The Trinity - monotheistic or tritheistic?

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the explanation you posted from Frank sheed, i appreciate you providing that but i did not find it helpful in answering the issues ive brought up in my previous posts. To be honest, i really couldnt make sense out of anything in that explanation.

Have you studied metaphysics? That would be a helpful prerequisite. Your questions go beyond intro level theology and understanding of the science of being.

For example, as an engineer, I had a first year electronics student ask a question in which the answer involved an understanding of quantum physics which he had not yet had. I could anser him, but he wouldn’t be able to make sense of it.

So, just because one cannot understand the answer doesn’t mean an answer does not exist.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

i know christianity maintains the trinity is one divine nature, this discussion however is more about actually proving this claim.

Ah, so it is not that you seek understanding, but seek to argue. I wish you would have been up front with this from the start.

This was your first post:

im struggling to understand how the trinity is a monotheistic concept. If the claim is that ‘God is 3 persons in 1’ then from what i see it is actually a tritheistic concept (the belief that there are three equally powerful gods who form a triad).

If you are serious in that you are really trying to understand as you initially stated, then the Trinity can in no way be understood as more than one God, as the very doctrine insists upon ONE Divine essence. You may not understand how one Divine essence can be in more than one place simultaneously, but there are many that do not understand quantum physics either. That doesn’t make it false.

You later said you understand that the Trinity is one divine nature, but wanted it proven. That’s far different than what your first post implied.

Truth includes far more than what can be proven. For example, can you prove the nature of God isn’t Trinitarian?

Christians know perfectly well that God exists as one Divine essence in three Persons, because that is what God has revealed. That’s really all the proof we need.

At best, you can accuse Trinitarians for being tri-hypostatists. That we are. Monotheist (one God), tri-hypostatist (three persons). http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[exoflare]

itsjustdave1988:

So, just because one cannot understand the answer doesn’t mean an answer does not exist.

That’s what I keep saying!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

At best, you can accuse Trinitarians for being tri-hypostatists. That we are. Monotheist (one God), tri-hypostatist (three persons). http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

Correction, that’s tri-*prosoponists. *My Greek was incorrect. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

 

[YADA]

Hashi Al-Eritre,

I will not give you the theological explanations of the Trinity as others have already done that. It is indeed a mystery that is not fully understood. However, I will give you my musings from much time in prayer, study and contemplation. This is a common sense, try to put it into a context that illustrates, if not defines the concept, example.

The Trinity is a fullness of relationshiip that is perfected in three persons (read personas as understood in the Greek sense one person different attributtes; not as in today, three people: Tom, Dick and Harry).

Trinity represents God relationship to his creation. As the Father, he is the creator to his creation. As the Son, he is the Servant God that brings healing, reconcilliation and salvation to a people yearning to know their Creator, as the Spirit, he is the paracleat who brings life, inspiration and consolation to the people of God. The Trinity, then, is love perfected. One God, Three persons.

**I, even in my imperfective self am one. However, I am a daughter, sister, wife, mother, friend, grandmother, employer, etc. I can and am all of the above, all at the same time. I do not become different in my being if I am with my husband than when I am with my grandson. If my husband and grandson are in the same room, I do not become two distinct ‘people’ or ‘persons.’ I remain, one person both Wife (Rachael) and Grandmother (Nana). **

I think that is is a function of man’s imperfection that we are more than ‘three’. We are created in the image and likeness of God. We (mankind) are male and female (already fractured into two) to the likeness of ONE GOD.

Mankind is tied to family that is who and what we are. How we each come to be, a child born from the unitive male and female, joined sacramentally One. Family relationships being who and what we are have to be related to the image and likeness of God.

Therefore, what we image in a multitude is perfected in Three, the One God who is Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

Pax Christe

PS: An aside here. Nobody can truly explain all of what it means to be “Family” or what all of the relationships mean and how they work in the human family, any more than we can understand fully Who is God, What is God (Allah). Millions of books are written to help people understand and deal with human family issues! If we struggle to grasp what is of this world, how much so, the world beyond?

 

[The_Eurasian]

To understand a little bit about the Mystery of God, it would be helpful to look first at the “MYSTERY OF LIGHT”.

I suppose that there are many Muslim physicists around the world. And there must be many many Muslim engineers and students of engineering and the sciences who took courses on “OPTICS” and perhaps even MODERN PHYSICS and perhaps even QUANTUM PHYSICS.

Are any or some of the Muslims here familiar with light as a wave and light as a stream of particles or photons???

 

[jimmy]

You have emphasized throughout your reply that God is one in essence, and that the holy spirit and jesus exist within the father. What i am struggling to understand is if God is three persons existing in one essense, when Jesus or the holy spirit were on earth, how is it Jesus was existing within the father if jesus was on earth? In other words, how does one claim God is One yet believe there is divine Jesus on earth and a divine father in the heavens and a divine holy spirit somewhere else? Obviously the three persons are not One if they are not together.

But they are together. The Father exists as a whole everywhere. The whole of The Father exists in me. The whole of the Father exists in you, and every other person. The same goes for the second person of the Trinity, The Son. The Son exists completely in me, completely in you and everyone else. The Holy Spirit is the same.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Hashi,

This thread of yours has doubled in posts each day for the last couple days, sooo hard to keep up! I know it can’t go on indefinitely, but I want to say thanks for making me think through some of the details. We Christians who believe in the Trinity often get so excited when we learn something new about the “mechanics” or whatever of the doctrine, and that’s good, but for some of us, it’s not challenged very often on a meaningful level.

So, maybe you won’t lead us to renounce our orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, but hopefully we’ll think through things and ask questions to better understand. That’s been a good thing with me on this thread.

I realize the Platonic explanations may not be very meaningful to you now in the 21st Century. Maybe they are kind of archaic. I apologize, some day I’ll get up to St. Augustine’s big book on the Trinity. One step at a time. I am thankful for the early Church Fathers using the philosophies available at the time to explain nuances of the faith, those men’s writings are treasures, even if some of their resources are dated.

-Rob

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

Wow, soo much to reply to! But i do appreciate everyones curteous replies.

From what i have gathered thus far is the main proof for the rationality of the trinity and how it works is maintaining God’s Omnipresence, because this is the only way to maintain God’s oneness in essence. This forum is actually the first time ive ever heard Christians believe God is omnipresent.

However, i see there is some disagreement among the posters here and in other threads regarding the manner in which God is omnipresent. Some are saying he is everywhere and in everything, and others (noteably itsjustdave) saying God isnt everywhere but he is present in holy places and where he chooses. I would like to see some consensus to this because it really is a vital part of your doctrine and how you call to belief in God.

I still have to reply to Rob as he took the time to reply to me, and i will proceed to reply to everyone else in a one summarized reply. And after i get some clarification regarding the issue of omnipresence of God, ill proceed to reply to that.

 

[jimmy]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

From what i have gathered thus far is the main proof for the rationality of the trinity and how it works is maintaining God’s Omnipresence, because this is the only way to maintain God’s oneness in essence. This forum is actually the first time ive ever heard Christians believe God is omnipresent.

However, i see there is some disagreement among the posters here and in other threads regarding the manner in which God is omnipresent. Some are saying he is everywhere and in everything, and others (noteably itsjustdave) saying God isnt everywhere but he is present in holy places and where he chooses. I would like to see some consensus to this because it really is a vital part of your doctrine and how you call to belief in God.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Gods omnipresence. It is accepted by the bishops.

B. IMMENSITY AND UBIQUITY, OR OMNIPRESENCE

Space, like time, is one of the measures of the finite, and as by the attribute of eternity, we describe God’s transcendence of all temporal limitations, so by the attribute of immensity we express His transcendent relation to space. There is this difference, however, to be noted between eternity and immensity, that the positive aspect of the latter is more easily realized by us, and is sometimes spoken of, under the name of omnipresenee, or ubiquity, as if it were a distinct attribute. Divine immensity means on the one hand that God is necessarily present everywhere in space as the immanent cause and sustainer of creatures, and on the other hand that He transcends the limitations of actual and possible space, and cannot be circumscribed or measured or divided by any spatial relations. To say that God is immense is only another way of saying that He is both immanent and transcendent in the sense already explained. As some one has metaphorically and paradoxically expressed it, “God’s centre is everywhere, His circumference nowhere.” That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and that He is truly present in every place or thing – that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous – follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality. According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation – immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature – conserving it in being and enabling it to act. But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.

newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IIB

As the above mentions, Gods presence is what holds everything together. God is in everything in His entirety. He is completely in the flower that you see in a field and in all of His creation. But at the same time He transcends time and space.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

itsjustdave1988:

Ah, so it is not that you seek understanding, but seek to argue. I wish you would have been up front with this from the start.

As a Muslim, you should already know im here to discuss and engage in an intellectual dialogue regarding the trinity, not merely just seeking a general explanation to it. I dont believe the trinity to be a rational concept nor a naturally acceptable way we should preceive God to be, and my replies to everyones posts are my attempts to illustrate that. This isnt because im stubborn and just want to refute whatever you throw as an explanation, but because i honestly dont see the trinity to be true nor have the replies decisively or even adequately answered for the fallacies i see in it. I also began this thread in an attempt to get christians to think more rationally about their doctrine and to see if they can answer for themselves the doctrinal imperfections i have tried to point out. And as for your comment about me wanting to only ‘argue’, part of interfaith dialogue is arguing, and this is an interfaith dialogue. As long as the manner in which we argue our views and beliefs is done with courtesy and wisdom, it can sometimes be beneficial and even lead us to agree.

Truth includes far more than what can be proven. For example, can you prove the nature of God isn’t Trinitarian?

Thats exactly what i have been trying to prove throughout this thread. Every reply ive made so far is my attempt to rationally prove that.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

Reformed Rob:

Hashi,

Hope you get a chance to read that letter, printed out it’s like just over 7 pages. Not too long, but kind of meaty.

Hi rob, in your first reply, i wasnt too clear on what you were trying to explain. From what i gathered you were making a distinction between how people of the same profession doing similar type of work isnt the same as the trinity, that i understood, but i didnt understand the explanation you were trying to give on how the trinity works in terms of 3 persons doing the same work. But I will take the time to read that link u gave, God willing. thanks.

Whatever comes to pass by the action of God, comes to pass by the action of the Three, and what comes to pass is not 3 things, but one thing.

If you are able to relate what you said here to my comments regarding Jesus being incarnate on earth, that is what im looking for an explanation to, because i still cannot see the rationale to it.

How can I best say this??? I don’t know much about you, I do know you are a Muslim, correct? There are Shiite, Suni, Sufi, the “Wahabbi” type of Muslims, and I guess more than those listed. Now, I’m not trying to discredit Islam because of it’s divisions. Rather, I’m supposing that there is a “core” belief system of Islam that one or more of those groups have distorted or abandoned to some degree. The Muslims I’m sure still have central things that give them some unity in regards to doctrine and practice, but in the views where they do differ, a system has been developed to bolster the case that what they believe and do is right. Maybe I’m all wrong, but hopefully not too far off.

definately there are sectarian divisions in Islam, just like in every other faith. This was something prophesized by the Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings be upon him) but he also taught his companions and narrated to us how to not fall into the new sects that would emerge because he taught us the methodology of understanding Islam. I am a Sunni muslim, i try to follow Islam in an orthodox manner sticking to the traditions and textual references of Islam as opposed to the new ways of interpreting the teachings of Islam that have emerged throughout the history of Islam. But this isnt the place to go into all that but feel free to pm me if u want to further discuss all this.

But as for the core belief system of Islam, it wasnt something developed throughout time. It was all taught from the beginning of the prophet Muhammed’s (peace be upon him) message. the Quran and the sayings of Muhammed are what we are supposed to restrict ourselves to in understanding how to believe in God. The Quran tells us God is above the heavens and the earth, but that God is also near us by his knowledge (not essence). The QUran and the Prophet’s sayings tell us the Names of God such as the All-Merciful, the All-Powerful, the All-Hearing, the Most Great, the SUstainer, The Creator, the Fashioner, the Most Just, the All-Able, the All-Knowledgeable, the Lord of the heavens and the Earth, and so many other names, as well as God’s attributes and actions which are also derived from His names, and all of this aids us in worshiping God because it increases our knowledge of Him. And as you can see, nothing complicated in this belief system, nothing irrational in the concept, and actually very simple and very easy to ones heart to accept and believe.

So the belief system didnt go through any development stage where a group of Muslim scholars a few decades or centuries came together and gave their suggestions on how to believe in God, and then came to some sort of agreement on a system. Nor has it gone through any sort of ‘progressive revelation’ because we believe the last man to have recieved revelation from God is Muhammed (peace be upon him) and that it is outright heretical and disbelief to believe in any other claimant to revelation from God.

What did happen however is as i was saying sects did emerge in Islam and tried to develope new methodologies in understanding God, and this started happening as Islam spread around the world and various cultures and influences infiltrated into the teachings of Islam. Among the influences were the books of greek philosophers and logicians, they were translated into arabic and played a major role in reinterpreting the belief system of Islam for various sects.

continued…

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

continued…

An excellent work on the belief system of Islam called Aqeedah al-Wasitiyah ( islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/wasiti/taimiyah_1.htm ) by a prolific scholar named Ahmed Ibn Taymiyah [d. 1328 C.E]. He lived in the time when such sectarian beliefs had reached their peek in the muslim lands. He is considered one of the most profound scholars in the history of Islam due to the impact he made in refuting the false doctrines of the prevalent sects of his time, as well as the impact he made in reviving the orthodox teachings of Islam. You will see throughout this work he restricts himself to narrating from the Quran and the Prophetic sayings as he describes the Islamic belief system.

We believe that one of God’s attributes is perfect wisdom. Therefore we believe that God is wise for taking this gradual approach. Part of the wisdom in the method is perhaps that… you have the Israelites surrounded by truly polytheistic cultures, and the monotheistic nature of God’s revelation was quite a contrast. There was no doubt at all, it was “raw monotheism” if you will, no “Trinity” to work through. Of course, there are verses as early as the book of Genesis, from which we get awesome texts to support the Trinity, but for those people, they needed to understand that there is ONE God. And that’s what we believe. But we KNOW more. At least we should… but that’s another story. We know more, but it’s the same God that we know more about.

Definately God is All Wise, and His wisdom is Perfect. Everything that he wills and decrees carries with it a wisdom.

I did take into account you used the word ‘perhaps’ when you proceeded to discuss why you believe God chose this gradual approach, so i know your not trying to pass your explanation as fact. But in replying to your explanation, even in the time of Jesus, polytheists were the majority, the Roman empire a clear example of this. As christians you believe Jesus’ message wasnt just for the children of israel but for the entire world, thus the message was taken to Rome. So if the argumenet is the children of israel were called to raw monotheism because they were polytheistic, well so were the Romans.

Secondly, you can make an argue for example God revealing some of His names and attributes on a gradual way, such that He might reveal a Name or attribute of Himself to a Prophet and not to a previous Prophet, but in this case this isnt just about additional knowledge about God, this is a totally different outlook on how to believe in God. Someone made mention in one of the earlier posts that its not right to say the Father was first, then the son, then the holyspirit but that the father eternally begets the son and the holyspirit eternally comes from the father and son. Lets put aside the irrationality of it and just focus on the profound difference between preceiving God in this manner as opposed to preceiving God as One Alone. I mean this isnt just God gradually revealing additional knowledge about Himself, this is a different doctrine all together.

thirdly, what about those who were upon ‘raw monotheism’ and learned from their revelation (ie. Torah) to strictly worship God alone and to not attribute divinity to created things? I mean put yourself in their shoes for a minute and how you would react if you were suddenly introduced to the trinity concept and told ‘now you have to change your beliefs and attribute divinity to Jesus and believe He is God incarnated and worship Him as son of God’. A strong believer in the strict monotheism preached in the previous scriptures would strongly refuse to believe such a thing. So is it really from wisdom for God to reveal a different creed about Himself when it will cause that sort of confusion and trial among the people?

Anyhow, as Muslims we dont believe jesus came to preach a new doctrine of God, and if he did it would show he isnt a Prophet and Messenger of God. Rather we believe there were early followers of Jesus that believed in him just as we Muslims do, u can refer to the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80319 for an e-book about that.

Hashi,

This thread of yours has doubled in posts each day for the last couple days, sooo hard to keep up! I know it can’t go on indefinitely, but I want to say thanks for making me think through some of the details. We Christians who believe in the Trinity often get so excited when we learn something new about the “mechanics” or whatever of the doctrine, and that’s good, but for some of us, it’s not challenged very often on a meaningful level.

So, maybe you won’t lead us to renounce our orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, but hopefully we’ll think through things and ask questions to better understand. That’s been a good thing with me on this thread.

Yes, your welcome and thank you for contributing to the discussion. Im happy you have found it beneficial.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

there are alot of posts i havent replied to though i would very much like to. I dont know if i can get to all of them as replying is very time consuming and especially since most likely more replies will come. I want to concentrate on the omnipresence issue since so far its been the central proof used in support of the rationality behind the trinity being monotheistic, and i will just wait for more replies on that issue specifically so i can see if there is an actual concensus among the christians here on how God is ‘omnipresent’.

 

[The_Eurasian]

Hashi Al-Eritre

Maybe you can look at 'omnipresence" as analogous to gravity.

 

[r.gonzales]

The Eurasian:

Maybe you can look at 'omnipresence" as analogous to gravity.

that analogy doesn’t sit. for one, there’s quite a difference between a living entity such as Allah, and a force of attraction between physical bodies, which is basically what gravity is.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

…However, i see there is some disagreement among the posters here and in other threads regarding the manner in which God is omnipresent. Some are saying he is everywhere and in everything, and others (noteably itsjustdave) saying God isnt everywhere but he is present in holy places and where he chooses.

Hmmmm…no. You misunderstand. God is omnipresent (as I already stated), by His effect (per suum effectum). He is multipresent by His essence (per suum essentiam). This according to St. Thomas Aquinas, doctor of Catholicism, so I’m on pretty orthodox ground here. I can provide source information from St. Thomas’ *Summa Theologica *if needed.

For example, the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ *per suum essentiam. *I doubt any faithful Catholic would contend otherwise. However, God does not contain the place called hell by the power of His essence, per the teaching of St. Thomas, but does so by the power of his effect.

I don’t deny God’s omnipresence, but have clarified what that means.

 

[The_Eurasian]

r.gonzales:

that analogy doesn’t sit. for one, there’s quite a difference between a living entity such as Allah, and a force of attraction between physical bodies, which is basically what gravity is.

r.gonazles

Oh I believe it does when you consider that GOD IS INFINITELY GREATER THAN GRAVITY!!!

For example, if gravity is omnipresent in each and every particle within every atom in this earth, - from within the interior of the earth to those atoms high up there in the atmosphere, - HOW MUCH MORE GOD WHO IS NOT ONLY GREATER THAN GRAVITY BUT INFINITELY THE GREATEST!!!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *III, 52, 2:

A thing is said to be in a place in two ways. First of all, through its effect, and in this way Christ descended into each of the hells, but in different manner. For going down into the hell of the lost He wrought this effect, that by descending thither He put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them who were detained in Purgatory He gave hope of attaining to glory: while upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin, He shed the light of glory everlasting.

In another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence: and in this way Christ’s soul descended only into that part of hell wherein the just were detained. so that He visited them “in place,” according to His soul, whom He visited “interiorly by grace,” according to His Godhead. Accordingly, while remaining in one part of hell, He wrought this effect in a measure in every part of hell, just as while suffering in one part of the earth He delivered the whole world by His Passion.

See also, ***Whether God is everywhere? ***(ISt. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *I, 8, 2)
newadvent.org/summa/100802.htm

 

[r.gonzales]

The Eurasian:

Oh I believe it does when you consider that GOD IS INFINITELY GREATER THAN GRAVITY!!!

For example, if gravity is omnipresent in each and every particle within every atom in this earth, - from within the interior of the earth to those atoms high up there in the atmosphere

your analogy is still flawed and does not fit.

perhaps, it would be valid if gravity in and of itself was a quantitative substance, with actual physical attributes, but it’s not. it’s a force of attraction between two physical bodies, a force that is caused by one of these bodies and acts upon the other. so, it’s not correct to say that gravity is omnipresent in each and every particle within every atom on this earth since it’s not a substance that can be within something else.