Three selves and one mind: Thrinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
To my understanding Trinity can be understood as three selves and one mind. By self I mean the very person who is aware of himself, his internal world (thoughts for example), his external world and can decide. Mind can be defined as the basic element of a being (God for example) that allows him to have self (or selves), create (thoughts for example) and experience (or know in the case of God). Here is the problem: Suppose that we are in a situation with at least two best options. One self could choose one option and another self could choose another which this leads to a conflict therefore the concept of Trinity is problematic. One can argue that three selves always make common decision. This is however problematic too since it is not economical (one self is enough) and it is pointless.
 
I think you’re likening this to three humans sharing one mind. God is not three selves in this way. He is one self in three persons.

Would you classify your mind, your self-reflective thoughts, and the self-love you feel as three selves or three minds? It is one self, one mind, one being.

Though all analogies, even Saint Augustine’s referenced above, is insufficient.
 
Wesrock said:
I think you’re likening this to three humans sharing one mind. God is not three selves in this way. He is one self in three persons.
Click to expand...
What do you mean with person? Could you please define it?
Wesrock said:
Would you classify your mind, your self-reflective thoughts, and the self-love you feel as three selves or three minds? It is one self, one mind, one being.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true. But I am a human being. Here we are talking about Trinity.
Wesrock said:
Though all analogies, even Saint Augustine’s referenced above, is insufficient.
Click to expand...
How do you know?
 
STT said:
What do you mean with person? Could you please define it?
Click to expand...
A perfect definition is hard to come by See this article: newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

Ultimately, the term person is derived from the Latin persona, which is used to differentiate the relations of the Godhead, which don’t “inhere” in the Godhead, but are simply part of His identity. Moving on, we don’t have a perfect word for these relations. Person, is at best, an analgous term. I might say that Sparky is a good dog, that this food tastes good, and that I am in good health, meaning different things, but communicating something that is common as well, without delving into metaphor. In that sense, person is analogous to something in God we are referring to. Or perhaps we could also just say the word is an approximation.
How do you know?
Click to expand...
All analogies I know of lead to some heresy or another if taken too literally. Partialism, Modalism, Arianism, Unitarianism. Subordinationism.
 
Wesrock said:
A perfect definition is hard to come by See this article: newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

Ultimately, the term person is derived from the Latin persona, which is used to differentiate the relations of the Godhead, which don’t “inhere” in the Godhead, but are simply part of His identity. Moving on, we don’t have a perfect word for these relations. Person, is at best, an analgous term. I might say that Sparky is a good dog, that this food tastes good, and that I am in good health, meaning different things, but communicating something that is common as well, without delving into metaphor. In that sense, person is analogous to something in God we are referring to. Or perhaps we could also just say the word is an approximation.
Click to expand...
That really didn’t help much. One God, one self and one identity so to me the best definition of person is mask worn by God given the definition of self and mind provided in OP. There is no way around this.
Wesrock said:
All analogies I know of lead to some heresy or another if taken too literally. Partialism, Modalism, Arianism, Unitarianism. Subordinationism.
Click to expand...
Unitarianism is the only valid interpretation if there is one self and one mind. There is nothing left so we could derive something meaningful from. Thanks for the references.
 
I suppose it depends on what is meant by self. If the word is used, it isn’t right to think of it as three human beings sharing one mind. What is true is that there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within God, differing only by relationship to each other, such that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit, but all three relations ewually possess the divine nature. Or…
And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
Click to expand...
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
Click to expand...
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.
Click to expand...
 
Wesrock said:
I suppose it depends on what is meant by self.
Click to expand...
That is simple. There is something which is distinct from what you experience internally (thoughts, feelings, etc) or externally (objects) which is very you. Your sense of Iness which you experience it.
Wesrock said:
If the word is used, it isn’t right to think of it as three human beings sharing one mind.
Click to expand...
That is impossible if you mean three selves by three human.
Wesrock said:
What is true is that there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within God, differing only by relationship to each other, such that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit, but all three relations ewually possess the divine nature. Or…
Click to expand...
Relation is meaningful when you have different selves. Thanks for the quotation. It doesn’t make any sense to me though.
 
Hmm… last try. The difficulty, I think, is that the words are at best approximations. We are using terms for things we are familiar with and trying to describe something completely other with those same terms.

“Self”, “person”, “hypostasis” are only approximations to help us gain understanding, but cannot give full comprehension. So the terms can be both helpful in understanding what is there, but the same terms can also be misleading if we take them 100% literally. In some ways, we can say there are three selves. But not if by self we mean separate, individual beings, while also not simply calling them different aspects or faces that God can put on.

It seems like all the major heresies stem from wanting to model God as something we can fully comprehend. A model is given as an approximation that falls short, but is then taken too strictly and God is reduced to something comprehensible. They all over-rationalize the idea of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 🤷
 
Wesrock said:
Hmm… last try. The difficulty, I think, is that the words are at best approximations. We are using terms for things we are familiar with and trying to describe something completely other with those same terms.

“Self”, “person”, “hypostasis” are only approximations to help us gain understanding, but cannot give full comprehension. So the terms can be both helpful in understanding what is there, but the same terms can also be misleading if we take them 100% literally. In some ways, we can say there are three selves. But not if by self we mean separate, individual beings, while also not simply calling them different aspects or faces that God can put on.

It seems like all the major heresies stem from wanting to model God as something we can fully comprehend. A model is given as an approximation that falls short, but is then taken too strictly and God is reduced to something comprehensible. They all over-rationalize the idea of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 🤷
Click to expand...
What if what you accepted is an illogical concept?

To me things are simple: There are three things which form a being (mind): Self, internal world and external world. Three persons requires three selves otherwise we are talking about one being and one person. You however cannot unite three selves as it is reasoned in OP.
 
STT said:
What if what you accepted is an illogical concept?

To me things are simple: There are three things which form a being (mind): Self, internal world and external world. Three persons requires three selves otherwise we are talking about one being and one person. You however cannot unite three selves as it is reasoned in OP.
Click to expand...
The flaw is that you’re applying your knowledge of finite things to an infinite thing. You see how something is in man, and assume that the same relationship exists in God. Man thinks discursively, therefore God thinks discursively. In men one nature is possessed by only one person, therefore in God one nature is possessed by only one person. But the therefores here are assumptions that don’t necessarily follow. Nor is it a contradiction that God’s manner of existence is not the same as man’s manner of existence. The Trinity is not a statement that 3=1. It’s not arithmetic. It says that three distinct, but not separate, persons totally possess the one divine nature. And person and nature are not equivalent. The person is who I am, the nature is what I am. I am not saying that three persons are in one person, or that there are three natures in one nature. THOSE would be contradictions. The Trinitarian only states that there are three persons in one nature. There’s no claim that 3=1 or 1=3. Simply recognize that person and nature are not the same, and that it does not necessarily follow that a relationship among finite things (one person in one nature) applies to a relationship among the infinite.
 
Wesrock said:
The flaw is that you’re applying your knowledge of finite things to an infinite thing. You see how something is in man, and assume that the same relationship exists in God. Man thinks discursively, therefore God thinks discursively. In men one nature is possessed by only one person, therefore in God one nature is possessed by only one person. But the therefores here are assumptions that don’t necessarily follow. Nor is it a contradiction that God’s manner of existence is not the same as man’s manner of existence.
Click to expand...
No, what I presented is basic and it very general (it apply to any being): There are three things which form a being (mind): Self, internal world and external world. I am open to discuss it with you further.
Wesrock said:
The Trinity is not a statement that 3=1. It’s not arithmetic. It says that three distinct, but not separate, persons totally possess the one divine nature. And person and nature are not equivalent. The person is who I am, the nature is what I am.
Click to expand...
Why do you disagree that the person by definition is the self considering the bold part? There is of course the problem with three united selves as it is discussed in OP.
Wesrock said:
I am not saying that three persons are in one person, or that there are three natures in one nature. THOSE would be contradictions. The Trinitarian only states that there are three persons in one nature. There’s no claim that 3=1 or 1=3. Simply recognize that person and nature are not the same, and that it does not necessarily follow that a relationship among finite things (one person in one nature) applies to a relationship among the infinite.
Click to expand...
Well, you have been discussing about the topic which means that you can understand something. Three person (selves) and one nature is logically impossible.
 
STT said:
Well, you have been discussing about the topic which means that you can understand something. Three person (selves) and one nature is logically impossible.
Click to expand...
You appeal to your knowledge of finite things, including human beings.
 
Wesrock said:
You appeal to your knowledge of finite things, including human beings.
Click to expand...
What does it mean that God is infinite? Why should He be? How being infinite allows logical impossibility? I have a thread on this topic in here.
 
The trinitarian makes no claim for logical impossibility in God. Only that you are wrong in leaping to the conclusion that one nature being totally possessed by one person applies to all possible beings instead of just finite beings. As person and nature are not equivalent terms, there is no claim that three equals one or one equals three.

By infinite, we refer to unconditioned reality or unconditioned existence. We are familiar with existence being in this mode or that mode, such that what something is different from the fact that it is. We are familiar with conditioned reality. What we refer to as God is simply existence. He is that He is.

Even for the mystics who prefer not even to say that much, saying that as an incomprehensible being there is nothing comprehensible to say about what He is, the point is that He an ontological reality/existence transcending our concepts of existing, being, etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top