Is each person of Trinity necessary?

[porthos11]

Well 1. Never heard of partialism before.

1. I don’t believe God is absolutely simple? So I guess I’m a heretic.
2. I’m sorry but we are made in His image and to me this is how it manifests. Are we NOT one even while being three parts??? Because I dunno about you but despite having a mind, soul and body I feel like one person. I do not believe that each part is separate and not part of me, in the same way I do not believe the Trinity are separate from God but are all God.

I’m not in a position to judge whether you or anybody else is a heretic. That competence lies with the Church. But yes, to deny that God is absolutely simple is a heresy. Because if God had parts, that would mean there is something in God that is not in God anywhere else, which makes God not infinite, and as such, cannot be God.

As for us human beings, we DO have parts, but our body is not our soul and not our mind. They are components of us, so to speak, but by themselves, they are not fully us. So man is not simple. Our minds, bodies, and souls together comprise one person, not three. The analogy falls apart there because the three divine Persons are indeed three divine Persons, while each human being with a mind, body, and soul are just one person.

And before you become all offended about the “heresy” comment, identifying the heresies is not about calling people heretics, but part of studying the Trinity includes knowing the heresies because an important approach to learning about God is to start with what God is not before figuring out what he is.

 

[somecanadian]

This is why I use analogies. You’re speaking way over my head. LOL.

Theology is great, if people can understand. But when you speak theology that flies over the listeners head you’re not really doing much except causing confusion too.

For me, at this time, the analogy of us being in God’s image is what lets me understand the Trinity. The Theology of Trinity is ‘too much’ beyond that understanding. I thought if it helps someone else then great.

 

[Canvas]

No, I don’t think that is what you meant to imply. I bet you have a fully orthodox view of the Trinity but just made a common error by trying to relate God to something created when trying to explain a Mystery.

 

[porthos11]

This is why I use analogies. You’re speaking way over my head. LOL.

Theology is great, if people can understand. But when you speak theology that flies over the listeners head you’re not really doing much except causing confusion too.

The Trinity is necessarily theological. If one cannot stomach theology, then one probably should stick to catechesis that just presents the doctrine at face value, blows incense over it, and calls it a mystery (which it is) But resorting to analogies that lead people into error is not the way to go.

The “partialism” heresy is inherent in the “shamrock” and mind-body-soul analogies.
Modalism is found in the water-steam-ice and father-son-husband analogies.
Arianism is found in the sun-heat-light analogy.

If one wants a correct, condensed version of the doctrine of the Trinity, the read the Athanasian Creed. We can’t get any better than that.

 

[STT]

We have the number three from divine revelation. It’s not strictly speaking something that can be determined through natural philosophy alone. There have been philosophical reflections on this, why the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit differ, and why there cannot be additional processions, but those are after-the-fact of revelation.

But consider that we are not talking about three beings and adding more or less beings. We are not talking even about three persons in the sense of what we mean by a human person (or what we would think of as an angelic person, or a non-human alien person). We’re simply referring to some sort of distinct relationship within God, not real additional beings. In God there is a generation from his knowledge. If there were any other generations from his knowledge, those would be identical, and so no different. In God there is a procession from his will, a spiration but not a generation, and any other spirations in this fashion would be identical relationships and therefore not distinct relationships.

There can only be one generation, for any additional generations would be exactly identical and could not be distinguished from each other. There can only be one spiration, for any additional spirations would be exactly identical and could not be distinguished from each other.

But why call The Idea that God has about himself, Word, as a person or God? Same for Love.

 

[somecanadian]

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think analogies are great building blocks to higher theological ideas. But that’s just what my experience has been.

 

[STT]

Man mirrors the Trinity. We were created in His image:

Body
Soul
Mind

Body = Christ
Soul = Holy Spirit
Mind = God

Any other number wouldn’t make sense. We would be completely different in our structure if there was not a Trinity but something else.

What is mind? Aren’t we only built of soul and body?

 

[somecanadian]

Well, no. Which is why a significant blow to the brain can cause distinct personality changes in a person. BUT as I’ve been thoroughly rebuffed I won’t explore the analogy further and will leave the discussion to others.

 

[porthos11]

Why call The Idea that God has about himself as a person and then God?

No, all this means is that the Son cannot be the Father, and Spirit cannot be the Father or the Son. But it shows that all three must necessarily be God.

What you’re missing is that it is impossible for God to (1) not have an Idea of himself and (2) have that Idea be any less than a perfect concept or Image of himself. Because there is no inadequacy in God, the Idea or Image (eikon) God has of himself can only be Perfect and Infinite. Because there is none Perfect and Infinite but God, the Image God has of himself must also necessarily be God. This is the unbegotten Father begetting the Son.

The Son must therefore necessarily be God, but he is not the Father and cannot be because the Thinker is necessarily distinct from the Idea.

The same goes for the Love between Father and Son. Because it is (1) impossible for the Father and Son to not love each other; and (2) it is impossible for that love to be any less than Perfect and Infinite (as it is a love between two divine Persons) and there is nothing inadequate in God, that Love must also necessary be Perfect and Infinite. But there is nothing Perfect and Infinite except God himself, and therefore, that Love must also be God. But this is the Spirit proceeding, and the Spirit is not the Father and the Son.

 

[porthos11]

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think analogies are great building blocks to higher theological ideas. But that’s just what my experience has been.

Because you didn’t recognize the errors inherent to the analogy. Now that you’ve learned something new, hopefully, that helps you in your development.

 

[Canvas]

You might find this interesting (if you haven’t already read it): a Report made by a Pontifical Commission under St. John Paul II to clarify the meaning of the Filioque. A little deep theology regarding the Holy Trinity.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[STT]

No, all this means is that the Son cannot be the Father, and Spirit cannot be the Father or the Son. But it shows that all three must necessarily be God.

What you’re missing is that it is impossible for God to (1) not have an Idea of himself and (2) have that Idea be any less than a perfect concept or Image of himself. Because there is no inadequacy in God, the Idea or Image (eikon) God has of himself can only be Perfect and Infinite. Because there is none Perfect and Infinite but God, the Image God has of himself must also necessarily be God. This is the unbegotten Father begetting the Son.

The Son must therefore necessarily be God, be he is not the Father.

The same goes for the Love between Father and Son. Because it is (1) impossible for the Father and Son to not love each other; and (2) it is impossible for that love to be any less than Perfect and Infinite (as it is a love between two divine Persons) and there is nothing inadequate in God, that Love must also necessary be Perfect and Infinite. But there is nothing Perfect and Infinite except God himself, and therefore, that Love must also be God. But this is the Spirit proceeding, and the Spirit is not the Father and the Son.

Yes. I can understand what you are trying to say. But the fact that Son is the Object of Knowledge means that He cannot be Love therefore He is not complete. Hence He is not God. Same for Holy Spirit. If He is Love between Father and Son then He cannot be object of knowledge therefore He is not complete. Hence He is not God.

By the way, you didn’t answer to my post #20.

One of my concern is that why you don’t call God’s ability to create as another person?

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Doesn’t catholic church teach it is one of the Mysteries of the Faith?

And doesn’t the bible say: ‘Who has a mind who can fathom God?’

 

[porthos11]

…

No, we do not have to draw that conclusion. God is Love, and therefore, the Son is Love and the Spirit is Love, as is the Father. It is precisely because God is Love that the Spirit must necessarily be, and that the Spirit must be God because that Love between Father and Son is perfect and infinite. Since God is Knowledge, then the Father is Knowledge, as is the Son, as is the Spirit because what is an attribute of the Divine is the same as its essence and so what is with one is with the three, and is the three. So I reject your conclusion that the Son as the Image of the Father is not Love (God is Love). I also must reject your conclusion that because the Spirit is not the object of the Father’s knowledge he is therefore not complete. He must necessarily be complete because it is impossible for the Father and the Son to love each other with a Love that is less than perfect, less than infinite, less than divine. All this tells us is that the Son comes through generation of the Father, and the Spirit by spiration/procession of the Father and the Son. And the Father of course, unbegotten.

As for the Spirit, we distinguish between Love as the attribute and essence of God versus the specific Love that is shared between the Father and the Son. The Person is not the Love as defined as an attribute and essence of God (that same Love that created and redeemed man) but the Love that must necessarily come as the Father loves the Son and the Son the Father. Or, put another way, a “consequence” of the fact that God is Love.

Oh, and it should also be mentioned that since the Holy Spirit is a Person, the Divine Love must necessarily also be between the Father, Son, and Spirit as well. It’s just that the Spirit proceeds from the Love between the Father and the Son.

As for God’s power not being a Person, I don’t know why it should be. God already IS; Being itself. The Power is indeed an attribute of God and is therefore identical to his essence, inherent to the three Persons. We do not attribute Personhood to God’s attributes. We equate his attributes with his essence. We do not say, for example, the Son is God’s Knowledge. That belongs to all three Persons. We must say, however that the Son exists because God is Knowledge because God, in his Knowledge, forms the perfect Image of himself. The Person is not the Knowledge, the (second) Person is the Image.

 

[YIRI-U-RIHO]

If there was only God the Father, then love would be absent from Him because love is selfless and requires another “person”. And if God the Father only made contingent beings to love, them we would be necessary for him, taking away his omnipotence.

The person that is not contingent is Jesus Christ. And this love between the Father and Jesus Christ is so great that another person is necessary.

That person is the Holy Spirit. These three are not parts and so cannot be taken away from one another. It’s all or nothing. Actually just all.

 

[Wesrock]

I can understand what you are trying to say. But the fact that Son is the Object of Knowledge means that He cannot be Love therefore He is not complete.

I’m not sure I follow on why the Son cannot love.

Anyway, in God, there is only one being. That which is doing the understanding is also what is being comprehended in its totality. They are identical, and so there are not really two beings, but one. However, what is true is that there remains this generation within him. Even if the understander and the understandee are the same, there is an understanding going on, which we refer to as relations of paternity and filiation.

I’m open to an assist/correction from fellow Catholics on making sure I get this right. I’m basing it on St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, I:Q28, articles 1 through 4. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm

 

[porthos11]

I must also add, to the argument that the Spirit is not the object of God’s knowledge, therefore he is incomplete.

As stated, I reject that conclusion because since, first of all, we’re not Modalists, we confess the distinction of the Persons.

The orthodox teaching is that of the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Spirit uncreated, but the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding.

Since the Son is begotten and the Father is not, we cannot somehow draw from this conclusion that the Father is not complete. They both are Complete and Perfect, being God. But the Son must necessarily be begotten as the Image of the Father, but still truly God.

This is important to point out because, as the Creed states, we confess this while “neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the essence.” So the Son is not the Father, but that makes neither the Father nor the Son incomplete and yet they are God. Same goes for the Holy Spirit. He is not begotten, but proceeding, and is neither the Father nor the Son, and so is distinct, and yet God. So distinction does not imply incompleteness or inadequacy. Therefore the objection that since the Spirit is not the object of God’s knowledge therefore means he is incomplete does not hold.

To say that “the Spirit is not the object of God’s knowledge” is just another way of saying The Spirit is not the Son, or the Spirit is not the Word, which is the orthodox belief professed by the Creed.

 

[STT]

I’m not sure I follow on why the Son cannot love.

Anyway, in God, there is only one being. That which is doing the understanding is also what is being comprehended in its totality. They are identical, and so there are not really two beings, but one. However, what is true is that there remains this generation within him. Even if the understander and the understandee are the same, there is an understanding going on, which we refer to as relations of paternity and filiation.

I’m open to an assist/correction from fellow Catholics on making sure I get this right. I’m basing it on St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, I:Q28, articles 1 through 4. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm

Is Son love?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

God is love. Jesus being 100% God is also love.

As father said this is a theological question. When we discuss this, we have to use our language to explain it. This will necessarily cause some dissonance.

 

[STT]

I must also add, to the argument that the Spirit is not the object of God’s knowledge, therefore he is incomplete.

As stated, I reject that conclusion because since, first of all, we’re not Modalists, we confess the distinction of the Persons.

The orthodox teaching is that of the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Spirit uncreated, but the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding.

Since the Son is begotten and the Father is not, we cannot somehow draw from this conclusion that the Father is not complete. They both are Complete and Perfect, being God. But the Son must necessarily be begotten as the Image of the Father, but still truly God.

This is important to point out because, as the Creed states, we confess this while “neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the essence.” So the Son is not the Father, but that makes neither the Father nor the Son incomplete and yet they are God. Same goes for the Holy Spirit. He is not begotten, but proceeding, and is neither the Father nor the Son, and so is distinct, and yet God. So distinction does not imply incompleteness or inadequacy. Therefore the objection that since the Spirit is not the object of God’s knowledge therefore means he is incomplete does not hold.

To say that “the Spirit is not the object of God’s knowledge” is just another way of saying The Spirit is not the Son, or the Spirit is not the Word, which is the orthodox belief professed by the Creed.

Each person is God yet you can distinguish them? Each person is different yet each is God?