Why are there three Persons in God? Why not more? and related questions

[JimG]

But back to the Trinity. In the traditional manner of speaking, God has the faculties of intellect and will. The Word fully and completely expresses God’s knowing—knowing himself so fully that not even personhood is lacking in His knowledge. And the mutual love between Father and Son so fully expresses that act of the will that it is expressed fully and completely as a Person.

My own thought is that the act of knowing which generates the Son, and the act of love which spirates the Holy Spirit are so full and complete (as they must be) that no further generation or spiration is possible: it would in fact be a defect, indicating that something was incomplete in the original acts. And that would be impossible with God.

 

[Steve40]

1. Did God “have” to exist in a Trinity?

If so, why did the Nature of God require only three Persons, why not four or an infinite number?

1. If the Father is the Lover, and the Son is the Beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of love from the Father and the Son, why isn’t their a fourth Person who is generated from the love of the three Persons?
2. Also, if the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of love between the Father and the Son how isnt He composed of two Persons? What I mean is the basic philosophy I understand is that the Son is the “thought” of God the Father, and because He is perfect, the thought is Personified as the Son.

Now, if that thought is Personified to beget one Person (the Son), how is the perfect love from the Father and the Son restricted to form only one other Person (the Holy Spirit)? The love of the Father is perfect as is the Son’s love. So why wasn’t two Persons formed from the outpouring of the Father and the Son?

1. Is this why (question 3) the Orthodox church believes the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father?

Btw, questions 2 and 3 are similar, but not exactly the same.

The concept of quantity and multiplication is a part of Creation. God created mathematics and logic, so it makes sense that His existance would not be bound by it. He is Three and One at the same “time”. The question of God being the quantity four instead of three is asked within the context of four having meaning with respect to three.

Since four being four with respect to three is a part of creation it is not very helpful in describing the Existence of SomeOne Who Is not just a part of creation. Similarly, our understanding or logic in understanding God Being One and God Being Three is out side logic i.e. outside creation.

The short answer is that the concept of four with respect to three does not exist without creation and the Creator, Who Is Three and Who Is One.

 

[MH84]

Laywoman, actually. But thank you.

Would you mind engaging with my post a bit more? I am curious to hear what you got out of my points and what you feel still needs to be addressed. I am happy to have provided “hints” but I am eager to help further if I can

Usagi

Okay.

Well, in your first point you seem to be providing an apolegetic type response to the divinity of Christ, that each Person fully possesses the divine Nature, and a general apolegetic as to why the Holy Spirit is God. Now this is good, but they would be more suited to some of the other threads that I have posted.

Now, if you look at the OP I am asking why is God “limiting” Himself to three Persons. I am asking why did the eternal existence of the Trinity stop at three and why would a fourth or more Person(s) not be optimal or Perfect as well.

On the face of it, maybe if I was an atheist who never heard about Christianity, I would think that the divine Creator would either be One God/One Person, One God/Infinite Persons or infinite Gods.

Usagi, I definately agree with your observation that the analogy of Lover/Beloved/Love is not adequate because that is, what I would call, an after-the-fact type view of the Blessed Trinity. While it does shed light on our understanding of God it doesnt really answer question 3.

And in a limited way the analogy of Lover/Beloved/Love only answers question 2. It is limited if one would be correct in saying that God existed “before” love, i.e. Love resulted from God and not vice versa. Without God, love would exist. Love is dependent on the existence of God.

I could be wrong, but I dont think we can say God exists in a Trinity because He is Love. Because as I said above, because God as the Creator in effect made Love…“love” didnt make God; or, God is not made up of “love”.

 

[MH84]

Erose:

The reason for only 3 is that it is complete. Lover, Beloved, & Love.

This might be the answer. How amazingly succinct. But what do you think of the points in post #32.

One of the ways you need to change your view of God is that there is no time in God. God has no history. No beginning, no end, no change. The Son and Spirit have always been and always will be. So the best way to evaluate this that that the Son is eternally generated or begotten from the Father and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. Anyway one way to look at the Son is that the Son is the Focus of the Father’s Love. This Focus has alway been and alway will be and vice versa. The Father is the Focus of the Son’s Love as well.

Btw, I think you misunderstood me in your other responses in post #24. For instance, I know that the the Son was begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds from all eternity.

P1) God is LOVE.

Refer to my above post (32). Isnt love contingent on there being a God in the first place? I don’t think its right to say that for God to be love (or to have perfect love) means that He must exist in a plurality of Persons. I could be wrong though.

C1) God the person must love another person.

In C1), arent you saying that God loves another god? Who is “God the Person”?

If you mean God the Father, why do you refer only to Him with the title of “God”? Is the Father more worthy than the Son and the Holy Spirit to be called “God” without extra clarification, i.e. …Father, …the Son, …the Holy Spirit? If so, this undermines the concept of co-equality of the Trinity doesn’t it? Because all three Persons are “God” without rank.

It would be like you and me standing in a room, and someone else called to us, “Hey, you human!”. You and I would not know who that person was addressing would we, because we are both equally human.

It bothers me that a lot of Christians, I myself as well admittedly, call the Father, God as if He is the only God.

Anyway…

C2) Since God needs nothing outside of Himself and God is perfect love then God must be a plural person being.

How does God not needing nothing outside of Him and Him being perfect love mean that He consists of three Persons? Why must that be the logical conclusion? Can’t a one Person god love himself fully and perfectly?

 

[catharina]

How does God not needing nothing outside of Him and Him being perfect love mean that He consists of three Persons? Why must that be the logical conclusion? Can’t a one Person god love himself fully and perfectly?

The only adequate answer is that the Holy Trinity exists
as a matter of revelation, not as a matter of explanation/conclusion.

 

[MH84]

The only adequate answer is that the Holy Trinity exists
as a matter of revelation, not as a matter of explanation/conclusion.

No, it isnt the only adequate answer. If you were an atheist, agnostic, general non-believer, JW, Christadelphian, Mormon, INC, etc etc who was considering joining Catholicism or other forms of Trinitarian Christianity you would want to see at least that the doctrine is acceptable to reason.

Another reason why your post is inaccurate is that there were so many heresies and debate in the Church itself about who God is and who Jesus is. Look on wikipedia or NewAdvent at all the heresies and different beliefs that were in existence among Christians.

Finally, just because the Trinitarian doctrine is easy for you to see and believe, it doesnt mean others don’t have questions or want to no more about the doctrine and to look for more evidence about it (the doctrine) taught by the Church.

 

[MH84]

Apparently, I have heard as well that the majority of the bishops at the Nicene council actually supported Arius. I myself have read that St. Athanasius had more support. But their was apparently some controversy in the whole matter. Maybe Athanasius had the support of Constantine and you can then imagine the politics behind the matter. All of Arius’ documents were then destroyed after the decision of the Council.

Another group I didnt mention in my last post was the Muslims. They have a love and fear of God, but they obviously don’t believe in the Blessed Trinity. Obviously, they can’t see it, or they won’t or whatever.

At the end of the day life’s decisions are not that clear to everyone.

Catharina, please pray for me that I may believe like you believe. And to have the faith that I need to be closer to Him.

 

[catharina]

No, it isnt the only adequate answer. If you were an atheist, agnostic, general non-believer, JW, Christadelphian, Mormon, INC, etc etc who was considering joining Catholicism or other forms of Trinitarian Christianity you would want to see at least that the doctrine is acceptable to reason.

Another reason why your post is inaccurate is that there were so many heresies and debate in the Church itself about who God is and who Jesus is. Look on wikipedia or NewAdvent at all the heresies and different beliefs that were in existence among Christians.

Finally, just because the Trinitarian doctrine is easy for you to see and believe, it doesnt mean others don’t have questions or want to no more about the doctrine and to look for more evidence about it (the doctrine) taught by the Church.

As long ago as Augustine’s day, many looked to understand the Trinity. Legend has said that Augustine indulged in this question at length until one day, on the beach, he was approached by an angel who told Augustine that it would be easier to count the sands of the shore than it would be for any man (woman) to understand the Blessed Trinity. Yep, that works for me. Still I don’t recall saying or implying that it’s “easy” for me to understand or believe! I do understand and accept that having given life to me, God “owes” me nothing.

 

[FCEGM]

But back to the Trinity. In the traditional manner of speaking, God has the faculties of intellect and will. The Word fully and completely expresses God’s knowing—knowing himself so fully that not even personhood is lacking in His knowledge. And the mutual love between Father and Son so fully expresses that act of the will that it is expressed fully and completely as a Person.

My own thought is that the act of knowing which generates the Son, and the act of love which spirates the Holy Spirit are so full and complete (as they must be) that no further generation or spiration is possible: it would in fact be a defect, indicating that something was incomplete in the original acts. And that would be impossible with God.

This is superb and succinct (name removed by moderator)ut, Jim. :tiphat: MH84 hasn’t responded to it yet, but I hope he finds it helpful since it gives the answer to his question.

 

[MH84]

This is superb and succinct (name removed by moderator)ut, Jim. :tiphat: MH84 hasn’t responded to it yet, but I hope he finds it helpful since it gives the answer to his question.

In the first paragraph:

But back to the Trinity. In the traditional manner of speaking, God has the faculties of intellect and will. The Word fully and completely expresses God’s knowing—knowing himself so fully that not even personhood is lacking in His knowledge. And the mutual love between Father and Son so fully expresses that act of the will that it is expressed fully and completely as a Person.

The first paragraph doesnt. I already knew that. Didnt you read the OP?

In the second paragraph:

My own thought is that the act of knowing which generates the Son, and the act of love which spirates the Holy Spirit are so full and complete (as they must be) that no further generation or spiration is possible: it would in fact be a defect, indicating that something was incomplete in the original acts. And that would be impossible with God.

This is one of my questions (question 2; and maybe 3) in the OP. Why would it be a defect?

What Jim has said is right (I think so anyway), but they dont answer the questions in the OP.

 

[davidv]

What Jim has said is right (I think so anyway), but they dont answer the questions in the OP.

Then one of two conditions is true:

1. We don’t understand your questions or,
2. There are no answers, in this life, for them.

 

[MH84]

Then one of two conditions is true:

1. We don’t understand your questions or,
2. There are no answers, in this life, for them.

Well, maybe you are not trying hard enough.

Try question 2

1. If the Father is the Lover, and the Son is the Beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the outpouring of love from the Father and the Son, why isn’t their a fourth Person who is generated from the love of the three Persons?

I’ll rephrase:

The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the love of the Father and Son. Is that right?

If so, why wasnt another Person formed from the love between the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son?

The topic may be hard, but the question seems to be quite understandable.

 

[JimG]

The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the love of the Father and Son. Is that right?

If so, why wasnt another Person formed from the love between the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son?

The topic may be hard, but the question seems to be quite understandable.

That same question was asked in a freshman theology course I took many decades ago. It wasn’t answered then either.

God is–philosophically speaking–all act–all actuality, and no potentiality. Were other persons to be generated, it would imply the existence of potentiality proceeding to act; also it would ultimately imply an infinity of persons.

And in trying to speak of generation and spiration in God, we tend to make it sound like a process. But it isn’t. It’s all one act.

But I can’t answer any question about why God isn’t this way instead of that way, because He hasn’t told me. I would have a better shot at explaining the underlying structure of a quark or a membrane in M-theory. We would know nothing even of the Trinity had it not been revealed.

 

[MH84]

That same question was asked in a freshman theology course I took many decades ago. It wasn’t answered then either.

God is–philosophically speaking–all act–all actuality, and no potentiality. Were other persons to be generated, it would imply the existence of potentiality proceeding to act; also it would ultimately imply an infinity of persons.

And in trying to speak of generation and spiration in God, we tend to make it sound like a process. But it isn’t. It’s all one act.

But I can’t answer any question about why God isn’t this way instead of that way, because He hasn’t told me. I would have a better shot at explaining the underlying structure of a quark or a membrane in M-theory. We would know nothing even of the Trinity had it not been revealed.

Jim, philosophically speaking why couldnt the one act have generated 4 Persons?

You seem to be saying that it would mean that the fourth Person would have been generated afterwards (after the Three). But that is not what Im saying. If God can exist as Three Persons in one act, why not 4 or more Persons?

 

[Usagi]

You seem to be saying that it would mean that the fourth Person would have been generated afterwards (after the Three). But that is not what Im saying. If God can exist as Three Persons in one act, why not 4 or more Persons?

I reiterate that the revelation precedes the philosophical speculation about it.

I don’t think there is any a priori reason why God could not be four Persons instead of three (or two or one or an infinite number).

However, three are identified for us in the data of revelation, so three is the number the later development has gone with.

Is there a fourth Person mentioned somewhere that you would prefer to include? Or one of the orthodox three that you think should not be included?

I can understand wanting to have a better intellectual grasp on the Trinity, believe me. But I guess I just can’t see where your questions are “heading.” Is there a particular difficulty or element of curiosity at the center of all your questions that we could try to address more directly?

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

Apparently, I have heard as well that the majority of the bishops at the Nicene council actually supported Arius.

That would seem unlikely, else his view would presumably have prevailed unless the Holy Spirit was really working overtime.

It wasn’t a matter of Constantine throwing his Imperial support behind Athanasius, either, as for most of the rest of his life Constantine actually supported the Arians. (His well-known last-minute baptism was ministered to him by an Arian.)

I have read in various places (mostly here on CA, actually) that the Council did not have much success in silencing the Arians, and that in fact there was a point after Nicaea when the vast majority of bishops held to Arianism, with Rome and a few other sees holding the orthodox line. Perhaps that is what you also heard, and got confused with the Council itself.

Usagi

 

[MH84]

I reiterate that the revelation precedes the philosophical speculation about it.

I don’t think there is any a priori reason why God could not be four Persons instead of three (or two or one or an infinite number).

However, three are identified for us in the data of revelation, so three is the number the later development has gone with.

Is there a fourth Person mentioned somewhere that you would prefer to include? Or one of the orthodox three that you think should not be included?

I can understand wanting to have a better intellectual grasp on the Trinity, believe me. But I guess I just can’t see where your questions are “heading.” Is there a particular difficulty or element of curiosity at the center of all your questions that we could try to address more directly?

Usagi

Your questions took me aback, but they are fair. I don’t know where I am going with this anymore. I guess Im just having doubts. My faith isnt the same anymore, and Im looking for more proof. If you glance at my prior threads you will get a bit of a picture.

I don’t want to sound like Im mr.clever or something, but Im starting to think that all these questions that Ive posted these last few months cannot be answered. I don’t know how many times people have tried to answer my questions, but they either answer everything but the question, or they tell me to just accept the revelations given to the Church. Some people have given good answers, but I still don’t feel my faith being restored.

 

[MH84]

That would seem unlikely, else his view would presumably have prevailed unless the Holy Spirit was really working overtime.

It wasn’t a matter of Constantine throwing his Imperial support behind Athanasius, either, as for most of the rest of his life Constantine actually supported the Arians. (His well-known last-minute baptism was ministered to him by an Arian.)

I have read in various places (mostly here on CA, actually) that the Council did not have much success in silencing the Arians, and that in fact there was a point after Nicaea when the vast majority of bishops held to Arianism, with Rome and a few other sees holding the orthodox line. Perhaps that is what you also heard, and got confused with the Council itself.

Usagi

Thanks for this. I didnt know about most of these points, especially about Constantine.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I havent receiveded any acceptable answers. All youve said to me is that I should just believe.

I don’t get the problem. I am asking why is God Triune? Why are you so offended by that?

I also ask why wasnt another Person generated from the love of the three Persons? Again, why is that wrong?

All respects, but you seem to be a bit defensive because you don’t know the answers to the questions. Please post elsewhere where you may be helpful.

You have a closed mindset that tells me basically that, “What I believe is what is obviously true”. Okay, but I am asking questions so that I know why I believe something. If you want to remain ignorant of the matter that is up to you.

If you want to complain further or tell me how nonsensical I my questions are, please PM me.

Like I said, please don’t bother wasting space on this thread. Post in the many other threads that are available.

**Can someone please get back to the OP. **

I think your questions are quite sensible and to the point. Yes, why three?

I have answers that are satisfactory to me, but who knows, maybe not for others? For myself, I think that looking to math, and physics, and the created universe may help answer these questions.

For instance, one of my professors declared that the first complete number was 4, because 4 is the first number that can generate outside of itself, that is, the number of relationships between the numbers that are greater that the number itself.

To explain in a somewhat tedious fashion, the number 1 has no relationships because it is all by itself. The number 2 generates one relationship: between 2 and 1. The number 3 generates three relationships, a relationship between 1 and 2, between 2 and 3, and between 1 and 3.

But four, on the other hand, generates six relationships. Between 1 and 2, between 2 and 4, between 4 and 3, between 3 and 1, between 1 and 4, and between 2 and 3.

Hence the number 4 is the first number of completeness.

But wait! By that reasoning, God should be quadrune, not triune!

My answer to that is because we are part of Creation, which is the fourth element. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and Creation add up to 4.

Therefore, the structure of God must necessarily be triune.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

The reason for only 3 is that it is complete. Lover, Beloved, & Love.

I know that this probably isn’t a valid answer, but number 3 has always been associated with stability, IIRC. For example, the strongest of all the polygons is the triangle because it is the most stable. You cannot deform a triangle without rupturing it. The same is not true of squares and all greater number sided polygons; they allow for a certain deformability. Why is this? Maybe because it just is?