The Trinity - monotheistic or tritheistic?

[itsjustdave1988]

What i understand here is your saying God is continuously creating whats already created.

It is more accurate to say that God is the continous source of our being, and is the metaphysical sustaining source of all creation. In otherwords, every new breath is a new gift from God (“common grace”). The human soul is not inherently immortal, but only becomes immortal by the continuous effect of God, some souls to endure eternal punishment in hell, while other souls to enjoy everlasting life in heaven. God must continuously sustain the life of each and every individual soul, else it would cease to exist. Thus, God is the source of all being, not just the starter of all existence (ie. creation), but his common grace continues to sustain all existence.

I think part of the difficulty is due to a difference in understanding of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the “science of being.” The mediterranian world in which Christ lived was strongly influenced by a Hellenistic worldview, to include Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Consequently, much of Christian doctrine and theology is described from that perspective. For example, if you read St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica without having studied Greek philosophy and metaphysics first, then it will be difficult to comprehend. Which is likely why you didn’t understand Frank Sheeds description, as it used terminology derived from the Metaphysics of Aristotle (written 350 BC).

How do Muslims understand their “science of being?” Do they accept or reject an Aristotelian view?

 

[exoflare]

Why hasn’t anyone realized it yet?

Muslims are just repeatedly saying “I still don’t understand” no matter what. Even if somehow one of them stepped out of their box long enough to begin to grasp the Trinity at all, do you seriously expect one of them to admit it? I think you guys are wasting your time, just fyi… this is all pretty fruitless.

 

[Maranatha]

exoflare:

Why hasn’t anyone realized it yet?

Muslims are just repeatedly saying “I still don’t understand” no matter what. Even if somehow one of them stepped out of their box long enough to begin to grasp the Trinity at all, do you seriously expect one of them to admit it? I think you guys are wasting your time, just fyi… this is all pretty fruitless.

This thread has improved my ability to defend my faith. I do not think it was fruitless. Thanks to the OP, I’m a better Catholic. I give the Muslims here the charitable benefit of the doubt and think they truly don’t understand. As Dave just said, I think we are using terms and concepts that differently.

 

[exoflare]

Maranatha:

This thread has improved my ability to defend my faith. I do not think it was fruitless. Thanks to the OP, I’m a better Catholic. I give the Muslims here the charitable benefit of the doubt and think they truly don’t understand. As Dave just said, I think we are using terms and concepts that differently.

Maybe. I suppose you’re right; at least we’re benefitting from this ourselves if nothing else.

 

[dulcissima]

exoflare,

You weren’t seriously thinking he was posing this question because he was hoping to be convinced of the Trinity were you?
I think he was sincere in his objective of having an interesting
interfaith dialogue. I think this has been an interesting thread, and a good chance to reflect upon our faith.

 

[exoflare]

dulcissima:

exoflare,

You weren’t seriously thinking he was posing this question because he was hoping to be convinced of the Trinity were you?

I don’t think he was hoping to be convinced of the Trinity. What I was saying is that even if he somehow began to understand (not necessarily believe in) what the Trinity was, I don’t think he’s going to admit it. It really seems like this is just one of those arguments that was started for the sake of arguing.

 

[Maranatha]

exoflare:

I don’t think he was hoping to be convinced of the Trinity. What I was saying is that even if he somehow began to understand (not necessarily believe in) what the Trinity was, I don’t think he’s going to admit it. It really seems like this is just one of those arguments that was started for the sake of arguing.

Although our faith is perfectly consistent with logic and reason, arguments alone will not convince anyone to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. They only way someone will accept the teachings is the gift of faith from God through grace. The Holy Spirit is responsible and gets credit for every conversion. Our best recourse is to pray.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Hashi,

I’d have a hard time just responding to your posts, so I understand your bewilderment at responding to all the pro-Trinitarian posts here.

So, I don’t remember, it was maybe 20 or 25 posts up, but you said something about how you can’t understand how all 3 Persons are eternal, yet the Son is begotten of the Father, and I suppose how the Holy Spirit is the “fruit” of the love between the Father and the Son in some way.

I don’t have a lot to say, maybe one thing will help, it’s just an analogy, not a complex explanation. Consider fire, well, fire gives off light. We know that, I mean, I guess we would agree that the fire comes first, yet can you really separate the two, the fire and the light? The moment the fire is there, there’s the light!

I’m not meaning to get back into the physics, and the speed of light, the “nature of the fire” or anything like that. Just an analogy.

We do not believe that the Son was created by the Father. We do believe that the Son received from His mother His human nature. At the moment of Christ’s “conception” in Mary’s womb, Jesus Christ had His “beginning” in time. He existed before, but not joined to a human nature. We say (some of us do, at least) “mother of God” because Jesus was one person, with 2 natures, Divine and Human. I’m not sure if it’s right to say, like we have a soul, Jesus’ soul was the Divine soul, I think there’s more to it than that. Nonetheless, Mary is the mother of the one person Jesus Christ.

You probably already know that, just making sure.

Maybe tomorrow or this weekend I’ll go back and find your main issue about God’s essence and omnipotence and try to address it. Not like it hasn’t been addressed, but I’d like to address it as well. It’s your main contention, and I’d rather address it than peripheral issues.

P.S. I’ll check out that link you provided earlier, thanks.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

dulcissima:

exoflare,

You weren’t seriously thinking he was posing this question because he was hoping to be convinced of the Trinity were you?
I think he was sincere in his objective of having an interesting
interfaith dialogue. I think this has been an interesting thread, and a good chance to reflect upon our faith.

Dulcissima is right. I didnt pose the question to be convinced, i possed it for interfaith dialogue. And im happy its been interesting for the members here and again i thank all those who engaged in the discussion.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

Reformed Rob:

I don’t have a lot to say, maybe one thing will help, it’s just an analogy, not a complex explanation. Consider fire, well, fire gives off light. We know that, I mean, I guess we would agree that the fire comes first, yet can you really separate the two, the fire and the light? The moment the fire is there, there’s the light!

Hi rob, my issue is the act of begetting, its just a distrubing thing to me to attribute to God the act of begetting, not only begetting but eternally begetting.

The act of Creating is far suprerior to the act of Begetting. God creates, humans cant create, they can only beget. Furthermore, like i said earlier, Begetting is by definition the act of producing and causing into existence, so how does one phathom God producing and causing the son to exist eternally? Actually, christians believe the Son was begotten through mary, so how do you relate that event to this theory of God begetting the Son all the time?

Anyhow, i appreciate your replies thus far and whatever you wish to reply to in the future. Lets just hope im not worn out by the time you do reply lol.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

Hi Dave,

I was trying to follow your post in where you were trying to reconcile between the St. Thomas’ words and the definition in the catholic encylopedia, i appreciate that. However Forgive me as i kinda got confused at the conclusion you were trying to make on how to understand them without them contradicting.
I understand you are saying the terms in the texts shouldnt be used in the same sense and that the context must be considered, but i think where i got lost is when you proceeded to explain what this quote meant:

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."

This quote is clearly saying God in essence is physically present in creation. It descibes God in regards to His nature and self and that his nature and self is immanent in every creature, thus through that God is conserving creation in being.

But then you proceeded to say as u explained the quote above:

This is certainly true, even of the damned in hell. Their “in other words” phrasing seems clear, and I believe what St. Thomas teaches the same. This kind of “conserving in being” is described as “common grace” instead of “santifying grace” of God.

From what i understand, when you say it refers to God’s ‘common grace’ you mean God being present through His power in sustaining and providing grace as opposed to His actual essence. However, the quote used the words ‘immanent in every creature’ to describing God’s nature. So this definately suggests omnipresence of God’s essence in everything and everywhere.

Surely even Muslims agree with God’s omnipresence with regard to his Divine effect, right?

We dont believe God to be omnipresent in essence, we believe God in essence exists above the heavens and the earth. We believe God in essence is uncreated and does not mingle with His creation. We believe God’s Essence is Perfect and infinite in nature, whereas creation is imperfect and finite in nature.

However, we also believe God is closer to us than our jegular veins (as the quran says), but that isnt by His essence but rather by His Knowledge and Power. Thus, in any company of people, God is present by His Knowledge and power, hearing and seeing, sustaining, decreeing, willing to happen, etc. God controls and has knowledge of every aspect of creation, but that doesnt mean He has to be mixed in creation with His essence in order for Him to do that.

The thing you have trouble with is how an Almighty God can exist without limits of time and space being placed upon His Divine essence.

I dont have any trouble with that if you are talking about His divine essence above creation. I have trouble with the fact someone claims God in essence is here, and over there, but not here, and not there. I am not the one putting these limits on God’s essence, whoever is claiming this about God is indirectly doing this. The clearest example of this is the claim God in essense was in Jesus. This is confining God’s essence to a human body. ANd when you go further and say God in essence was also above the heavens, you also divide God’s essence into parts. If however, you wanna say ‘you cant gasp how God’s essense was in jesus and above the heavens all at the same time, it just was and you just have to believe it’ then i guess we can leave it at that. Im just trying to illustrate that rationally it suggests tritheism and does not give a befitting perspective on how we should believe in God’s essence. And if we go further and say God in essence is omnipresent, then that opens up a whole new discussion and a whole new set of issues.

continued…

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

continued…

Can you prove that God’s essence MUST be limited in time and space?

I dont believe God’s essence is limited to time and space, and i seek refuge from attributing to God such a thing.

The human soul is not inherently immortal, but only becomes immortal by the continuous effect of God, some souls to endure eternal punishment in hell, while other souls to enjoy everlasting life in heaven. God must continuously sustain the life of each and every individual soul, else it would cease to exist. Thus, God is the source of all being, not just the starter of all existence (ie. creation), but his common grace continues to sustain all existence.

In other words, youre saying God is always sustaining us. Yes i believe that as well, and this is part of the Islamic belief regarding God, that He is the source of sustenance on all creation, not just creating it and leaving it on its own.

I think the misunderstanding was due to the way maranatha came with that statement in replying to my words, it gave me the wrong understanding.

How do Muslims understand their “science of being?” Do they accept or reject an Aristotelian view?

In Islam, we know God through His Names and Attributes as i highlighted in my earlier reply to Rob. Islam does not support greek philosophy or aristotelian views because these are not revealed teachings on how to understand God. Moreover, the big problem with them is they often contradict the revealed doctrine and suggest ways of understanding God that are heretical when compared to the revealed scripture.

Human Rationale and reasoning has a place in Islam, but it should never contradict or be become a more important source of knowledge than revelation. This is because obviously revelation is from God and is free of fault, whereas rationale is from humans and isnt free of fault. Thus, our reasoning must be in line with the revelation. AT THE SAME TIME, lets keep in mind true revelation will never teach an irrational or incomprehensible doctrine. As i said earlier about how we have to identify the truth first before having faith in something, one shouldnt believe a scripture to be true just because their emotions lead them to that direction, but that they should first weight the evidences and proofs, whether they be intellectual proofs, rational proofs, or physical proofs (ie. miracles). Once one discovers the truth, only then does he put his complete faith in it and align himself soley to its teachings.

Going back to my earlier reply to Rob once again, i made mention of a Muslim scholar named Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah. He wrote many works against greek philosophy and logic (due to it being the reason for much of the heresies of the various sects witthin Islam during his time). Some of his refutations have been translated in english in a book published by Oxford University press. Refer to store.yahoo.com/islamicbookstore-com/b4678.html for a concise description of the book

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I believe that the Athanasian Creed does a perfect job of explaining the orthodox Catholic view of the Trinity.

I also believe it is wrong to automatically assume that it should be 1+1+1=3 instead of 111=1.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Begetting of the Son was not an event in time, but an eternal relationship. So, don’t read too much into “begetting” as having to do with some event that occurred. It simply means that even prior to the dawn of time there was a Father - Son relationship within the Godhead, the Son being of the same essence as the Father. This doctrine implies two things: 1) There exists no essential subordination, as they share the same single Divine essence. 2) There does exist a hypostatic subordination, implied by the eternal Father-Son relationship. So, even prior to the Incarnation, the there existed an Eternal Divine Sonship.

Yet, these are imprecise human Words used to describe an rather indescribable God. Thus, such language will always fall short in precision. It is certainly not to be understood as begetting in the natural sense. The reason we use such wording is because the words of Sacred Scritpure and Sacred Tradition used such wording. In other words, our reason for believing this is because it has been revealed by God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… is immanent in every creature

Yes, if one understand this to mean His Divine power sustains the existence of all creation, and His power can never truly be understood as separate from His essence. However, what St. Thomas understood as Divine presence *per suum essentiam *also included the santification interiorly by grace through His essence. Catholicism does not contend that all creation is sanctified by common or natural grace, but only by supernatural or sanctifying grace.

If one omits the broader sense of presence per suum essentiam which St. Thomas implies, thereby omitting necessity of sanctification, then God is omnipresent per suum essentiam et effectum (through His essence and effect). If one includes the broader sense which St. Thomas includes, thereby including necessity of sanctification, then God is multipresent per suum essentium and omnipresent per suum effectum. Either way, God’s essence is not bound by time and place.

This is saying nothing more than God is omnipresent by natural grace, but only sanctifies that which He intends.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hellenistic philosophy is not indorsed by Christianity or by God. It simply that Christianity is a revelation that occurred in time, in human history, from Adam to Noah, to Abraham, to Jesus Christ. At the time of Christ, the mediterranian worldview was rather Hellenistic. Thus, without Divine approbation of any philosophical worldview, Christianity was initially expressed in the Judeo-Hellenistic worldview of the mediterranian region. Consequently, in order to understand the teachings of in this historical context, one needs to attempt to see these teachings from that viewpoint, then attempt to apply them to our contemporary situation.

This is no different than attempting to undrestand the historical worldview of Muhammed in order to understand what it is that he taught in the context of his historical circumstances, then attempt to apply that teaching to a new time and place.

God is no respecter of persons, so Aristotle has no indorsement by Catholicism. It was merely an accidental artifact of history that much of Catholicism is described in Aristotelian terms. Much of Aristotle’s philosophical view makes sense, just like every profane science and non-Catholic religion. However, unlike Catholicism, these profane sciences, philosophies, and non-Catholic religions only reflect a ray of truth, and are not the fullness of Divinely revealed truth.

 

[Maranatha]

Hi Hashi,

I’m sorry if I confused you by explaining something wrong. The same point was explained multiple times and I tried to explain it a different way.
Hashi Al-Eritre:

From what i understand, when you say it refers to God’s ‘common grace’ you mean God being present through His power in sustaining and providing grace as opposed to His actual essence. However, the quote used the words ‘immanent in every creature’ to describing God’s nature. So this definitely suggests omnipresence of God’s essence in everything and everywhere.

This is not to imply that God is pantheistic. When God is immanent in every part of creation He is in touch with each part of creation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church put it:

300 God is infinitely greater than all his works: "You have set your glory above the heavens."156 Indeed, God’s "greatness is unsearchable."157 But because he is the free and sovereign Creator, the first cause of all that exists, God is present to his creatures’ inmost being: "In him we live and move and have our being."158 In the words of St. Augustine, God is "higher than my highest and more inward than my innermost self."159

We don’t believe God to be omnipresent in essence, we believe God in essence exists above the heavens and the earth. We believe God in essence is uncreated and does not mingle with His creation. We believe God’s Essence is Perfect and infinite in nature, whereas creation is imperfect and finite in nature.

We believe God does not create imperfection. Imperfection is brought in to creation through God’s creature’s free will to turn away form God.

However, we also believe God is closer to us than our jugular veins (as the quran says), but that isn’t by His essence but rather by His Knowledge and Power. Thus, in any company of people, God is present by His Knowledge and power, hearing and seeing, sustaining, decreeing, willing to happen, etc. God controls and has knowledge of every aspect of creation, but that doesn’t mean He has to be mixed in creation with His essence in order for Him to do that.

I’m not really sure how He can be above creation and at the same time, without being omnipresent, be in the company of people by His knowledge and power.

I don’t have any trouble with that if you are talking about His divine essence above creation. I have trouble with the fact someone claims God in essence is here, and over there, but not here, and not there. I am not the one putting these limits on God’s essence, whoever is claiming this about God is indirectly doing this. The clearest example of this is the claim God in essence was in Jesus. This is confining God’s essence to a human body. And when you go further and say God in essence was also above the heavens, you also divide God’s essence into parts…

If God is omnipresent then He is not divided and we are not putting limits on His essence. If fact God’s omnipresent attribute unshackles His nature.

If however, you wanna say ‘you cant gasp how God’s essence was in Jesus and above the heavens all at the same time, it just was and you just have to believe it’ then i guess we can leave it at that. I’m just trying to illustrate that rationally it suggests tritheism and does not give a befitting perspective on how we should believe in God’s essence. And if we go further and say God in essence is omnipresent, then that opens up a whole new discussion and a whole new set of issues.

A word on the Christian belief in mystery. According to the Catholic Catechism, a mystery is something that could not reasoned out without revelation. It does not mean that once revealed that it in any way contradicts logic and reason.

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God."58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jimmy]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

Ascribing God with omnipresence might help in arguing for the ‘one essence’ claim of the trinity but it actually brings even more irrational concepts to the discussion.

It is not a proof of Christ’s divinity and that is not why Christ is divine. It is a characteristic of God.

If God is omnipresent in everything and you are using this argument to prove the trinity and the divinity of Jesus as God, then why not claim God is in all of us, thus ascribe divinity to everything and everyone else?

Not true, God is in everything but that doesn’t mean that everything is God. Just like your soul is in your body, but that does not make your body your soul. God is in me and you and all the good and bad things in the universe. Matter is not God, it is His creation and He transcends it.

Furthermore, if God is present in everything, but what about the filthy things of creation? what about the places of evil? what about satan and the devils? what about what is beyond our world, specifically the hellfire. is God then present in the hellfire? How can one maintain God’s perfection, Loftyness, Purity, Holyness, when omnipresence suggests all this?

God can not be limited in His presence because to God there is no such thing as space. Limiting God to some place makes Him less than infinate. It makes Him less than perfect.

Omnipresence also suggests further erroneous ideas about God:

“If God was everywhere before He created some things, then where did He create them? To say that He created them inside Himself is absurd. To say that He created them outside Himself contradicts the statement that He is everywhere. To say that God shrank to leave some space for them is absurd. At least it contradicts the assumption that He is infinite. It also leads to the absurdity that whenever anything passes out of existence God extends Himself to fill the empty space.”

Now to blow your mind with the truth about creation. To say, “before God created”, is erroneous. There was no before because God created both time and space. Before He created the universe there was no such thing as an empty space. You can look at the world and say that if something was not where it is then there would be an empty space in its place. But that can not be said about before creation. God created it ex nihil, from nothing. A protestant theologian once said, “nothingness is what sleeping rocks dream about.” Say you are standing in a vacuum with two books. If you could compress all matter to the point that there was nothing, not even empty space, between each particle, what would be between each particle? That is the closest I can get to the idea of nothing.

“Before God created…” is an erroneous statement because there was no before. God exists outside of time and is said simply to exist. To give you an idea of what I mean. In John8 Christ says, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” He uses a past verb to describe Abraham and a present verb to describe Himself. God is. Before Abraham was, God is. Before God created, He is.

“To say He created it apart from Himself…” This is not true. There is no such thing as outside God. God just exists.

“To say that God shrank to leave some space for them is absurd…” God did not need to shrink to create. God is not a spatial being.

It also leads to the absurdity that whenever anything passes out of existence God extends Himself to fill the empty space." No it doesn’t, He already exists in that empty space before it was emptied.

From the attributes of God is that He creates and fashions. He created and fashioned all of creation. God also carries the attribute of sustaining creation. God does not have to be inside his creation to have the ability to create or sustain.

He doesn’t have to do anything, but He is in His creation.

 

[Trajik]

Peace be with you all,

I am new to the forum. In fact this is my first post. I am Catholic and am very very confused on the Trinity. Please be gentle. I was fine until I made a couple of Muslim friends. Now I am totally confused. What should a Catholic or any Christian do to get a better hold on this issue or question?? I have been praying, reading scripture, praying more and more. This is my birthday and I hate to feel so dwelling on this in my head. Any help would be apreciated.

Trajik

 

[timur]

Hello my frind it would be my honor to help you. as your muslim friends had told you ,there is a big problem with the concept of trinity.dont be confused but im a muslim to,maybe you are already trying your best by actualy reading and finding answers and so on.i wont try to minimaze your faith in God becose Islam is looking the opposite.You should increse it.You should entirely devote your life and yourself to Him .There are no such things like my day or birthdays in God vocabulary THERE are no such thing like doughters or Sons.He is not created like we are ,more over He is the Creator and he runs everithing you see.you know our problem is we want answers which are easy and answers which suits us like u are trying to find from your felow cristians,but for a second forget them forget every kind of religion …and now normaly try to imagine if God is the GREATEST if He is the Creator what is the suitable way to admire Him.Do you see the stars the galaxis in perfect order do you see every single animal the trees the hevens and the earth bowing down beneth its lows and His Majesty.Then why dont you prostrate,why dont you folow Jesus path.He prostrated to ,he WAS PLEADING FOR MERCY TO>or you forgot this and remember the words paul said ,man who changed the real CRISTIANITY,The trust in ONLY ONE God.We should read a lot my friend and the answer would be closer,if you just have time to think and to read about Islam but and only without prejudice.