The three

[Aloysium]

. . . About clover, I replied before. about your other words, it is not so clear! Please explain clear. . .

Before I proceed to address this, I would comment that I find lmelahn’s post to be as good as I have heard in regards to the Trinity. If you still have questions, you might consider asking God directly - prayer.

With regards to the clover. It is merely a pictoral statement of the words. One God, three persons. One stem, three “leaves”. It demonstrates clearly the inability of words and analogies to describe, to capture the reality of what transcends all creation. Other analogies and philosophical concepts may come much closer with respect to their clarity, validity and comprehensiveness, but would be as ineffective in doing more than pointing us better in the right direction. We can only go by what we know in this world and what has been revealed. By the grace of the Holy Spirit we will understand what we need to understand.

 

[Tomdstone]

Thus the three Persons have the same divine essence which means they are all God because only God can have the same essence as God.

That is what is difficult to understand. Jesus is God from God, true God from true God and yet He did not know the day or hour. Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Also
Mark 13:32 has the same reference. So, the question arises that
since Jesus is true God, would it not be that He would know the day or hour.

 

[Seraphim73]

It’s very important to always, always remember what Cardinal Newman said about theology. He said that theology is “saying and unsaying to a positive effect.” Which means we say that God is completely one, perfect unity, perfectly simple, completely unknowable and beyond all being; and at the same time we say that God is three persons and that He acts different ways and does different things at different times, and that He is knowable through Christ and in the Holy Spirit. We have to say that all of these seemingly contradictory things and all of them are completely true.

And to the OP. I’m sorry but Platonic philosophy can only go so far in describing God. Because in Himself God is so far beyond any description we could ever devise. In fact we can’t even say that God is pure being or pure act. He is beyond being and non-being, He is being acting and non-acting, He is beyond simplicity and non-simplicity. He is so far beyond these things we can’t even begin to comprehend it. That being said God has revealed Himself to us and we can attempt to describe Him within the bounds of that revelation and as far as we can understand. But we must never deceive ourselves into thinking we are actually fully describing the ontological reality of God in Himself.

 

[javid]

Before I proceed to address this, I would comment that I find lmelahn’s post to be as good as I have heard in regards to the Trinity. If you still have questions, you might consider asking God directly - prayer.

With regards to the clover. It is merely a pictoral statement of the words. One God, three persons. One stem, three “leaves”. It demonstrates clearly the inability of words and analogies to describe, to capture the reality of what transcends all creation. Other analogies and philosophical concepts may come much closer with respect to their clarity, validity and comprehensiveness, but would be as ineffective in doing more than pointing us better in the right direction. We can only go by what we know in this world and what has been revealed. By the grace of the Holy Spirit we will understand what we need to understand.

Dear Aloysium

I’m looking for reasons. If I didn’t find good reasons, I’ll accept by faith.

God is simple, and we can’t say God= Father+Son+Holy Spirit
But clove is not simple: clove=stem+leaves
So clove and its leaves are not like God and persons.

 

[Seraphim73]

God= Father+Son+Holy Spirit

That’s not a correct conception of God. God does not have parts. As I said God is perfect unity, completely and perfectly simple and perfectly one. He is also three divine persons. Both statements are true.

 

[lmelahn]

Before I proceed to address this, I would comment that I find lmelahn’s post to be as good as I have heard in regards to the Trinity. If you still have questions, you might consider asking God directly - prayer.

Thank you! It isn’t my idea, but mostly Thomas Aquinas (with some St. Augustine and some of the Greek Fathers). I suppose I have the advantage that I wrote a term paper on this topic for my theology studies. (Not exactly on this topic, but on the different, but complementary, ways that the Greek and Latin Fathers and doctors understand the Procession of the Holy Spirit.)

 

[lmelahn]

If persons are three sides of relations, so we have three distinct sides in On God. If first side is not the second side, so God is made of these sides so how can we say God is simple?

We have to be careful not to make too crass an analogy when we speak of the Holy Trinity: the utter simplicity of God makes it so that the relations in Him work differently than they do in created beings.

I think the word “side” here is misleading: it makes us thing of God as if He worked like a triangle with three sides. The problem is that the sides compose the triangle; each side is a portion. In God, that is not the case. Each Person is, so to speak “all” of God, the “entire” Godhead.

I should also point out that only the terms or ends (not “sides”) of the relations are distinct from one another. Father and Son are mutually opposed relations; therefore, they are really distinct; spiration and procession are also mutually opposed relations; therefore the “terms” (on one end, the Father and Son; on the other, the Holy Spirit) are also really distinct. The spiration effected by the Father, however, is not distinct from the spiration effected by the Son.

I realize that it boggles our minds that two terms of a relation can be really distinct, while being perfectly identical in all that regards their essence. It is not, however, repugnant to reason.

You see, in creatures, relationships are always what Aristotle calls an “accident,” a characteristic of those creatures. (For example, I possess the relation of “sonship” with respect to my own father. But I am not identical with this relationship; it is only one of my characteristics.) God, however, does not have “accidents”: whatever is attributed to Him is perfectly identical to His essence. (Hence, for example, God is not so much good as Goodness Itself.)

It follows that, in God, the relations of origin (Fatherhood, Sonship, spiration, procession) are identical with God’s very essence. Three of these relations constitute a Person (not spiration, because both Father and Son spirate).

If you would like a good primer on Trinitarian dogma, I recommend Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners, which has a good chapter on the Trinity (basically following Thomas Aquinas’ analysis).

 

[javid]

Each Person is, so to speak “all” of God, the “entire” Godhead.

Dear Imelahn

God is one and simple. As a symbol that can only be equal to one number. So if God is the father and son is not the father, we can’t say God is son!!

As When X=2 and X is one, we can’t say X=4.

 

[lmelahn]

Dear Imelahn

God is one and simple. As a symbol that can only be equal to one number. So if God is the father and son is not the father, we can’t say God is son!!

As When X=2 and X is one, we can’t say X=4.

Sorry if someone mentioned this, but the thing is, God isn’t a number. Numbers are an abstraction from quantity, which is an accident. And if God is utterly simple—which I affirm, naturally—then He does not have any accidents; there cannot be a substance/accident composition in Him. So God does not have quantity in exactly the same way that creatures do: we can’t count the Persons of the Trinity the same way we count eggs or postage stamps.

I mention this, because the relation of equality, at least as symbolized by the “=” sign, strictly speaking applies only to numerical quantities. If we abstract from the matter, then the number 12 is the same everywhere: the number of eggs in a dozen is the same as the number of Apostles (not counting Paul, naturally), which is the same as the number of “tables” in the Twelve Tables.

But when I say that the Father is identical to the Divine Essence, I mean much more than that He is “equal” to the Divine Essence. In fact, there is no relation of equality (or any other relation, for that mater) between the Father and the Divine Essence. So, for example, the statement, “Father = Essence,” is false, if by “=” we are indicating a relation of numerical equality. In simpler terms, “identity” and “equality” are not the same thing.

Trinitarian dogma affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identical to the Divine Essence, but not to each other, because each Person consists in the very relation that He has with the others (Father and Son reciprocally; Father-and-Son to Spirit reciprocally.) That relation, however, cannot be distinct from the Essence, because that would entail a substance/accident composition. Thus, the “transitive” property that is true in numerical quantities does not apply to the Trinity.

I probably didn’t explain that well, but that is the idea .

 

[javid]

Sorry if someone mentioned this, but the thing is, God isn’t a number. Numbers are an abstraction from quantity, which is an accident. And if God is utterly simple—which I affirm, naturally—then He does not have any accidents; there cannot be a substance/accident composition in Him. So God does not have quantity in exactly the same way that creatures do: we can’t count the Persons of the Trinity the same way we count eggs or postage stamps.

I mention this, because the relation of equality, at least as symbolized by the “=” sign, strictly speaking applies only to numerical quantities. If we abstract from the matter, then the number 12 is the same everywhere: the number of eggs in a dozen is the same as the number of Apostles (not counting Paul, naturally), which is the same as the number of “tables” in the Twelve Tables.

But when I say that the Father is identical to the Divine Essence, I mean much more than that He is “equal” to the Divine Essence. In fact, there is no relation of equality (or any other relation, for that mater) between the Father and the Divine Essence. So, for example, the statement, “Father = Essence,” is false, if by “=” we are indicating a relation of numerical equality. In simpler terms, “identity” and “equality” are not the same thing.

Trinitarian dogma affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identical to the Divine Essence, but not to each other, because each Person consists in the very relation that He has with the others (Father and Son reciprocally; Father-and-Son to Spirit reciprocally.) That relation, however, cannot be distinct from the Essence, because that would entail a substance/accident composition. Thus, the “transitive” property that is true in numerical quantities does not apply to the Trinity.

I probably didn’t explain that well, but that is the idea .

Dear lmelahn

I did not claim that God is a number, it was just an example. We can give other examples to it. When iron is a metal and metal is not wood, we can’t say Iron is wood!

God is a simple being, he can’t be three distinct beings. The problem is not on equality. While father is identical to the Divine Essence and Son is not the father, how can we say that son is identical to the Divine Essence? We have only one simple divine Essence.

When God is faher and father is not the son, how can we say God is son? He is one and has not parts. So how can a simple being be equal to three distinct persons?

 

[javid]

It is Modalism. The Javid is son of some one is the person who will become a father and the Javid who loves his father is the person who will love his son. We have only one person.

Trinity is Essential and does not depend on other beings created by God.

 

[Aloysium]

Perhaps then, we come to truly understand the Trinity only by following the Way, becoming more Christ-like through the grace of the Holy Spirit, in loving filial obedience to the Father. The knowing is in the doing.

 

[javid]

Perhaps then, we come to truly understand the Trinity only by following the Way, becoming more Christ-like through the grace of the Holy Spirit, in loving filial obedience to the Father. The knowing is in the doing.

Yes Aloysium. But it is faith.

 

[javid]

One person can do several roles, in addition we can imagine more than two or three roles for God.

 

[lmelahn]

Dear lmelahn

I did not claim that God is a number, it was just an example. We can give other examples to it. When iron is a metal and metal is not wood, we can’t say Iron is wood!

God is a simple being, he can’t be three distinct beings. The problem is not on equality. While father is identical to the Divine Essence and Son is not the father, how can we say that son is identical to the Divine Essence? We have only one simple divine Essence.

When God is faher and father is not the son, how can we say God is son? He is one and has not parts. So how can a simple being be equal to three distinct persons?

Because the Father and Son are distinct in only one respect: the mutual relation between them. Their Substance (Essence) is exactly the same, and unique.

I didn’t mean to make it appear that you think God is a number. I just meant, you can only apply the relation of “equality” properly to numbers. Identity is a much deeper thing than equality. (I am identical to myself, but not exactly “equal” to myself.)

 

[Tomdstone]

Because the Father and Son are distinct in only one respect: the mutual relation between them. Their Substance (Essence) is exactly the same, and unique.

How is their essence the same if the Son does not know the day or hour, but the Father does.

 

[lmelahn]

How is their essence the same if the Son does not know the day or hour, but the Father does.

Good question, although it is more of an exegetical one. The verses in question are Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 (practically identical):

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

It is important not to take these verses in isolation from other ones that clearly proclaim the identity of the Father and Son in Essence (as we would say). For example, John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

and John 10:30

I and the Father are one.

And even verses showing that Jesus has all knowledge:

Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you” (Jn 21:17).

Anyway, the verses regarding the supposed “ignorance” of Christ don’t seriously threaten the Trinitarian dogmas. None of the Church Fathers ever interpreted them to mean that the Eternal Son is ignorant of something that the Father knows. Positing such ignorance would go against the dogma of the homoousios, the consubstantiality of the Son with Father, as any post-Nicene Father would have known well.

The question that some of the Fathers (for example Augustine) asked themselves is whether Jesus in his human nature could possibly have been ignorant of something. Such ignorance would have been deliberate, of course. Hence, some of the Fathers argued, that in this case Jesus deliberately abstained from attempting to learn the hour of his second coming, because it was unfitting for a man to know it.

The other possibility—and one that I frankly find more convincing—was that Jesus actually did (and does) know the hour of his coming. However, in the face of many importunate questions from his disciples, he made use of a Semitic hyperbole to make it extremely clear that he would not reveal the hour to them.

Semitic hyperbole is commonly used by Jesus to make a point: for example,

if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away" (Mt 5:30)

None of Jesus’ hearers understood him literally. In the same vein, there is also,

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Lk 14:26).

No one seriously thought that Jesus was instructing them to hate their own lives, still less their own parents. (After all, there was—and still is!—a commandment that orders us to honor our father and mother.)

That the verses regarding Jesus’ supposed “ignorance” are of this kind is indicated by the very structure of the verse, which goes in ascending order of intensity:

1. 
   *]No one knows
   *]Not even the angels
   *]Not even the Son
   *]Only the Father
   
   Translating this into modern English idiom, I think that Jesus was saying, in essence, “for the umpteenth time, I will not tell you the hour of the Second Coming. Don’t even ask me, because the angels don’t know, and as far as you are concerned, I don’t even know.”
   
   Even in English, when someone talks like that, it is a sort of feigned ignorance to let people know that they are not supposed to ask anymore.
   
   This interpretation, in my opinion, is confirmed by Acts 1:7, in which Jesus, in reply to questions as to whether the Kingdom will be established, says,
   

   It is not for ]you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.

   Anyway, however the “ignorance” passages are interpreted, it is clear that Jesus is not claiming any ignorance as a Divine Person. It is based largely on some of the other passages I mentioned that the Church affirmed the unity of Essence between the Father and the Son.

 

[Tomdstone]

Good question, although it is more of an exegetical one. The verses in question are Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 (practically identical):

It is important not to take these verses in isolation from other ones that clearly proclaim the identity of the Father and Son in Essence (as we would say). For example, John 1:1:

and John 10:30

And even verses showing that Jesus has all knowledge:

Anyway, the verses regarding the supposed “ignorance” of Christ don’t seriously threaten the Trinitarian dogmas. None of the Church Fathers ever interpreted them to mean that the Eternal Son is ignorant of something that the Father knows. Positing such ignorance would go against the dogma of the homoousios, the consubstantiality of the Son with Father, as any post-Nicene Father would have known well.

The question that some of the Fathers (for example Augustine) asked themselves is whether Jesus in his human nature could possibly have been ignorant of something. Such ignorance would have been deliberate, of course. Hence, some of the Fathers argued, that in this case Jesus deliberately abstained from attempting to learn the hour of his second coming, because it was unfitting for a man to know it.

The other possibility—and one that I frankly find more convincing—was that Jesus actually did (and does) know the hour of his coming. However, in the face of many importunate questions from his disciples, he made use of a Semitic hyperbole to make it extremely clear that he would not reveal the hour to them.

Semitic hyperbole is commonly used by Jesus to make a point: for example,

None of Jesus’ hearers understood him literally. In the same vein, there is also,

No one seriously thought that Jesus was instructing them to hate their own lives, still less their own parents. (After all, there was—and still is!—a commandment that orders us to honor our father and mother.)

That the verses regarding Jesus’ supposed “ignorance” are of this kind is indicated by the very structure of the verse, which goes in ascending order of intensity:

1. 
   *]No one knows
   *]Not even the angels
   *]Not even the Son
   *]Only the Father
   
   Translating this into modern English idiom, I think that Jesus was saying, in essence, “for the umpteenth time, I will not tell you the hour of the Second Coming. Don’t even ask me, because the angels don’t know, and as far as you are concerned, I don’t even know.”
   
   Even in English, when someone talks like that, it is a sort of feigned ignorance to let people know that they are not supposed to ask anymore.
   
   This interpretation, in my opinion, is confirmed by Acts 1:7, in which Jesus, in reply to questions as to whether the Kingdom will be established, says,
   
   Anyway, however the “ignorance” passages are interpreted, it is clear that Jesus is not claiming any ignorance as a Divine Person. It is based largely on some of the other passages I mentioned that the Church affirmed the unity of Essence between the Father and the Son.

1. 
   Thanks Imel for your explanation, but I see some problems with it. At least I can see some of the objections that people such as JW would bring up with your explanations.
   1. The gospel of John has a different tone from the other 3 gospels and as such, when quoting from John we should also look to the other 3 gospels for support. Clement of Alexandria says that John’s gospel was a “spiritual gospel”, distinct from the Synoptics and some modern scholars consider the synoptic gospels to give a more accurate presentation of what Jesus actually said. According to J. D. G. Dunn , “Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the synoptics.”
   2. I and the Father are One could mean that they have one purpose. For example, I and Obama are one on healthcare, would not mean that I and Obama are one in essence, only in purpose with regard to the healthcare issue.
   3. ‘you know everything’ could be the hyperbole of Peter.
   4. Feigned ignorance seems to be something unworthy of God, because God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

 

[lmelahn]

Thank you. I would also add, I am not so sure that John is really the “least reliable” Gospel for historical details. (For example, John recalls the very hour of the day in which the Lord called him. See 1:35.) On the contrary, John constantly displays first-hand knowledge that is absent from the Synoptics. I would even venture to say, he seems to have read the Synoptics and is filling in the gaps.

Anyway, I don’t see how the supposed “lack of historicity” affects the truth of the passages I mentioned. All of them have to do with the inner life of God, not with historical matters, and the sacred writer, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is clearly intending to affirm their truth.

Now, for the other objections from Tomdstone.

1. I should point out that, in a way, Tomdstone is one in essence with Obama: both he and Obama are members of the human species. But neither in God nor in the case of Tomdstone and Obama is there unity of person.

Anyway, the problem with this objection is that Jesus hearers’ immediately accuse him of blasphemy. They understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. (See the very next verse, 10:31, in which his hearers try to stone him to death.)

1. I suppose it could be a hyperbole on Peter’s part, but the context makes it unlikely. Peter, remember, is saddened because Jesus has asked him three times if he loves him. He knows full well that Jesus does not have to ask him, and therefore senses that Jesus is testing him somehow. It is a sort of gentle show of frustration on Peter’s part; not really the context for hyperbole, it seems to me.

Anyway, we don’t need this passage to know that Jesus has supernatural knowledge, even of people’s intimate thoughts.

1. If Jesus’ ignorance was hyperbole, it was certainly not intended to deceive, because his audience would have understood him. We can’t accuse Jesus of lying because he told us to “cut off our hands” if they caused us to sin.

If it was voluntarily accepted ignorance, then it was not feigned in any way. (As I said, I find this latter interpretation less convincing, since it comes very close to a kind of Nestorianism: an excessive separation of Jesus’ human nature from his Divine Nature.)

Anyway, who said that feigning ignorance is necessarily an unworthy thing to do? For example, when Jesus catches up with the disciples on their way to Emmaus, after the Resurrection, he asks them what they are talking about. The rest of the story makes it abundantly clear that Jesus knew all along, but he wanted to draw it out of them. It is not unworthy to feign ignorance, in this case, because Jesus’ purpose is not to deceive; it is merely pedagogical.

There are, of course, numerous indications of Jesus’ full Divinity that I didn’t mention. For example, there is Phil 2:6 (“though he was in the form of God;” Paul could not have been ignorant of the philosophical meaning of the term “form,” which, for a spiritual substance, is identical to “essence”); there is St. Thomas’ confession of faith in Jn 20:28 (“My Lord and my God”); there are the numerous occasions in which Jesus attributes to himself the Divine Name “I AM” (especially John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I AM”); there are the divine attributes given to the Lamb that was Slain in Revelation; there is the fact that the disciples call him “Lord,” a name reserved to God. And of course, there is the prologue of John, in which the Word clearly has divine attributes (for example, He creates all things).

 

[javid]

Because the Father and Son are distinct in only one respect: the mutual relation between them. Their Substance (Essence) is exactly the same, and unique.

I didn’t mean to make it appear that you think God is a number. I just meant, you can only apply the relation of “equality” properly to numbers. Identity is a much deeper thing than equality. (I am identical to myself, but not exactly “equal” to myself.)

Dear Imelahn

Thanks, But Relations do not solve my problem. Anyway God the father is not God the son, so While father is identical to the Divine Essence and Son is not the father, how can we say that son is identical to the Divine Essence?