G
Read Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed. It has a great chapter on the Trinity.
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. . .
There’s no logical problem because the divine persons are not entities that have relations, but rather *are *relations.
Consider for the moment just the first six of our sentences. A natural thought is to take the theological terms contained in them as in effect proper names and to understand the verb ‘is’ to have the sense of ‘is identical with’, or ‘is the very same thing as’-as when we say that Samuel Clemens is Mark Twain, that Tully is Cicero, that Venus is the Morning Star. Thus construed, the six sentences come to formulate propositions that might better be put this way:*(1a) The Father is identical with God**(2a) The Son is identical with God**(3a) The Holy Spirit is identical with God**(4a) The Father is not identical with the Son**(5a) The Father is not identical with the Holy Spirit**(6a) The Son is not identical with the Holy Spirit.*But obviously this will not do. No one thing can literally be the very same thing as each of two things; or, better, if something x is identical with y and with z, then y must be identical with z. If Venus is the Morning Star and Venus is the Evening Star, it follows that the Morning Star is the Evening Star.
The inconsistency is plain, and I take it to show that we have not yet discovered the logical forms of sentences (I) through (6). But of course an alternative interpretation immediately suggests itself: construe the word ‘God’ in (1), (2), and (3) as a common noun, or general term, and supply the indefinite article, Thus:
(lb) The Father is a God(2b) The Son is a God(3b) The Holy Spirit is a God(4b) The Father is not identical with the Son(Sb) The Father is not identical with the Holy Spirit(6b) The Son is not identical with the Holy Spirit.
The result is a consistent set. The Cappadocian Fathers saw this and appear to have suggested that consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could be understood accordingly. Thus Basil wrote that when a name is sought for two or more similar objects, as, for example, Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, which will indicate the sub-stance of these men, you will not apply one term to the substance of Paul, but a different one to that of Silvanus, and still another to that of Timothy; but whatever terms indicate the substance of Paul will apply to the two others as well; and those who are described with reference to their substance by the same terms are consubstantial with one another.13
It seems to have been left to Gregory of Nyssa, Basil’s younger brother, to notice that, thus understood, consubstantiality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit appears to license saying that there are three Gods. Gregory himself rather desperately suggested that strictly speaking there is only one man. But besides being itself heretical, the suggestion is of no help: if (lb) through (6b) are true, (7) must be false.
It might be more accurate to say the Trinity is not comprehensible. The Trinity is logical, in that it does not violate (as the author mistakenly claims) the rules of logic. It is not, however, a contradiction (as i am demonstrating) to say there is one God in three persons.In short the Trinity is not logical. It is a mystery, beyond mere human reason. Much like God Himself.
Thanks for the compliment, David. My motive was not to impress but to help those who might believe the lie the author was trying to propagate. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed, so i believe the Roman Catholic church is correct in teaching that one must believe the Trinity in order to receive eternal life.I absolutely agree that the Trinity is not comprehensible.
Say if I have a manager called my Boss. Then say two other people come to help Her with Her job, acting in the same capacity. Do I have one Boss or three?
Logic says:
Each can be called Boss.
There are three persons.
There are three Bosses.
Sorry, where is the logical flaw here?
…