Why are there not 3 substances in God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ahimsa said:
I would be careful with taking “substance” literally, especially when someone claims that God is a “substance”. According to the most profound teachings of the Church, God is beyond “substance”.
Click to expand...
Whoa, are you reading my mind?

Awesome response and excellent timing!
 
jochoa said:
I would like to try once more, if you will consider:

I believe the error is in your phrasing and wording. Initially, you state[paraphrased by me], “Why are there not 3 substances in 1 being?”
Next you you attempt to justify[paraphrased by me], “1 substance equals 1 God.”

I would be cautious with word play. It creates confusion. Ex. Chihuahua=Dog, Bulldog=Dog, therefore Chihuahua=Bulldog

Following the same thinking applied to God.
God the Holy Spirit’s form has at least three substances: The Bible, Transfiguration, Beauty/Awesomeness of the physical universe and all its substances.
That would mean the substance of God is comprised of uncountable substances, and that is only counting the substances of the substance’s (God) substance (Holy Spirit)!

For simplicity, go to your initial statement [paraphrased], " There are 3 substances (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in 1 Being.(God).

I hope this helps, and I definitely look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks for the thought-provoking assignment!
Click to expand...
A couple of points:
  1. going to the “Chihuahua=bullldog” problem, that only works if there are terms in the equality which are equal only in an equivocal sense. For instance, Chihuahuas are equal to some dogs, and bulldogs are equal to some dogs, so it isn’t necessarily true that they are equal to each other unless chichuahuas are equal to all dogs and bulldogs are equal to all dogs too. Just in the same way that a=b=c so a=c is correct only as long as we take the meaning of b to be all b instead of a meaning which is different depending from what POV you take (either the POV of a or c).
    I don’t think we encounter the same problem in the Trinity though, because we tend to say that indeed, the relations are all truly real and distinct, they are not real/distinct depending on what POV you take and they are all truly God again, no matter what POV you take. So here substance, God, being, etc. are all univocally applied to all the members of the Trinity. This brings up some further problems, but the one to be tackled is how, in light of this, do we again not infer 3 “substances” (knowing that the word substance is applied to God in an unequal manner -just as any name for Him is applied) from the transitive property? Or what comes to the same thing, how can 3 things -all truly and honestly the same, not have the same properties and so be 3 totally equal “substances” or Gods?
  2. God is supremely simple so I don’t think that we can say that the Holy Spirit is a substance with other substances in it. There are no parts to God.
 
I’d recommend reading Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity

It’s expensive to purchase but you can borrow it for free though inter-library loan
 
fakename said:
In general the question still remains -why doesn’t three things (relations) which inhere in a substance, and which are all themselves substances, not three substances?

A better question would be how can three things which are all substance, not be three substances?

So far the other replies have just repeated what I already knew -but this specific question is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Fakename:

I know that there is a better explanation, but, I tend to relate it to the nature of infinity. There cannot be multiple infinities. One infinity precludes (displaces - but, where to?) all others. So, if we say that God is Infinite, and we say that Jesus is Infinite, and finally we say that the Holy Ghost is Infinite, what we are saying is that they are all the self-same Infinity.

God bless,
jd
 
fakename said:
A couple of points:
  1. going to the “Chihuahua=bullldog” problem, that only works if there are terms in the equality which are equal only in an equivocal sense. For instance, Chihuahuas are equal to some dogs, and bulldogs are equal to some dogs, so it isn’t necessarily true that they are equal to each other unless chichuahuas are equal to all dogs and bulldogs are equal to all dogs too. Just in the same way that a=b=c so a=c is correct only as long as we take the meaning of b to be all b instead of a meaning which is different depending from what POV you take (either the POV of a or c).
    I don’t think we encounter the same problem in the Trinity though, because we tend to say that indeed, the relations are all truly real and distinct, they are not real/distinct depending on what POV you take and they are all truly God again, no matter what POV you take. So here substance, God, being, etc. are all univocally applied to all the members of the Trinity. This brings up some further problems, but the one to be tackled is how, in light of this, do we again not infer 3 “substances” (knowing that the word substance is applied to God in an unequal manner -just as any name for Him is applied) from the transitive property? Or what comes to the same thing, how can 3 things -all truly and honestly the same, not have the same properties and so be 3 totally equal “substances” or Gods?
  2. God is supremely simple so I don’t think that we can say that the Holy Spirit is a substance with other substances in it. There are no parts to God.
Click to expand...
I will attempt to explain something which expresses my understanding. It is new, although I think something new is required. It will not be easy, so thankyou for any patience.

We know or are given to understand that God is Love. Included in this belief is the Love within the Trinity among the three persons, of the Trinity.

Love is not static, in other words the Love within the Trinity would most certainly nullify a God
to be understood at “rest”. Since the Divine nature of the Trinity is not at rest within its existing perimeter, it may be held that God, including all three persons is an eternal changing, evolving process of Love within itself.

What then comprises God, is the above wholeness in …The Loving Trinity.

Within the existence of God, the three individual persons are "of " the same substance by means… of the above explained nature in The Loving Trinity.

The Holy Spirit, we learn is the Love between the Father and The Son. The Holy Spirit then
represents a radiating consequence, from and of …the same substance.

Each of The Three, of the same substance(God)… by…virtue of the ongoing nature of the substance only. Love.

Affording seperate individual Gods due to substance, denys the integrity
of the substance of Pure God Love itself within and about the three persons. It would be the active Love within the Trinity which then unfolds, the whole nature of… "God "

God IS Love.

IS, representing non-rest.

An eternal, infinite, changing and evolving process, within the God’s perimeter of existence.
 
FurtherSuntime said:
I will attempt to explain something which expresses my understanding. It is new, although I think something new is required. It will not be easy, so thankyou for any patience.

We know or are given to understand that God is Love. Included in this belief is the Love within the Trinity among the three persons, of the Trinity.

Love is not static, in other words the Love within the Trinity would most certainly nullify a God
to be understood at “rest”. Since the Divine nature of the Trinity is not at rest within its existing perimeter, it may be held that God, including all three persons is an eternal changing, evolving process of Love within itself.

What then comprises God, is the above wholeness in …The Loving Trinity.

Within the existence of God, the three individual persons are "of " the same substance by means… of the above explained nature in The Loving Trinity.

The Holy Spirit, we learn is the Love between the Father and The Son. The Holy Spirit then
represents a radiating consequence, from and of …the same substance.

Each of The Three, of the same substance(God)… by…virtue of the ongoing nature of the substance only. Love.

Affording seperate individual Gods due to substance, denys the integrity
of the substance of Pure God Love itself within and about the three persons. It would be the active Love within the Trinity which then unfolds, the whole nature of… "God "

God IS Love.

IS, representing non-rest.

An eternal, infinite, changing and evolving process, within the God’s perimeter of existence.
Click to expand...
Here, though if God were not in eternal rest He would be composed of act and potential which goes against His supreme nobility -for nothing noble in some category is changeable in that category. But God (although above categories, still He is knowable via analogical description) is in fact the noblest being analogically, and so He is probably even nobler than we can ever know. This means that He is especially not composed of act and potential but must be pure act or what comes to the same, in unchanged realization.

So again God cannot be in evolution. The Love of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the other persons, but the procession in God is of a roughly simultaneous nature -for “to proceed” means to issue from some principle. And the more something issues from something, the more that thing is the same as the original. And since the persons issue perfectly from each other, then they are as unchanging as each other.

So the Love is not changeable but is unchanging and expresses the similarity between Father and Son -a similarity which is due to their perfect procession from each other and dependent in a way, on their unchangeableness.

Sorry for the long post.
 
Would you please state the definition of substance you are using?
 
fakename said:
Here, though if God were not in eternal rest He would be composed of act and potential which goes against His supreme nobility -for nothing noble in some category is changeable in that category. But God (although above categories, still He is knowable via analogical description) is in fact the noblest being analogically, and so He is probably even nobler than we can ever know. This means that He is especially not composed of act and potential but must be pure act or what comes to the same, in unchanged realization.

So again God cannot be in evolution. The Love of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the other persons, but the procession in God is of a roughly simultaneous nature -for “to proceed” means to issue from some principle. And the more something issues from something, the more that thing is the same as the original. And since the persons issue perfectly from each other, then they are as unchanging as each other.

So the Love is not changeable but is unchanging and expresses the similarity between Father and Son -a similarity which is due to their perfect procession from each other and dependent in a way, on their unchangeableness.

Sorry for the long post.
Click to expand...
Great!!! Now we can simplify as per your previous requirement and zero in on target.with attention to all required understandings …keenly noted above.

It would be fair and reasonable to consider a perpetual… realized potential…

A perfect state of infinitely realized Love…An unfolding process in a perfect state.

The state of un-rest, would then capture the nobility of God within its perfect always actualized
Love… or pure consciousness. An evolving existence, which continuously actualizes and realizes its potential.

The perpetual flower then, always blooming without loosing the integrity of its classification.👍

The proceeding of The Holy Spirit, radiates the essence and is God, distinguishable in its
aroma of perfect origin.

As you remark …
“And the more something issues from something, the more that thing is the same as the original.”

As the Holy Spirit issues from the God-Head always blooming flower, man draws in
the aroma of God himself, then it is man …who then grows toward “the same as the original”

The aroma, radiating perpetually. Always available to join, the genuine Love within ourselves as God can do nothing but… know, pure consciousness… or Love.

The nobility in the nature of God is then the genuine God sharing within itself . A perfect process

Charity then… reflects and represents the received nature of God himself.

Creation then in direct conformity with the essence of The Trinity.

Gravity, Strong force and weak…The Three fundemental Forces of the Universe.

It would be interesting to discover if Gravity cannot exist without perpetuating the other two forces simutanuosly. Apparently there is strong indication of super particle participation at sub atomic levels in Gravity. Gravity being the neccesary in a Universe. Can thinking help science for a change…? Unification is the big ticket on the table presently
 
substance=a thing that can exist in itself. But as applied to God it simply means God’s essence.
Click to expand...
So then there are 3 substances in 1 essence.

I greatly appreciated this discussion. Thanks for the consideration! May you have a good day and may peace be with you!
 
jochoa said:
So then there are 3 substances in 1 essence.

I greatly appreciated this discussion. Thanks for the consideration! May you have a good day and may peace be with you!
Click to expand...
The problem is of course, that applied to God, substance means essence -for He is who Exists. Therefore there are 3 Gods -which is absurd.
 
fakename said:
The problem is of course, that applied to God, substance means essence -for He is who Exists. Therefore there are 3 Gods -which is absurd.
Click to expand...
I think these are wonderings caused by assuming The Will of God is similar to the human will.

To have a human will, is to require something. Will itself is want, is it not? Why would a God be in want , unless there is something which he cannot acquire without… the desire of want itself.?

So yes there are three Gods which comprise the One God. Its not absurd because the nature of this God is very simple. Simple in the “absence” of need or desire. Theres no mental division .

All Loving and acceptance (period)

I think this makes sense.

As well trying to draw God on a flat piece of paper doesn’t seem to be the rational approach… Assuming a God exists, dimension in existing nature, or at least a huge difference between man and God would most certainly exist. No doubt about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top