On whether the trinity is illogical

[ivebeenshown]

I always thought the best Trinity imagery was in Revelation but I don’t want to be heretical either:

It talks of the mark of the beast and the forehead and the right hand. I think of it as we are made in the image of God, and this is a mysterious image of that sort.

This is contrary to the seal of the Spirit in the forehead and right hand. So the Father corresponds to the forehead, the Son corresponds to the right hand (there are some other obvious biblical references regarding Christ and the right hand) and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

So in this way they are three persons distinct from each other, but they are all together in unity one God, each possessing the fullness of the divine essence.

God is three persons.

Thinking of it, the only way analogies like a musical trio fall short of demonstrating the trinity is that a trio is finite, and its members are finite thus its persons can only possess a share of the ‘trio nature’ if you will, whereas the essence of God is infinite so that each person may possess the essence of God in its infinite entirety.

 

[jonfawkes]

I don’t see the discrepancy. . . . they are each “God whole and entire” because they share the same substance. One paragraph earlier:

Jesus is God is correct with out the qualifier “the Son” - Jesus is a trinity in that He us part of the Trinity not an Independant one.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Jesus is God is correct with out the qualifier “the Son” - Jesus is a trinity in that He us part of the Trinity not an Independant one.

Correct, he is fully God even without that qualifier, though the qualifier is correct as well. However, Jesus is not ‘a Trinity’, that is just nonsensical. Just call him what he is – one of three persons of the Trinity.

 

[jonfawkes]

Correct, he is fully God even without that qualifier, though the qualifier is correct as well. However, Jesus is not ‘a Trinity’, that is just nonsensical. Just call him what he is – one of three persons of the Trinity.

I speaking in relation to the op which is a logical proof.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I speaking in relation to the op which is a logical proof.

It is a flawed syllogism as demonstrated by zach dunn, the first post on page 3 of this thread. The second premise allows for more than one interpretation – that Jesus is the Triune Godhead, or that Jesus is God inasmuch as he is a person of the Trinity, God the Son, who possesses the entire infinite essence of God.

The conclusion that “Jesus is a trinity” therefore rests upon the wrong interpretation of the premise “Jesus is God.”

 

[jonfawkes]

It is a flawed syllogism as demonstrated by zach dunn, the first post on page 3 of this thread. The second premise allows for more than one interpretation – that Jesus is the Triune Godhead, or that Jesus is God inasmuch as he is a person of the Trinity, God the Son, who possesses the entire infinite essence of God.

The conclusion that “Jesus is a trinity” therefore rests upon the wrong interpretation of the premise “Jesus is God.”

That’s why I pointed to the Catechism - each part of the Trinity is God entire, He is also separate person. It is correct to refer to Jesus as God, and as the Son.

It isn’t logical in the classical sense. It isn’t an either or proposition but rather both.

So examined in a logical proof it is “illogical” - using the qualifier Jesus, God “the Son” isn’t the whole truth, although it makes for a logical proof.

The Trinity is a mystery not a logical conclusion.

 

[JimG]

That’s why I pointed to the Catechism - each part of the Trinity is God entire, He is also separate person. It is correct to refer to Jesus as God, and as the Son.

It isn’t logical in the classical sense. It isn’t an either or proposition but rather both.

So examined in a logical proof it is “illogical” - using the qualifier Jesus, God “the Son” isn’t the whole truth, although it makes for a logical proof.

The Trinity is a mystery not a logical conclusion.

Since God does not have parts, I would rephrase that first sentence somewhat: Each person of the Trinity is entirely God. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct person, not a distinct essence. God is only one entity, expressed in three persons.

(But, I have to add, not in the manner of modalism.)

 

[ivebeenshown]

That’s why I pointed to the Catechism - each part of the Trinity is God entire, He is also separate person. It is correct to refer to Jesus as God, and as the Son.

Yes, and I (rather clearly) agreed that it is correct to refer to Jesus in either way. I then went on to say that the statement “Jesus is God” can be used to mean one of two things:

“Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, or
“Jesus is God the Son, second person of the Trinity, who is fully God.”

The first meaning is what would lead to the false conclusion that Jesus is the Trinity, but the second meaning would not lead to that conclusion.

 

[zach_dunn]

Jesus is God is correct with out the qualifier “the Son” - Jesus is a trinity in that He us part of the Trinity not an Independant one.

“Jesus is God” is a correct statement because He has the one Divine Nature that the Father and the Spirit also have. But you are wrong in saying that Jesus is a Trinity; Jesus is one Person of the Holy Trinity.

When the Catechism says, “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,” it is not saying that each are each other and are therefore each a Trinity, my quotation of the Catechism clearly states that each are distinct Persons and their distinction lies solely in their relation to each other. This quotation refers to the Trinity’s shared nature, as the rest of the paragraph shows.

The problem in the OP’s argument, shown below:

Consider: **
P1: God is a trinity (consists of three persons).
P2: Jesus is God.
P3: Therefore, Jesus is a trinity.**

is that there is a change in meaning between the use of God in the first premise and in the second premise. Let me reproduce a section from the introduction of Harry Gensler’s Introduction to Logic:

An argument is valid if it would be contradictory (impossible) to have the premises all true and the conclusion false. In calling an argument valid, we aren’t saying whether the premises are true. We’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the premises - that if the premises were all true, then the conclusion also would have to be true. In saying this, we implicitly assume that there’s no shift in the meaning or reference of the terms (page 2, red highlighting mine).

In the first premise, the use of “God” is all-encompassing, referring to all three Persons of the Trinity, while saying that Jesus is God is indeed correct, it is a shift in meaning from all three Persons to just the Person of Jesus Christ, of the Son. This shift in meaning makes the argument invalid.

 

[jonfawkes]

“Jesus is God” is a correct statement because He has the one Divine Nature that the Father and the Spirit also have. But you are wrong in saying that Jesus is a Trinity; Jesus is one Person of the Holy Trinity.

When the Catechism says, “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,” it is not saying that each are each other and are therefore each a Trinity, my quotation of the Catechism clearly states that each are distinct Persons and their distinction lies solely in their relation to each other. This quotation refers to the Trinity’s shared nature, as the rest of the paragraph shows.

The problem in the OP’s argument, shown below:

is that there is a change in meaning between the use of God in the first premise and in the second premise. Let me reproduce a section from the introduction of Harry Gensler’s Introduction to Logic:

In the first premise, the use of “God” is all-encompassing, referring to all three Persons of the Trinity, while saying that Jesus is God is indeed correct, it is a shift in meaning from all three Persons to just the Person of Jesus Christ, of the Son. This shift in meaning makes the argument invalid.

The CCC states that each one is God entire, it also states that each are distinct. It is two contrary statements - it’s a mystery. To be God entire you each has to be the other, and enitire connotes all parts - a trinity. Think fractal.

 

[zach_dunn]

The CCC states that each one is God entire, it also states that each are distinct. It is two contrary statements - it’s a mystery. To be God entire you each has to be the other, and enitire connotes all parts - a trinity. Think fractal.

They are emphatically not two contrary statements. If they are contrary, the faith is a lie. Here is the paragraph you are referring to (which you quoted earlier):

252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.[sup]83[/sup] 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.”[sup]84[/sup] In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”[sup]85[/sup]

…

83 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 421.
84 Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 530:26.
85 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 804.

Paragraph 252 shows that the distinction lies in their relationship to one another. To be God entire means to have the one Divine Nature as paragraph 253 demonstrates. God cannot be a fractal because God is perfectly simple: He has no parts and therefore cannot be broken into parts; see here for St. Thomas Aquinas’ take on the matter (Summa Theologica I, 3, 7).

 

[jonfawkes]

“Jesus is God” is a correct statement because He has the one Divine Nature that the Father and the Spirit also have. But you are wrong in saying that Jesus is a Trinity; Jesus is one Person of the Holy Trinity.

When the Catechism says, “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,” it is not saying that each are each other and are therefore each a Trinity, my quotation of the Catechism clearly states that each are distinct Persons and their distinction lies solely in their relation to each other. This quotation refers to the Trinity’s shared nature, as the rest of the paragraph shows.

The problem in the OP’s argument, shown below:

is that there is a change in meaning between the use of God in the first premise and in the second premise. Let me reproduce a section from the introduction of Harry Gensler’s Introduction to Logic:

The trinity is a mystery not a logical cobclution. Would you prefer a möbius strip fractal?

In the first premise, the use of “God” is all-encompassing, referring to all three Persons of the Trinity, while saying that Jesus is God is indeed correct, it is a shift in meaning from all three Persons to just the Person of Jesus Christ, of the Son. This shift in meaning makes the argument invalid.

They are emphatically not two contrary statements. If they are contrary, the faith is a lie. Here is the paragraph you are referring to (which you quoted earlier):

Paragraph 252 shows that the distinction lies in their relationship to one another. To be God entire means to have the one Divine Nature as paragraph 253 demonstrates. God cannot be a fractal because God is perfectly simple: He has no parts and therefore cannot be broken into parts; see here for St. Thomas Aquinas’ take on the matter (Summa Theologica I, 3, 7).

 

[jonfawkes]

Sorry, I don’t know what happened there. I did type a response but lost it somehow.

The Trinity is a mystery. It is not logical. You are trying to inject logic. Each person is God entire. God is Trinitarian. Each person is separate. They are entire and they are separate. They are contrary states held simultaneously. It transcends logic ergo a mystery.

How about a möbius strip fractal for a visual. You never get smaller just keep going around.

 

[zach_dunn]

The Trinity is a mystery. It is not logical. You are trying to inject logic.

I’m not the one “injecting logic”, I’m simply parroting what the Church formulated and taught more than a millennium ago in the first centuries of Christianity. I’m simply repeating what they taught.

Each person is God entire.

And I’ve shown you that the Church teaches that by “God entire” is meant the one Divine Nature.

Each person is separate. They are entire and they are separate.

Yes but you don’t understand how they are entire and how they are separate, and therefore believe the Trinity to be a contradiction.

They are contrary states held simultaneously. It transcends logic ergo a mystery.

God is not a contradiction. If the Trinity is a contradiction then our faith is worthless. To be honest, you sound a bit like an atheist who thinks the Trinity is terribly illogical and try to prove it this same way. God transcends logic but is not and cannot be in conflict with it.

How about a möbius strip fractal for a visual. You never get smaller just keep going around.

No because the whole premise of a fractal is that it can be broken into parts. From Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:

A **fractal **is “a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole,” a property called self-similarity.

God is perfectly simple; no parts.

 

[jonfawkes]

I’m not the one “injecting logic”, I’m simply parroting what the Church formulated and taught more than a millennium ago in the first centuries of Christianity. I’m simply repeating what they taught.

And I’ve shown you that the Church teaches that by “God entire” is meant the one Divine Nature.

Yes but you don’t understand how they are entire and how they are separate, and therefore believe the Trinity to be a contradiction.

God is not a contradiction. If the Trinity is a contradiction then our faith is worthless. To be honest, you sound a bit like an atheist who thinks the Trinity is terribly illogical and try to prove it this same way. God transcends logic but is not and cannot be in conflict with it.

No because the whole premise of a fractal is that it can be broken into parts. From Wikipedia:

God is perfectly simple; no parts.

The fractal is an analogy not a literal description.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

We are not supposed to understand it- an ineffable mystery

 

[zach_dunn]

The fractal is an analogy not a literal description.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

We are not supposed to understand it- an ineffable mystery

I don’t see how this applies here. Simply because we cannot fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean we cannot know anything about it, nor that we cannot speak intelligently about it and make conclusions. What do you think is meant in the above passage from the Catechism when it says “In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin”?

To “articulate the dogma of the Trinity” means that the Church had to make clear deductions and conclusions about the Trinity - that were of a philosophical nature - in order to protect the truth and dignity of the teaching.

I am in no way claiming to understand the Trinity, I am simply defending the doctrine and the fact that it is not illogical.

 

[Ana_v]

God transcends logic but is not and cannot be in conflict with it.

I wholly agree with the latter part of your statement, but the first part, I would re-word slightly. I’ve no problem with saying God is above human knowledge, however, I see logic being integral to God’s nature (like the attribute of goodness), that is, it exists *because *God exists, and in this way is eternal. Indeed if logic were an invention/had a beginning, then, that would imply there was a “time” or state in which God was non-logical.

 

[zach_dunn]

I wholly agree with the latter part of your statement, but the first part, I would re-word slightly. I’ve no problem with saying God is above human knowledge, however, I see logic being integral to God’s nature (like the attribute of goodness), that is, it exists *because *God exists, and in this way is eternal. Indeed if logic were an invention/had a beginning, then, that would imply there was a “time” or state in which God was non-logical.

Thank you for that, I very much agree!

 

[jonfawkes]

I don’t see how this applies here. Simply because we cannot fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean we cannot know anything about it, nor that we cannot speak intelligently about it and make conclusions. What do you think is meant in the above passage from the Catechism when it says “In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin”?

To “articulate the dogma of the Trinity” means that the Church had to make clear deductions and conclusions about the Trinity - that were of a philosophical nature - in order to protect the truth and dignity of the teaching.

I am in no way claiming to understand the Trinity, I am simply defending the doctrine and the fact that it is not illogical.

I didn’t say we can know nothing about the Trinity. What I am saying is the notion transcends logic. We have something that is 3 things and one thing at the same time. Logically it could be one thing or 3 things not both, but the Trinity is both. To say Jesus is wholly God indicates that His essence has the other two persons of God - because They too are wholly God. Yet we are told that each person is separate.so we have God that is whole and separate at the same time. Which transcends logic.

We can approach the concept but can’t understand it. The finite mind needs limitations. Up, down - left, right - whole, part. The infinite has no limitations. It transcends logic.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I didn’t say we can know nothing about the Trinity. What I am saying is the notion transcends logic. We have something that is 3 things and one thing at the same time. Logically it could be one thing or 3 things not both, but the Trinity is both.

Logically, I am three things at one time – a father, an employee, and a musician, yet I am a human. It is not illogical. It would only be illogical if we said God was “three beings yet one being” or “three persons yet one person” but this is not the case – for God is one being or substance, in three persons. Being/substance =/= person. If ‘being/substance’ is equivalent to ‘person’, then we have a contradiction on our hands.