The Trinity - One in Act, Three in Potency?

[TheLearner]

I recently stumbled across something I don’t know if it is a proper representation of Christian trinitarian metaphysics, in Averroes’ “Incoherence of the incoherence”.

He writes as follows:

“(…) This is the doctrine of the Christians concerning the three hypostases in the divine Nature. They do not believe that they are attributes additional to the essence, but according to them they are only a plurality in the definition-they are a potential, not an actual, plurality. Therefore they say that the three are one, i. e. one in act and three in potency (?).”

So, did Averroes get it right, or did he misrepresent Christian teaching?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I recently stumbled across something I don’t know if it is a proper representation of Christian trinitarian metaphysics, in Averroes’ “Incoherence of the incoherence”.

He writes as follows:

“(…) This is the doctrine of the Christians concerning the three hypostases in the divine Nature. They do not believe that they are attributes additional to the essence, but according to them they are only a plurality in the definition-they are a potential, not an actual, plurality. Therefore they say that the three are one, i. e. one in act and three in potency (?).”

So, did Averroes get it right, or did he misrepresent Christian teaching?

If one in act means all three person act together, this is true. If three in potency means three in separate power or authority, this might also be true. The Son and the Holy Spirit appear to submit to the authority of the Father, so there is a hierarchy, with the Father as the authority over the other two. Whether the Son has authority over the Holy Spirit is not clear.

Now, though what the author says is true, he draws the wrong conclusion. What he says might be true of the Trinity, but it is not the definition of the Trinity. The Trinity is that God is one in essence, but three in person. That is God is one what in three whos. There is only one true God, but in the one essence of the one true God there are three minds, each mind being aware of, and communicating with, and in full agreement with, the other two minds. You and i each have one person to our one being. God has three persons to His one being.

 

[PJM]

=TheLearner;5607981]I recently stumbled across something I don’t know if it is a proper representation of Christian trinitarian metaphysics, in Averroes’ “Incoherence of the incoherence”.

He writes as follows:

“(…) This is the doctrine of the Christians concerning the three hypostases in the divine Nature. They do not believe that they are attributes additional to the essence, but according to them they are only a plurality in the definition-they are a potential, not an actual, plurality. Therefore they say that the three are one, i. e. one in act and three in potency (?).”

So, did Averroes get it right, or did he misrepresent Christian teaching?

One God = three persons [acts if you will] sharing but one unified and unseperatable Nature. What one wills, all will, what one thinks, all think, what one does, all do.

Easy for God, hard for us to understand.

 

[TheLearner]

Averroes is clear that Christians consider God one in essence, and three in hypostasis/persons. But that doesn’t settle the question of whether “one in act” and “three in potency” is a correct look at the one essence and the three hypostases.

 

[JimG]

I think the use of the phrase “three in potency” is misleading. I have heard it said that in God, there is no potency, only act.

Neither is there subordination within the persons of the Trinity, rather all are equal in majesty, because each person is God by reason of possessing and acting from, the one divine nature. Father, Son, and Spirit, are not distinct in nature. The nature is one.

 

[TheLearner]

I think the use of the phrase “three in potency” is misleading. I have heard it said that in God, there is no potency, only act.

True. But doesn’t that have more to do with the divine essence? There is no potency in the divine essence, only act. But there could still be a “hypostatic potency” for receiving the Divine Essence. It seems to qualify for a “potency” that the Son can receive the deity of the Father, because if he couldn’t, then he wouldn’t be God. Thus the Son has the potency for receiving the deity of the Father, and this potency makes it necessary that it happens because there is only pure act in the Divine Essence, and no unrealised potency?

 

[PJM]

=TheLearner-Averroes is clear that Christians consider God one in essence, and three in hypostasis/persons. But that doesn’t settle the question of whether “one in act” and “three in potency” is a correct look at the one essence and the three hypostases.

Here is the M-W Dictionary defination for “potency”
1 a : force, power b : the quality or state of being potent c : the ability or capacity to achieve or bring about a particular result

***Given this defination and understanding “act” as

"1 a : the doing of a thing : deed b : something done voluntarily
2 : a state of real existence rather than possibility
3 : the formal product of a legislative body : statute; also : a decision or determination of a sovereign, a legislative council, or a court of justice
4 : the process of doing : action

---

**I’m having difficulty understanding the defination of three in potency but one in act.

Yes each can quasi independently cause or Will a result, which will be affirmed and accepted by all Three Persons, but as they have but a single Divine Nature, what one wills is Naturally willed by all.

Love and prayers,**

 

[TheLearner]

Here is the M-W Dictionary defination for “potency”
1 a : force, power b : the quality or state of being potent c : the ability or capacity to achieve or bring about a particular result

***Given this defination and understanding “act” as

"1 a : the doing of a thing : deed b : something done voluntarily
2 : a state of real existence rather than possibility
3 : the formal product of a legislative body : statute; also : a decision or determination of a sovereign, a legislative council, or a court of justice
4 : the process of doing : action

---

I’m having difficulty understanding the defination of three in potency but one in act.

Yes each can quasi independently cause or Will a result, which will be affirmed and accepted by all Three Persons, but as they have but a single Divine Nature, what one wills is Naturally willed by all.

Love and prayers,

“Potency” is to be understood in the Aristotelian framework of the Actus et Potentia distinction.

You can read here: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Actus_et_Potentia

 

[Katholish]

I recently stumbled across something I don’t know if it is a proper representation of Christian trinitarian metaphysics, in Averroes’ “Incoherence of the incoherence”.

He writes as follows:

“(…) This is the doctrine of the Christians concerning the three hypostases in the divine Nature. They do not believe that they are attributes additional to the essence, but according to them they are only a plurality in the definition-they are a potential, not an actual, plurality. Therefore they say that the three are one, i. e. one in act and three in potency (?).”

So, did Averroes get it right, or did he misrepresent Christian teaching?

Averroes is incorrect. There is absolutely no potency in God. Potency and Act also primarily refer to powers, but the Trinity of Persons is not in regard to powers.

Averroes did not have the benefit of reading Thomas’s Treatise on the Trinity, specifically the section of the Summa on real relations. Before Thomas, there was a good deal of confusion about the philosophical basis of the Trinity, and it is possible that Averroes picked up something another Christian author had said, but that author would be incorrect (I doubt it was a malicious misrepresentation on the part of Averroes).

 

[TheLearner]

Averroes is incorrect. There is absolutely no potency in God. Potency and Act also primarily refer to powers, but the Trinity of Persons is not in regard to powers.

Averroes did not have the benefit of reading Thomas’s Treatise on the Trinity, specifically the section of the Summa on real relations. Before Thomas, there was a good deal of confusion about the philosophical basis of the Trinity, and it is possible that Averroes picked up something another Christian author had said, but that author would be incorrect (I doubt it was a malicious misrepresentation on the part of Averroes).

Have you considered my proposal?:

There is no potency in the divine essence, only act. But there could still be a “hypostatic potency” for receiving the Divine Essence. It seems to qualify for a “potency” that the Son can receive the deity of the Father, because if he couldn’t, then he wouldn’t be God. Thus the Son has the potency for receiving the deity of the Father, and this potency makes it necessary that it happens because there is only pure act in the Divine Essence, and no unrealised potency?

 

[Katholish]

Sorry, hadn’t seen it when I made my original post.

I have to strongly disagree with it though. Your theory implies that the son somehow receives divinity which cannot be correct as divinity by nature is not fully (though perhaps partially) transmissible. The theory also implies a difference in nature between Father and Son. The Son is God, He is not a subject which can “receive” divine nature because that implies a difference between is essence and existence. The difference of persons is a relational difference and while it is true that the Son is begotten or generated by the Father, this is not an act of creation.

 

[JimG]

True. But doesn’t that have more to do with the divine essence? There is no potency in the divine essence, only act. But there could still be a “hypostatic potency” for receiving the Divine Essence. It seems to qualify for a “potency” that the Son can receive the deity of the Father, because if he couldn’t, then he wouldn’t be God. Thus the Son has the potency for receiving the deity of the Father, and this potency makes it necessary that it happens because there is only pure act in the Divine Essence, and no unrealised potency?

If, as is the case, there is only pure act in the Divine Essence, then any potency that the son has to receive the deity of the Father must immediately be realized. But since there is not passage of time with God (including in the generation of the Son and Holy Spirit), there would never have been an instant in which the Son had only the potency and not the act.

I view the Persons of the trinity rather as the inevitable and eternal expression of the divine essence.

 

[TheLearner]

I have to strongly disagree with it though. Your theory implies that the son somehow receives divinity which cannot be correct as divinity by nature is not fully (though perhaps partially) transmissible.

Well, what I said is pretty much orthodox Christian doctrine, isn’t it? The Son is begotten of the Father; receives his deity from the Father, because the Father is the one who gives the deity to the Son and the Spirit.

The theory also implies a difference in nature between Father and Son.

No. The Son (and the Spirit alike) receive the deity/essence of the Father, meaning there is no difference in nature, only in relationality between who receives and who gives.

while it is true that the Son is begotten or generated by the Father, this is not an act of creation.

Not of “creation”, no; because the Divine Essence is uncreated.

 

[TheLearner]

If, as is the case, there is only pure act in the Divine Essence, then any potency that the son has to receive the deity of the Father must immediately be realized. But since there is not passage of time with God (including in the generation of the Son and Holy Spirit), there would never have been an instant in which the Son had only the potency and not the act.

True. But then, there would never have been a moment where the Son was not begotten, yet we can speak of the Son as begotten, relationally. Could we not also speak of the three persons as three relational potencies (e.g. there is no potency for any further persons)? Or perhaps, then, it’s better to say they are three hypostatic/relational actualities, and that there are no hypostatic potencies.

In that sense, God is one in actual essence, and three in actual hypostases. Not three in potency.

 

[JimG]

In that sense, God is one in actual essence, and three in actual hypostases. Not three in potency.

Sounds OK to me, although I’m not enough of a philosopher to explicate ‘three actual hypostases.’

 

[TheLearner]

Sounds OK to me, although I’m not enough of a philosopher to explicate ‘three actual hypostases.’

Hypostasis means person. I meant three actual hypostases, as opposed to the “three in potency” of Averroes.

 

[Katholish]

TheLearner,

Well, what I said is pretty much orthodox Christian doctrine, isn’t it? The Son is begotten of the Father; receives his deity from the Father, because the Father is the one who gives the deity to the Son and the Spirit.

I don’t think it is. There is no “reception” in the process of generation. Reception implies a subject who receives, which is not what the divine Persons are. By saying that the Father gives the divine essence, it implies a seperate instance of that essence which is incompatible with divinity. Not only does the Father have the sme kind of essence as the Son, but it is the same instance of that essence. Father and Son are the same “thing” (i.e. instance of a nature or essence or substance).

I think your intention is orthodox, but I don’t think the phrase “receives deity” is orthodox nor does it lend itself to an orthodox interpretation.

 

[TheLearner]

I don’t think it is. There is no “reception” in the process of generation. Reception implies a subject who receives, which is not what the divine Persons are.

It may have been a little awkward wording. But the subject who is generated (the Son) is eternally generated, and so, exists eternally, and so, exists as a person in the deity eternally, but is generated by the Father, and would not exist in the deity without the Father. That’s all I meant with “receive”.

By saying that the Father gives the divine essence, it implies a seperate instance of that essence which is incompatible with divinity. Not only does the Father have the sme kind of essence as the Son, but it is the same instance of that essence. Father and Son are the same “thing” (i.e. instance of a nature or essence or substance).

The Father and Son are the same essence, yes, but not the same instance of that essence. The only kind of instances of the Divine Essence that exist are hypostases/persons, and they are not the same hypostasis/person.

Or maybe it’s more correct to say that there is only one instance of the divine essence in that there is only one divine essence; but that there are several hypostases/persons in the divine essence.

 

[TheLearner]

It may have been a little awkward wording. But the subject who is generated (the Son) is eternally generated, and so, exists eternally, and so, exists as a person in the deity eternally, but is generated by the Father, and would not exist in the deity without the Father. That’s all I meant with “receive”.

The Father and Son are the same essence, yes, but not the same instance of that essence. The only kind of instances of the Divine Essence that exist are hypostases/persons, and they are not the same hypostasis/person.

Or maybe it’s more correct to say that there is only one instance of the divine essence in that there is only one divine essence; but that there are several hypostases/persons in the divine essence.

In fact, I think I came to grips with an important question here.

That question is:

Are the persons objects within the Divine Essence, or are they objects that possess/are of the Divine Essence?

 

[Katholish]

Or maybe it’s more correct to say that there is only one instance of the divine essence in that there is only one divine essence; but that there are several hypostases/persons in the divine essence.

Correct. Only one substance means only one instance of that nature or essence.

It may have been a little awkward wording. But the subject who is generated (the Son) is eternally generated, and so, exists eternally, and so, exists as a person in the deity eternally, but is generated by the Father, and would not exist in the deity without the Father. That’s all I meant with “receive”.

I would agree with this wording. The reason why I objected to “receive” is because all forms of reception involve potentiality, which does not exist in God, so if I maintain that there is no potentiality in God, I must necessarily oppose any sort of reception.

Generation or Spiration do not involve a move from potentiality to act. Because Father, Son, and Spirit are relational as oppsed to substantial differences, they only can be spoken of seperately in relation to each other. You can think even about the human relation between Father and Son. We can say that a “man” has the potential to have a child, but we cannot say that a “father” has the potential to have a child (except insofar as he can have more than one), but the very term “father” necessarily has referrence to a child. It must be an actual relation in order to call him “father” in the first place and not merely a potential relation. Likewise with the Trinity, even have a bad tendency to think of the Father as “God” and the Son as something else that shares in being God. “God” refers to all three - without distinction. The “Father” does not “exist” (or cannot be spoken of) except in relation to the Son.