist in unity with one another in that “because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son” I think this means that, as I said, there are not three concrete entities mixed in the nature of God such that we could label each “Father”, “Son”, or “Holy Spirit.”

St. Thomas on Immanent vs. Economic Procession
readingthesumma.blogspot.com/2010/10/question-27-procession-of-divine.html

St. Thomas argues that the procession of Father to Son and Father-Son to Holy Spirit is one of immanent procession and not economic procession. Immanent procession seems a procession that is contained in the nature of a reality. Economic procession would be things that proceed out of one’s nature. Arianism and Sabellianism both commit the error of assuming economic and not immanent procession by saying that God either puts out the Son and Holy Spirit (Arianism) or puts out three different outward appearances to humanity (Sabellianism).

Edward Feser (discussing William Lane Craig) on Divine Simplicity
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html

Although he doesn’t discuss the Trinity in this article, I think it is a good treatment of how divine simplicity is reconciled with the omni-attributes, and the differences between using words in an analogical rather than univocal sense. I imagine that the resolution between the Trinity and divine simplicity is somewhat similar to this.

 

[tonyrey]

Therefore, saying that God is a Trinity is inadequate too.

It is inadequate because it may imply three entities. “triune” is closer to the truth but of course we have no experience of such a phenomenon in this world - which is not surprising.