Logical coherency of the Trinity

[Richard_Powers]

Can someone explain how the concept of the Trinity is logically coherent? Specifically, can someone address the how the Trinity can be squared with the idea the idea that identity is transitive? Or does the Catholic Church hold that identity is not transitive?

 

[East_and_West]

I can explain how the Trinity is logically coherent to the best of my ability.But first i give the following statments about the nature of the Trinity so that we know what we are talking about:1) In the one divine nature (or one God) there are three persons, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 2) The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father: no one of the Persons is the other. 3) The Father is God, The Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. 4) There are not three God’s but on God. 5) The one divine Nature is possessed fully (not in thirds) by each member of the Trinity.
First, the problem that most people come accross in understanding the Trinity is how this can be sqaured with the law of non-contradiction. According to this philosphical principle: A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, a man cannot be a father and son to the same person. He would be both A and not A (Father and son) at the same time and in the same relationship (with regard to the same person). However, one can be both a father and a son (A and not A) with regard to different relationships. He can be a father to one person and a son to another. Now some will say that in the doctrine of the Trinity Catholics are claiming that one = three. But that is simply not the case. We are not saying that God is one person and three persons. That would mean we are claiming God is one and three at the same time and in relation to the same concept: number of persons. Similarly we are not claiming that God is one god and three gods. Again this would put A and not A in the same relationship, with regard to the same concept: number of gods. If you look at the description of the Trinity given above, God’s oneness is in relationship to existence, essence, substance, being, and Godhood. His threeness is in relationship to persons only. Since his Oneness and Threeness describe entirely different aspects of God, then the law of non-contradiction is upheld. His Oneness (A) and Threeness (not A) are in different relationships.
Another problem that many ask is the following: If the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, how can each be the one God? The answer to this question was answered by the scholastics with two responses. First, the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not a distinction in being but, rather, a distinction of relations, three different ways in which God relates to himself. This difference can be described as an opposition of relations, not of being. Since the distinction is not in being, each can properly be called the one God. Second, the three can each be called the one God properly becaue each completely possess the one divine nature. Since the possession of the one Divine Nature (nature being what a thing is) makes a person God, then each is God.
But these two responses raise further questions.For example, we wonder how one divine nature can be fully possed by more than one person. Usually when some thing is owned by more people we think of it being mathematically divided up among those people. There are two reasons for this. First when a thing is finite it is exhausted by complete ownership and, thus, for more than one person to own something, we must think of it as being only paritally onwned by each. However, we should not apply this idea to the divine nature since it is not finite but infinite and total ownership by one person does not exhaust the divine naure. The Second reason we tend to divide things up mathematically amongst owners is because we can divide them up. But, again the divine nature is infinite and, thus, cannot be divided. But this still leave us wondering, is there any example of something being owned by some one totally. I think there is in marriage. When a man and a woman get married, ownership of all possession passes to the couple. The toaster no long just belongs to the husband but is totally the wife’s toaster and totally the husbands toaster, owning in a single act of being a couple. The same is true of the Trinity and the divine nature. Each memeber fully owns the one divine nature in the single act of being united as one being or God. Does this answer you quesion?

 

[aquinothomas]

Specifically, can someone address the how the Trinity can be squared with the idea the idea that identity is transitive? Or does the Catholic Church hold that identity is not transitive?

I’m sure that East and West has already addressed most of your questions, but I’ll take a stab at this issue of the transitive nature of identity that you raise.

First of all, the Catholic Church doesn’t hold specific philosophical positions on the level you are talking about. I think implicitly, though, that the Church does hold that identity is transitive and that this is consistent with Catholic dogma. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of an instance where the transitive nature of identity would contradict Catholic teaching, if by “transitive” you mean what I’m going to outline below.

By the transitive nature of identity, I’m assuming you are referring to that quality of identity such that if we analyze a set of beings (persons in this case), for identity to hold between those beings, they each must possess identical attributes. For example, if there are three beings, A, B and C, if A possesses the same attributes as B, and B as C, then A would also be identical with C.

As E&W pointed out, though, we aren’t talking about three beings in the Trinity, but one Being. For human identity, one being = one person. For the Trinity, one Being = three divine persons. Because of this unique relationship, it isn’t logically incoherent to assert that while the three persons are the same being, they are not (on the personal level) identical with one another. They are identical in being, not identical hypostases. Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t violate the transitive nature of identity.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Excellent thread here folks.

I have some observations/questions, hopefully relevant to the discussion.
**
East and West**, that was an excellent post, especially the bit about the opposite relations. I wonder, however, about the explanation regarding the ownership and the indivisibility of the Divine Nature

when a thing is finite it is exhausted by complete ownership and, thus, for more than one person to own something, we must think of it as being only paritally onwned by each. However, we should not apply this idea to the divine nature since it is not finite but infinite and total ownership by one person does not exhaust the divine nature.

Something about this formulation gives me pause. I think the phrase “total ownership by one person does not exhaust the divine nature” might need some refining. My understanding is that each Divine Person, in total ownership, does exhaust the Divine Nature since each Person is identical with the Divine Nature.

I think the answer to the objection you raised is not based on the infinity of the Divine Nature. The argument seems based on the impossibility exhausting an infinite nature through complete ownership, but if this has meaning the limitation surely is on part of the owner and not the thing owned. In other words I can see your explanation working for why finite beings cannot completely own and exhaust an infinite being, but not why infinite beings cannot completely own and exhaust infinite being (in this case an Infinite Person completely owning and exhausting an Infinite Nature). I admit that I am not completely certain what you meant by “exhaust” in this context, so I might be misunderstanding this portion of your post in the first place.

Again, I think the answer to the objection you raised is not based on the infinity of the Divine Nature but rather the* identity* between the Divine Nature and the Divine Persons. If each Divine Person is completely identified with the Divine Nature then there is no question competing ownership.

The Second reason we tend to divide things up mathematically amongst owners is because we can divide them up. But, again the divine nature is infinite and, thus, cannot be divided.

I wonder again, EW, if this might be better explained by appealing not to the infinity of God, but rather to His simplicity. It seems to me that because God is utterly simple and not composed of parts is the essential reason the Divine Nature cannot be divided.

Any thoughts on this? Can you help clear up my understanding here?

Thank you!
VC

 

[The_Truthinator]

I finally got my head around the “the distinct Persons”-thing a while back. I remembered hearing a Baptist minister say “the Father did not die on the Cross for our sins; the Son did.” This confused the heck out of me. I guess in practice I believed that the Trinity meant God operating under three aliases, or something. It’s strange now to think about three different People sharing one Essence!

But to me, this made the Trinity somehow more logical than what I previously believed did. Three sharing a singular essence is, logically, one. Do I understand it? No. But I accept it, and it’s a cool paradox.

Just some comments. Guess that didn’t help at all really…

 

[MH84]

Yes, I agree with Verbum, this are good posts here.

…But these two responses raise further questions.For example, we wonder how one divine nature can be fully possed by more than one person. Usually when some thing is owned by more people we think of it being mathematically divided up among those people. There are two reasons for this. First when a thing is finite it is exhausted by complete ownership and, thus, for more than one person to own something, we must think of it as being only paritally onwned by each. However, we should not apply this idea to the divine nature since it is not finite but infinite and total ownership by one person does not exhaust the divine naure. The Second reason we tend to divide things up mathematically amongst owners is because we can divide them up. But, again the divine nature is infinite and, thus, cannot be divided. But this still leave us wondering, is there any example of something being owned by some one totally. I think there is in marriage. When a man and a woman get married, ownership of all possession passes to the couple. The toaster no long just belongs to the husband but is totally the wife’s toaster and totally the husbands toaster, owning in a single act of being a couple. The same is true of the Trinity and the divine nature. Each memeber fully owns the one divine nature in the single act of being united as one being or God.

East and West, I still don’t get how that if each Person possesses the divine Nature, they can each possess fullythat same nature.

Also, if the divine nature is infinite, is it possible that it can be possessed fully?

Thirdly, I thought that was a pretty good attempt in the analogy with the marriage and the toaster (sounds like a movie ). However, I think that in reality its not comparable because I still think that the toaster is actually being shared by the couple 50/50. But I think you could say that the couple, not the individuals, own the toaster fully. If what Im saying makes sense, that would mean we are still stuck with saying the Godhead owns fully the divine nature, not each Person (which is contrary to Church teaching).

Btw, is it possible that if each Person possesses the divine nature, we can still say the Godhead possesses the divine nature (I think we can, but Im not sure)?

 

[reluctant_saint]

The Second reason we tend to divide things up mathematically amongst owners is because we can divide them up. But, again the divine nature is infinite and, thus, cannot be divided.

I wonder again, EW, if this might be better explained by appealing not to the infinity of God, but rather to His simplicity. It seems to me that because God is utterly simple and not composed of parts is the essential reason the Divine Nature cannot be divided.

Any thoughts on this? Can you help clear up my understanding here?

Thank you!
VC

I think Verbum Caro (factum est) has a very good point here. In fact, if you read Thomas Aquinas’ work “On Reasons for the Faith Against the Muslims, and a Reply the Denial of Purgatory by Certain Greeks and Armenians: To the Cantor of Antioch” (Wow, that’s a long title) you will find that Aquinas uses the simplicity of God to explain the Trinity. Basically his argument goes like this. (I’m sorry, I only remember his discussion about the Father and the Son, I can’t tell you the argument about the Holy Spirit.)

God understands himself perfectly.
God’s understanding is nothing other than his very being.
Therefore, the person being understood when God understands himself (The Father) is one being with the person who is the understanding (The Logos/Son).

OK, that’s a very reduced form of Aquinas’ argument, but that’s pretty much the gist of it. There might be a slight flaw with the way I represented is here, but I’d have to go read and meditate on his argument some time in order to get it exactly correct. With how I have it here, somebody might ask, “But why must that which is the understanding and that which is understood be two different persons?” Well, perhaps when I’ve spent more time going over Aquinas’ treatment of the issue, I’ll be able to answer that question.

Of course, Augustine also had a similar argument. He came up with the analogy of the human person. Just as a person consists of memory, understanding and will; so also God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Of course, the analogy might fall short, but it helps us to see how the Doctors of the Church went about this question.

 

[Sarpedon]

Is it possible for the human mind to logically comprehend the Trinity? I always thought that the Trinity was beyond the power of the human mind to understand, and had to be taken on faith.

 

[MH84]

Is it possible for the human mind to logically comprehend the Trinity? I always thought that the Trinity was beyond the power of the human mind to understand, and had to be taken on faith.

But the Church has infallibly been able to define the doctrine of the Trinity hasnt it. So the Church must have been comfortable at least with some concepts.

Weve all heard the saying: “Faith and reason are not contradictory.” Or at least something to that effect

 

[reluctant_saint]

But the Church has infallibly been able to define the doctrine of the Trinity hasnt it. So the Church must have been comfortable at least with some concepts.

Weve all heard the saying: “Faith and reason are not contradictory.” Or at least something to that effect

I think this is what it is all about. Faith and reason cannot contradict. The laws of logic come to us from God. Yes, we cannot understand God, but that is because God is beyond reason, not because God is contradictory to reason.

When we try to analyze the Trinity, we are not trying to show what God is, rather we are trying to show what God is not. This whole discussion is centered around the proposistion that the nature of God is not a self-contradiction.

 

[ERose]

East and West, I still don’t get how that if each Person possesses the divine Nature, they can each possess fullythat same nature.

I kind of hate to use this for God is absolutely infinite and in math there is only sequential infinity but I am going to do it anyway. If you divide infinity by 3 the answer will be infinity. If you divide infinity by one million you still have infinity.

 

[ERose]

Here is an argument I developed a few years ago against Modalism that will give you some logic concerning the Holy Trinity.

P1) God is Perfect Love.
P2) Perfect Love is defined as giving oneself to another.
P3) God is a necessary Being.
C) God must be Plural in person.

If God is a necessary Being which means that he has no need of anything outside of Himself. In other words He defines Himself, He has no need of anything for Him to exist. And if John is correct in defining God as Love then God must Love someone. That Someone must be in the Godhead (necessary Being) so the Trinity must be.

What this argument shows is that the God that was revealed to by the Apostles must be Trinity. The Christian God cannot be one person. He must be multiple Persons.

The question is why three? Well that falls back to P1. God is Love. The Father and the Son Love each other with a perfect Love. The only perfect Love is God. So the Son is the object of the Father’s Love and the Father is the object of the Son’s Love and that Perfect GodLove is the Holy Spirit, thus there must be Three.

You can see this even by their missions that are expressed in the Bible. The Son is conceived by the Holy Spirit (Love) in Mary womb. The Son is sent by the Father as the perfect Sacrifice. The Son is the proclaimer of the Father’s message. The Holy Spirit is sent on the day of Pentecost to fill the Church with God’s Spirit (Love). The Father and the Son comes to dwell within us through the Spirit (Love).

 

[AgnosTheist]

According to this philosphical principle: A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, a man cannot be a father and son to the same person. He would be both A and not A (Father and son) at the same time and in the same relationship (with regard to the same person). However, one can be both a father and a son (A and not A) with regard to different relationships. He can be a father to one person and a son to another.

your logical acrobatics simply dont cut it. A=A requires exact likeness: therefore if the latter A is father to one person and son to another then the same would go for the previous A. What you are doing instead is looking the previous A from one angle and looking at the latter A from another angle, and then you think you could get away with A=A and A<>A at the same time. thats just silly.

The best way of rationalizing the Trinity is imagining a Being who has multiple split personalities.

 

[reluctant_saint]

your logical acrobatics simply dont cut it. A=A requires exact likeness: therefore if the latter A is father to one person and son to another then the same would go for the previous A. What you are doing instead is looking the previous A from one angle and looking at the latter A from another angle, and then you think you could get away with A=A and A<>A at the same time. thats just silly.

The best way of rationalizing the Trinity is imagining a Being who has multiple split personalities.

Well AgnosTheist, as convoluted as your argument looks, it actually sort of makes sense, but that doesn’t make much of a difference since we don’t believe there’s anybody in the Trinity who is both father and son. There is just one Father and one Son. The Father is father in relation to the Son. The Son is son in ralation to the Father. Likewise, God is one in relation to his nature, but he is three in relation to his attributes.