How to reconcile the Trinity with Utter Simplicity

[Hortenzie]

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?

God is a spirit and we cannot even start to imagine what that means. He is not a part of nature, a thing created, therefore we cannot accurately compare Him to anything. The only facts we can know about Him is what He reveals to us. He never said that He is utterly simple or that He is a pure mind. He never even explicitly stated that He is three in one. People should stop trying to understand Him in human terms, they tried for millenia and it didn’t solve anything, it just created discord, strife, fights and even wars. God didn’t give us all the answers but He gave us enough information, (about His qualities, His reasons for creating us, guidelines how we should live) so we can put our trust in Him and live faithfully in harmony with His will for humans and the natural world… And if we do, hopefully we will meet Him one day and will get to know Him fully and accurately.

 

[belorg]

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.

Sorry, balto, but that was exactly what you were saying. Not necessarily. “We perceive distinctions because we cannot comprehend the infinite nature of God in its entirety.”.
You were saying that there are no real distinctions in God.

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.

You are still saying that the three persons of the Trinity are merely symbolic representation of relationships. That’s is NOT othodox Catholic teaching.

 

[balto]

Sorry, balto, but that was exactly what you were saying. Not necessarily. “We perceive distinctions because we cannot comprehend the infinite nature of God in its entirety.”.
You were saying that there are no real distinctions in God.

You are still saying that the three persons of the Trinity are merely symbolic representation of relationships. That’s is NOT othodox Catholic teaching.

No, I did not say that the relationships are symbolic.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "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."91

Here’s the relevant passage from the Catechism. What I wrote to you in my last post is explained in CCC:255. Is your contention CCC:224 where it says “the divine persons are really distinct from one another?” I clarified by saying that we perceive distinctions because we’re attempting to fit a human understanding of personhood to God so we imagine an old man, a young Christ man, and a dove swirling around in the infinite nature of God, which is wrong. If you don’t like that I used the word “distinctions” instead of something like “complexity” then I apologize. The nature of God entails the relationships established in CCC:255, just like it entails the three omni-attributes. I’m not seeing how this invalidates simplicity because it is all part of the single nature of God.

So there’s what the Catholic Church teaches. Or are you going to continue to imply that the posters that are attempting to answer the OP’s question are promoting heresy?

 

[aragonjohn1]

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?

Love perfect Love. is the simplest i can recall.

God bless

 

[belorg]

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

This is what I have been saying all along, balto. If a being has “real distinct” features, it is not is not utterly simple.
There’s really nothing more to say about this.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Nevertheless the Trinity is the most adequate explanation of love!

In spite of the popular saying, three is not a crowd - if it is a family…

 

[JamesCaruso]

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

Yes, I understood your point, but I was trying to take it a bit further for my own information. I am not very conversant in these terms and concepts.

 

[DanAl]

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?

A way to get around this is to say that divine persons are modally distinct from each other. Another way is to say they are formally distinct from each other, meaning they are distinct but inseparable from each other. Blessed Duns Scotus developed this idea and is explained in detail in Richard Cross’ book Duns Scotus on God. You can read much of it in Google Books.

 

[4unity]

Hi all,
I have spent most of my time on anti-catholic website defending the trinity. I even built my own website solely to defend it and led people to Jesus.

The Trinity is absolute truth and cant be refuted. The wrong Jesus can’t save you.

The most important thing to understand when trying to understand the Trinity is that Jesus is the one and only true Son of God [by nature]. Jesus is FROM and OF his Father nature/substance alone.

Jesus claimed this and it was THIS VRY REASON why the jews wanted to kill him.

John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 20:28
28Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

31but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So Jesus was called MY Lord and MY God, so we would believe that Jesus is THE Son of God.

The Trinity states
(1) There is only one God by nature
(2) There are three Persons (The Father, The one and only Son and The Holy Spirit) The Son being FROM and OF the Father alone shares the exact same divine nature from the eternal Father who is the source of the whole divinity. The Son is the expressed [only-begotten] substance of the Father (John 1:18 Hebrews 1:3). The Holy Spirit is the expression of Love and Life between the Father and the Son.
(3) All three Persons are distinct. The Father is NOT the Son and the Son is NOT the Father etc…

Jesus is clearly revealed time and time again as THE Son of God, or as the one and only true Son of God. No angel or person is FROM and OF the Fathers very own substance. Even the arch angels aren’t from the Fathers substance - if they were lucifier wouldn’t have fallen.

To understand the Trinity YOU need to understand that the Father didn’t become A Father he is and always has been THE Father, Its a sin to call someone THE Father just as its a sin to call YOURSELF THE Son of God.

Jesus is
The one and only Son of God [true God from and of true God]
The Son of man [true man by nature also when he humbled himself to take flesh]

Wisdom 2:13-24
13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. 14 He was made to reprove our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion. 16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. 18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. 19 **Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. 20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected. 21 Such things they did imagine, and were deceived: for their own wickedness hath blinded them. 22 As for the mysteries of God, they kn ew them not: neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls. 23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. **

There is SO MUCH PROOF OF THE BEAUTY OF THE TRINITY

Feel free to visit my site and use the information to led the jws and others To Jesus our savor and his true Church [the roman Catholic Church]

Part 1
4unity.net/the-one-and-only-son/

Part 2
4unity.net/your-savior/

Part 3
4unity.net/trinity/

Part 4
4unity.net/worshiping-jesus/

You will quickly see why Peter revealed that Jesus was THE Son of God and by this very Revelation Jesus gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven and made him the first Pope.

Life in the Son and in his name
Daniel

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I heard the Trinity explained once as three consciousnesses in one Mind. Is that a good representation?

 

[JimG]

I heard the Trinity explained once as three consciousnesses in one Mind. Is that a good representation?

It would be better to say three persons with one mind and one will, that is, one nature.

As to simplicity, it refers to not having parts. No spiritual being can have parts, because no spiritual being has extension in either space or time.

Being able to make distinctions between person and nature, or to make distinctions between faculties attributed to intellect or will, is not the same as simplicity, in the theological sense.

The human soul is also simple, in that it has no parts, and is of a spiritual nature. It cannot come apart. Yet we are perfectly capable of making distinctions between aspects of the soul’s operation: mind and will, ability to know and to love. They are different aspects of the soul, but they do not mean that its nature lacks simplicity.

 

[billcu1]

It would be better to say three persons with one mind and one will, that is, one nature.

As to simplicity, it refers to not having parts. No spiritual being can have parts, because no spiritual being has extension in either space or time.

Being able to make distinctions between person and nature, or to make distinctions between faculties attributed to intellect or will, is not the same as simplicity, in the theological sense.

The human soul is also simple, in that it has no parts, and is of a spiritual nature. It cannot come apart. Yet we are perfectly capable of making distinctions between aspects of the soul’s operation: mind and will, ability to know and to love. They are different aspects of the soul, but they do not mean that its nature lacks simplicity.

Now “parts” is the same thing as “attributes” right. The way I understand this is for example, We say “God has love for man” God does not “have” love, as a thing to be possessed rather than God is love. God istruth. Rather than “having” these things. Am I understanding Thomist simplicity there?

 

[JimG]

Now “parts” is the same thing as “attributes” right. The way I understand this is for example, We say “God has love for man” God does not “have” love, as a thing to be possessed rather than God is love. God istruth. Rather than “having” these things. Am I understanding Thomist simplicity there?

Well yes, all of God’s attributes are identical with his essence. God is love. God is justice. God is mercy. The same can be said of every divine attribute.

But I think that divine “simplicity” refers more to the ontology of God than his attributes. God is pure spirit. And any spiritual being must have the ontological aspect of simplicity: not being made of matter, it is not composed of parts. For any spiritual substance, any part of it is the whole of it.

We can subdivide our body into parts, bodily organs, organelles, mitochondria. But the soul–a spiritual substance–is present as a unity. The soul is not “spread out.” You might say that the whole soul is present in every part of the body. God’s simplicity has more to do with his essence than it does with his attributes, although the identity of attributes is certainly a valid point.

 

[billcu1]

Well yes, all of God’s attributes are identical with his essence. God is love. God is justice. God is mercy. The same can be said of every divine attribute.

But I think that divine “simplicity” refers more to the ontology of God than his attributes. God is pure spirit. And any spiritual being must have the ontological aspect of simplicity: not being made of matter, it is not composed of parts. For any spiritual substance, any part of it is the whole of it.

We can subdivide our body into parts, bodily organs, organelles, mitochondria. But the soul–a spiritual substance–is present as a unity. The soul is not “spread out.” You might say that the whole soul is present in every part of the body. God’s simplicity has more to do with his essence than it does with his attributes, although the identity of attributes is certainly a valid point.

The soul is a spiritual substance? Wouldn’t the spirit be a spiritual substance? The soul and spirit are not the same thing are they? I know in Jewish mysticism they aren’t. But the church seems to focus on Greek Metaphysics. Aristotle and maybe concerning Augustine, Plato.

 

[JimG]

The soul is a spiritual substance? Wouldn’t the spirit be a spiritual substance? The soul and spirit are not the same thing are they? I know in Jewish mysticism they aren’t. But the church seems to focus on Greek Metaphysics. Aristotle and maybe concerning Augustine, Plato.

From the standpoint of human ontology they are the same thing.

Soul is the animating principle of any living creature. It can be material (as it is for animals and plants) or spirit, as it is for humans. Spirit simply describes the kind of substance it is–that is, not matter, but spirit, having no parts. The human soul is a spiritual substance, as is God and as are angels.

 

[4unity]

Hi Guys,

The Trinity is beautiful explicit truth that can’t be refuted.

the trinity alone provides the solid and sound foundation of all truth.

One example:

If Jesus isn’t true God WHAT* is he???
1:a man alone?
2:an arch angel (the jws think Jesus is Michael)
3: ??? see all you need to do is ask this basic question.

To understand the Trinity you just need to believe that the Father has always been THE Father, that he eternally expresses his Almighty power from the source of his substance.
The trinity is just basic multiplication of the Source to the expression and in their unity being one. You can’t be an Almighty Father of nothing - How can you be Almighty without a revelation of your Almighty eternal power??? Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus the Radiance/expressed image of the glory of God [the Father]. The Father is expressive [like explosive unapproachable light] because he is Father by nature, he didn’t become a father but instead he is THE Father

1 X 1 = 1

one example of source and an expressed source is this.

Think of the snow on a mountain as being the source that actively generates the life giving water that flows down the mountain.

The snow is by nature h20
The river is by nature h20
The river is not the snow and the snow is not the river.
The river is FROM and OF the snow nature and substance so is one with it in nature?

There is just so many examples, but all you need to believe is that Jesus is the one and only true Son of God, true god from true God, begotten not made.

I have MANY explicit scripture references on my web site if you to see the massive amounts of revelations on the Trinity.
Here is my 4 part series on understanding the Trinity from scripture, let me know what you think.

Part 1
4unity.net/the-one-and-only-son/

Part 2
4unity.net/your-savior/

Part 3
4unity.net/trinity/

Part 4
4unity.net/worshiping-jesus/

Life in the Son and his name
Daniel