Questions about the Trinity

[fakename]

When we say that there are 3 persons in the Trinity, in what sense do we apply the category of number to God? Does God really have the accident of number in his substance? Or does 3 simply mean not-more-than-three -a negative term?

Also, plurality of relations can exist in God, but doesn’t that go against His simplicity?

Finally, how is it that procession seems to be a personal property of the Holy Spirit, since procession is also common to the Son as well?

 

[runningdude]

When we say that there are 3 persons in the Trinity, in what sense do we apply the category of number to God? Does God really have the accident of number in his substance? Or does 3 simply mean not-more-than-three -a negative term?

Also, plurality of relations can exist in God, but doesn’t that go against His simplicity?

Finally, how is it that procession seems to be a personal property of the Holy Spirit, since procession is also common to the Son as well?

God simply has three persons. I would argue the objective reality is that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as revealed by Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and thus “3 persons” is simply a description of this reality.

Considering that the term “Trinity” is not in scripture, I suppose that the exact number of persons, in and of itself, is irrelevant to God nature. Jesus spoke only of the role that the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit played, but did not emphasize for instance that these persons were a “recipe” for God’s nature.

The early ecumenical councils did verify the objective truth that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and ONLY a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute God. But the number of persons is, I suppose, a mere accident (in the philosophical sense) of God Nature.

The number is important only when distinguishing the truth from heresy. Unitarians, for instance, believe in roughly only the Father as the true God. Jesus was creation, albeit a begotten creation with a divine and human nature, and the Holy Spirit was simply the soul of God the Father. The fact that there is only one divine person in God in Unitarianism is irrelevant; the heresy is denying the divine personhoods of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

So I think numbers are just a human construct to describe an objective reality. I think God is simply the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and its simply convenient to call this objective truth a “Trinity”. The “Dogma of the Holy Trinity” is then simply using the weight of Sacred Tradition when teaching this objective truth about the nature of God.

Simple enough for you?

 

[fakename]

God simply has three persons. I would argue the objective reality is that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as revealed by Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and thus “3 persons” is simply a description of this reality.

Considering that the term “Trinity” is not in scripture, I suppose that the exact number of persons, in and of itself, is irrelevant to God nature. Jesus spoke only of the role that the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit played, but did not emphasize for instance that these persons were a “recipe” for God’s nature.

The early ecumenical councils did verify the objective truth that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and ONLY a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute God. But the number of persons is, I suppose, a mere accident (in the philosophical sense) of God Nature.

The number is important only when distinguishing the truth from heresy. Unitarians, for instance, believe in roughly only the Father as the true God. Jesus was creation, albeit a begotten creation with a divine and human nature, and the Holy Spirit was simply the soul of God the Father. The fact that there is only one divine person in God in Unitarianism is irrelevant; the heresy is denying the divine personhoods of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

So I think numbers are just a human construct to describe an objective reality. I think God is simply the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and its simply convenient to call this objective truth a “Trinity”. The “Dogma of the Holy Trinity” is then simply using the weight of Sacred Tradition when teaching this objective truth about the nature of God.

Simple enough for you?

It was simple enough but I think this account is wrong for several reasons:

1. if the number wasn’t important then Aquinas wouldn’t have treated it with such detail. In fact the number is important since the persons are none other than God’s nature and so, the number of persons has everything to do with the essence of God. There are really 3 persons in God and this is understood thus: the Father generates the Son as the idea deduces another idea, and the Holy Spirit is the Will of God which follows, like it does in humans, upon the idea conceiving something which is good. That is the Father is like an archetypal idea which is modelled perfectly by the Son who is “deduced” from the Father, and since the model beholds the archetype of its own perfection, it comes to love the archetype and from this proceeds the Holy Spirit.
2. the persons aren’t accidents of God’s nature since God is supremely simple. Which brings me to the question before us -how can God’s simplicity be reconciled with the existence of subsisting relations and people, within God? How can relative things -like fatherhood and sonhood be essential in something?

 

[runningdude]

Well I agree that there are three persons and only three persons, I just don’t believe that the specific number has any more relevance other than describing what is God’s nature.

If there were four persons, then there’d be four persons, but this was not revealed. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God’s nature, and there happens to be three of them. To believe there are four would be a heresy.

However, if scripture described God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and say… “God the Uncle” , then would be four, and we’d have a doctrine of a “Quarinity”.

So the three is just an “accident”, as it simply descriptive of God’s nature, not proscriptive. Hence God is simply a God in three persons - blessed Trinity!

Now, I might be misusing some philosophic terminology, so this could be a gibberish argument , and its possible Saint Thomas believed that the three persons had a different significance. If so, please illuminate - I’m happy to learn

 

[Spirithound]

When we say that there are 3 persons in the Trinity, in what sense do we apply the category of number to God? Does God really have the accident of number in his substance? Or does 3 simply mean not-more-than-three -a negative term?

Also, plurality of relations can exist in God, but doesn’t that go against His simplicity?

Finally, how is it that procession seems to be a personal property of the Holy Spirit, since procession is also common to the Son as well?

Plurality of relations in the Godhead does not violate His simplicity because simplicity is an attribute of nature. It means indivisible, which indicates that where He is partially, He must in actuality be there completely in His infinitude.

The Son does not process, He is eternally begotten.

1. the persons aren’t accidents of God’s nature since God is supremely simple. Which brings me to the question before us -how can God’s simplicity be reconciled with the existence of subsisting relations and people, within God? How can relative things -like fatherhood and sonhood be essential in something?

Fatherhood and Sonship are essential to God’s nature because He is by nature Relationship. If both the Father and the Son are eternal, then their relationship cannot be accidental, only essential.

 

[fakename]

Plurality of relations in the Godhead does not violate His simplicity because simplicity is an attribute of nature. It means indivisible, which indicates that where He is partially, He must in actuality be there completely in His infinitude.

The Son does not process, He is eternally begotten.

Fatherhood and Sonship are essential to God’s nature because He is by nature Relationship. If both the Father and the Son are eternal, then their relationship cannot be accidental, only essential.

Doesn’t the Son proceed from the Father -Our Lord says, “From God I proceeded”?

newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm

A little further down on the link, it is implied that whatever is begotten, proceeds by way of similitude. So if God is begotten then He proceeds.

 

[tonyrey]

Numbers relate to physical existence not to the Creator of numbers! We use three to describe what we call aspects of God, i.e. Persons - but not persons in the human sense.

God is Love and perfect Unity. Jesus prayed that we may be **one **as He and the Father are one. As Keats wrote (in the similar context of “Beauty is Truth and Truth”):

“That is all you know on earth and all you need to know.”
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7920674

 

[Spirithound]

Doesn’t the Son proceed from the Father -Our Lord says, “From God I proceeded”?

newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm

A little further down on the link, it is implied that whatever is begotten, proceeds by way of similitude. So if God is begotten then He proceeds.

Thanks for the link! I think it also answers the question that I attempted to answer. Procession is not only a personal property of the Holy Spirit, but of the Son also. However, the Son’s procession is more specifically called generation or begetting. The Creeds don’t get into this, probably for simplicity’s sake.