Why must God be only three persons?

[Tantum_ergo]

What have I been saying for what seems like hundreds of times in this thread: Why?

Let’s break this down:

That means they believed in the Trinity for a long time.

That means the Church refers to the three known persons of God in Mass, prayer, and other ceremonies.

That means there are very old writings which refer to three known persons of the Godhead.

It does not state that there can’t be any more persons in the Godhead beyond the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and that’s what this whole thread is about.

Does any of that work of creation suggest it is impossible for there to be more than three persons in the Godhead. Again, I’m not asking to show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are or aren’t part of the Godhead, but where more persons are part that we are not yet aware of.

So there’s no reasoning behind it. The Bible mentions the three persons and it’s assumed that this is a complete understanding of the Godhead. So far there is nothing that runs counter to what I’ve been saying over and over again.

Mike, you’re trying an argument from silence " It doesn’t state in English that “there are three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, and NO ONE ELSE EVER”, therefore there MIGHT be more." That argument is a fallacy.

You’re also asking us to prove a negative. Again, another fallacy.

You’re persistent, I’ll give you that. That’s a gift that you’re wasting by using fallacies and dare I say silliness. Why not use your persistence for something that benefits society. . .use your ‘arguments’ (but try to lose the fallacies) arguing with your town to sponsor refugees or set up a homeless shelter or start a ‘grandparents reading to elementary school kids’ or an ‘eat local’ farmer’s market or something. You’ll probably achieve some real results and be a lot happier.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike, you’re trying an argument from silence " It doesn’t state in English that “there are three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, and NO ONE ELSE EVER”, therefore there MIGHT be more." That argument is a fallacy.

When the thread was opened it was asked plain as day “Why must God be only three persons?” People chimed in and some said the Church says there can’t be any more than 3 persons. I then asked where does the Chruch say that and what is its reasoning. davidv came in and said here you go, Mike, here are the answers to your questions!

Clearly they were not the answers to my questions.

So out there I am told there are answers to what seem like basic questions when studying Christianity. I ask the floor to provide me with a philosophical proof, a discussion, an article, a link – anything that answers the OP’s question “Why must God be only three persons?”

You’re also asking us to prove a negative. Again, another fallacy.

Several people have made the declarative statement that we can know that there are no members of the Godhead beyond the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These claims were made by them – not me. When asked to back up such claims there is nothing there. It’s ok for these people to state “I don’t know”, but when they make assertions it’s not rude of me to ask for evidence in return.

You’re persistent, I’ll give you that.

I have to be if I want to (hopefully) get a straight answer.

That’s a gift that you’re wasting by using fallacies and dare I say silliness.

The Godhead is a matter that has been pondered by many great Christians for almost two millennia with no one claiming that their work is “silliness”. Now that someone who is not a believer questions the certainty of one aspect of that two millennia of research, determining what we can and can’t know, it seems it’s not that an important a matter. One should never hide from tough questions, especially ones that rub up against our core understanding.

Why not use your persistence for something that benefits society. . .use your ‘arguments’ (but try to lose the fallacies) arguing with your town to sponsor refugees or set up a homeless shelter or start a ‘grandparents reading to elementary school kids’ or an ‘eat local’ farmer’s market or something. You’ll probably achieve some real results and be a lot happier.

One can ask philosophical questions while simultaneously do good in the world. Just as when guanophore focused on my reasoning for these questions, I suspect it’s all a bit of a dodge of the matter at hand than a concern of how I spend my time.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

When the thread was opened it was asked plain as day “Why must God be only three persons?” People chimed in and some said the Church says there can’t be any more than 3 persons. I then asked where does the Chruch say that and what is its reasoning. davidv came in and said here you go, Mike, here are the answers to your questions!

Clearly they were not the answers to my questions.

So out there I am told there are answers to what seem like basic questions when studying Christianity. I ask the floor to provide me with a philosophical proof, a discussion, an article, a link – anything that answers the OP’s question “Why must God be only three persons?”

Several people have made the declarative statement that we can know that there are no members of the Godhead beyond the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These claims were made by them – not me. When asked to back up such claims there is nothing there. It’s ok for these people to state “I don’t know”, but when they make assertions it’s not rude of me to ask for evidence in return.

I have to be if I want to (hopefully) get a straight answer.

The Godhead is a matter that has been pondered by many great Christians for almost two millennia with no one claiming that their work is “silliness”. Now that someone who is not a believer questions the certainty of one aspect of that two millennia of research, determining what we can and can’t know, it seems it’s not that an important a matter. One should never hide from tough questions, especially ones that rub up against our core understanding.

One can ask philosophical questions while simultaneously do good in the world. Just as when guanophore focused on my reasoning for these questions, I suspect it’s all a bit of a dodge of the matter at hand than a concern of how I spend my time.

You’re being a tad disingenuous here.

Now if you can show me where, in the last 2000 years, there has been a Christian consensus for at least as long as “God is a Trinity” that states, “God is a Trinity so far as we know, but he might be more”, then we can have a discussion. Because then there would be an equivalent precedent for the idea that the statement “God is a Trinity” was not always seen as straightforward “God is a Trinity, no more no less”.

Otherwise, what you have is 2000 years of Christian thinkers who consistently taught that God is a Trinity (not a ‘putative’ Trinity, not a 'Trinity so far as we know", not a “Trinity for now”). What, short of divine revelation to the contrary, would indicate to the normal Christian that God is NOT ‘a Trinity alone’, especially when Christianity also teaches that God is eternal and unchanging?

How would you go about adding another Person to the mix and yet keep God 'unchanging"? Because you can deepen understanding of dogma (and the Trinity is dogma) but you cannot alter it. To alter the Trinity into a Quartet would change the nature of God. And that cannot be done, any more than God can make a square circle.

Also, as an atheist, you personally don’t accept God at all (by definition). So why on earth would you want to argue about the possibility of a Being you don’t believe in? What’s in it for you? I ask this in all sincerity. You don’t accept revealed truth about God Himself to begin with, so how would you accept any other revealed truth like the Trinity?

You remind me of a person who holds the idea of a flat earth, and keeps on insisting that shots of a ‘round earth’ from space are faked. These people see evidence that is right out there, accepted by the average ‘spherical earth’ believer, but they won’t accept it and will come up with all kinds of spurious reasons to reject it, because it contradicts what they ‘know’. As an atheist, you’re in a position where it’s in your best interest to reject God. . .and this kind of ‘I’m just looking to understand a philosophical question’ presents you as an enquirer who is open to ‘reason’ but allows you to oh-so-subtly paint all the people who painstakingly and honorably give you all the huge body of Christian teaching to support the Trinity as at best ‘slackers’ who can’t satisfy little old ultra-reasonable YOU, and at worst as dimwitted troglodytes who are so stupid they can’t even defend their own religion (to your satisfaction). Just my opinion, of course.

 

[guanophore]

The Unwillingness/Inability to Provide the Reasoning

With each and every post that claims both

1. That the evidence/reasoning as to there being a limit on 3 persons is out there.
2. That I can’t be told what this evidence is

makes me think that the possibility of such evidence being out there is that much less likely.

This might apply if it were accurate, but it is not. In fact the evidence and reasoning that exists does not meet your standards, so it is irrelevant how much is out there.

No one has said you cannot be told what it is. There are dozens of people on CAF that could provide you with copious posts, links and resources that could provide this information. It is very possible for you to be told.

At some point the people who claim that it was reasoned that God is no more than three persons should be able to produce that reasoning.

Our ability to produce it is not in question. I agree with you. The Catholic faith is reasonable, rational, and logical, and every Catholics should be equipped to make a reasoned defense of the faith.

The Church Is Always Right On Faith and Doctrine Redux plus
Special Pleading For Christian Concepts Over Other Religious Concepts Redux
Mike from NJ;13638872:

I’ll try it again. There is a gap between what is true and what can be shown to be true. A 3-person Godhead may be true, and as I’ve noted that for argument’s sake that I’ll accept that there is a Godhead of at least

three persons.

The gap, I think, is where the leap of faith is required. Reason only can take us so far.

The trick becomes showing that there is a fourth person (or more) in the Godhead. I most certainly can not prove there is a fourth person and at the same time Christianity can’t prove there is not.

One has to wonder why this “trick” is so important for you.

I agree. Christianity cannot “prove” a great many things in such a way that suits your standards. They are too narrow, and too limited.

For thousands of years, according to Christianity, Judaism had an accurate yet incomplete understanding of God.  Even now it admits to an incomplete understanding of God.  Still it somehow can say it has a complete understanding of God in this regard.  That may be true, but the reasoning behind that alleged complete understanding seems out of reach to those like me who are curious to examine that understanding.

I suppose I would consider it a gift of God that this reaches out to you, and that you respond with curiosity and a desire to examine. Logic, though, and human understanding are insufficient to enable us to grasp divine mysteries. That is why they are called mysteries. It does not mean there is no logic or rationality involved, just that it is insufficient.

Part of this supposed understanding comes form Church statements, what you call evidence but is more accurately called assumptions.

No, I think the statements are actually a culmination of all the understanding, processing, discussion, prayer and examination of the history of the faith. They reflect the outcome of the discernment process. I say they are evidence because they are the capstone of the process that undergirded them.

You are asking people who are taking a neutral position on this (and other religious) matters to not

accept such statement from other Christian denominations (some of whom believe in the Old and New Testaments but do not believe in the Trinity) as well similar statements from other faiths.

I don’t think I asked anything of the kind. Any such statements from any other faith or denomination will also fall short of your standards.

This is the **apologetics**

forum. It’s there to discuss, to question, to validate and verify. It’s not the home of unquestioned fiats with an unwillingness to examine. Is there anybody here who can discuss this matter like so many of the other matters on CAF?

You have misunderstood the lack of engagement in the “trick” or the game as an unwillingness to examine. This is a false conclusion. Many of us had years of questioning fiats and examination of the doctrines of the faith before being able to embrace them. Those of us that did this wrestling know exactly what such research entails.

 

[guanophore]

What is that evidence?

Most of it would not meet your standards. It is based on the Sacred Tradition, which has been divinely protected by the Holy Spirit. We find it in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, in the prayers and liturgies, and in the lived faith of the believers. It has a strong phenomenological element, so if a researcher rejects phenomenology as a valid epistemological source, then it is irrelevant.

Declarations don’t confirm things. Evidence does. What is that evidence?

The declaration is confirmation that the evidence exists, has been challenged, been examined, and defined.

What are those references in the Old Testament that show that there can not be more than three persons in the Godhead? Surely a link to those Bible passages should be incredibly easy to post.

I am not aware of any. I was responding to you comment that there were no references in the OT to the Trinity.

You are just assuming things about me. Show me a philosophical proof demonstrating there can’t be more than 3 persons and we can discuss its merits.

If you cannot accept all the excellent and scholarly philosophical writings of those who are much more qualified than I, what would be the point? I cannot hold a candle to the likes of Thomas Aquinas.

Yes. I don’t pick and choose what I determine is true before I am presented with the arguments for and against it.

Well, I certainly can’t speak to the rest of your life, but it is clear on CAF that you have determined that certain things are not true because you do not consider certain factors to be evidence at all. The criteria you have set for how things can be verified is narrow and limited.

Are you suggesting that the reason I can’t get a simple straight answer to basic question regarding God is that in my heart of hearts I’m secretly searching for Jesus?

Not at all. You are not getting a straight answer from me because I am not inclined to do your research for you. There may be others here that feel the same, or they may have other reasons for not responding.

I am saying that whatever it is that seems to be motivating your to ask the basic question may be coming from a yearning in your heart of hearts. One has to wonder why you are here on CAF.

Isn’t it easier to just answer the question instead of continually dodging it?

Yes, actually. You are very persuasive and high pressure in trying to get the “trick” performed.

I've already explained this, but I'm willing to give it another go. It's not about gaining a consensus as to whether a statement is true, but a consensus as to what a statement means. Only when it's agreed as to what a statement means can we then try to determine whether it is true or not.

Ok. The declarations/statements of the Church mean what the Church defines them to mean. The meaning of them is not a matter for consensus, since they are the product of divine revelation. You seem to be saying that the statement is not worth discussing unless there is an agreement about what it means.

For example:

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This “statement” from the CC was created to combat heresies about the Trinity and the nature of the Godhead. For you, the “statement” does not exclude that a fourth person of the Trinity may exist, but to Christians it does. Therefore, since consensus on the meaning of the statement cannot be reached, it is not worthy of discussion.

 

[guanophore]

This whole thing about consensus started when you referenced the passage about “binding and loosing”. There is not a consensus between denominations as to what it means. That’s what I mean by consensus.

I don’t think it was I that referenced it, but you are right, there is not a consensus about what it means. I understand that you believe it is not worth discusssing without consensus.

Consensus on what a statement means before determining if it’s true is the basis of understanding in discussion, not just in the theological realm but everywhere. The thing I need but don’t have is a philosophical proof, an article, a link, something that says orthodox Christianity doesn’t believe in the possibility of a fourth person of God is because X, Y, and Z.

I think your need is a reflection of a desire of your heart to seek God, and to find Him. I will pray that you do find Him, and get your need met.

Are you really pulling in the "wouldn't die for a lie" trope for the topic of understanding what we can and can't say about how many persons are in the Godhead?  One does not have to do with the other.

It does for people of faith. People are not willing to give their lives for that which they don’t believe to be true. For you, the willingness of the martyrs to given their lives rather than deny the faith is not evidence, because it does not meet your criteria for “logic”. For Christians, it is evidence that the once for all divine deposit of faith is authentic, and so valuable that it is of more importance than life itself.

Again you’ve misrepresentated what I explained about my use of consensus in this thread. See above.

Ok. But the result is the same. The topic is not worthy of discussion since consensus cannot be reached.

While I myself don’t believe in the concept of a Trinity, I know that it is an unfalsifiable concept so I’m not looking to demonstrate that it’s not true.

Of course you are! If it can be shown or proved that it is possible for there to be a fourth person, then the doctrine of the Trinity would be false.

As I’ve stated Christians may very well be right both in regards to God as well as to him being a Trinity, and thus I would be wrong. But again that’s not why I’m trying to discuss here. Instead I’m trying to determine if there are more person and why those who are sure there are not can state that with complete assuredness. It doesn’t matter to me whether there are 1, 3, or 100 persons. It’s all about reasoning for me.

Yes, I understand. It is curious that you seem so passionate about applying reason to an act of faith. Our complete assuredness comes from trust in the Source. That is not to say there is no reason involved, but faith stretches beyond reason. It is rooted in a relationship where what God reveals about Himself is 100% trustworthy because He is trustworthy. Trust is difficult to analyze with reason.

Actually I’ve been pointed to a single passage in Matthew and four verses in John. None of them say in any way that there can not be more persons of God.

Ok.

Sure, in a poetic sense. For some who are convinced of a deity it might be a more concrete concept; but all of us in one way or another look to increase our understanding of the universe and our place in it.

How do you account for that?

But we can’t rule it out. It’s not about proving that there is a fourth person, but whether it is possible for there to be a fourth person.

Ok.

Where in the Catechism does it even reference the Lion of Judah let alone state that this is Jesus?

The Catechism is a sure norm for the Catholic faith, but it is not considered divinely inspired as are the Scriptures.

Besides that’s just an example. How can we rule out there being a fourth person of God who is vital to the Day of Judgment?

I don’t believe that you can. According to your methods, and what you are able to accept as evidence, it seems that you need to hold onto this as a possibility.

One of the way we can determine if something is missing from a group is by first determining the functionality of the items we know about in a group and work from there.

Yes this is a very effective method so far as earthly and temporal groups are concerned. It is a concept taught in group process, team functioning, and family functioning.

As you say God the Father is omnipotent and could conceivably do all of the actions of the Holy Spirit. At least in this regard that means that even if we couldn’t find a purpose for a fourth or fifth person in the Godhead that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

Ok.

Can you be more specific? Where does it indicate that it is impossible for there to be persons in the Godhead beyond the third?

Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind. He gave to the Church, through the Apostles and prophets, a once for all divine deposit of faith. We expect no further public revelation until He returns. What has been revealed is completely sufficient for our salvation (we know all that we need to know). The Council declared what has been revealed to the Church. So, if there were to be more than three persons in the Godhead, it is not relevant to us, or to our salvation. He has promised to lead us into “all Truth”, so what He has given us is all the Truth we need.

 

[guanophore]

Could a person have been given only the Old Testament come to the conclusion that God was a Trinity? I’m not asking whether it allowed for it, but would a person *at that time * be able to read the Old Testament and say yes God is three persons?

I do not believe so.

After the fact people looked at the Old Testament and saw how passages did not conflict with the idea of God being a  Trinity.

Even beyond that, they looked back and saw evidence of the Trinity.

Beyond that Is there anything reading the Old and New Testaments that does not allow there being later revelation showing God is more than three persons?

People interpret Scriptures in many and various ways. The Arians and modern groups such as the Mormons read the same scriptures and understand them differently (non-Trinitarian). So I would have to say yes, since there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are belly buttons, I think it could be construed in such a way as to allow a later revelation showing that there are more persons.

It matters a great deal to say if a person or group can verify what he or it states.

Yes. And different people have different methods of verification. For example:

3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:4

Luke researched and wrote a “memoir” about the life of Christ. He did this in order that those who had been taught the Gospel could "know the exact truth’. This document, along with all the other Church documents and writings upon which the Nicean Creed is based do not meet your standards of verification, and are rejected as reliable evidence. Yet, these writings are considered reliable evidence not just by the Christians for whom they were written in the first century, but all of them since that time.

Just remember that when I note that your unwillingness to answer the questions at hand in an apologetic and philosophical discussion forum are not attacks on your reasoning ability but do call into question your openmindedness.

Of course. You must assume that my refusal to perform “tricks” for you has some relation to my inability to produce the evidence you demand, or that I am too narrow minded to engage in the discussion.

I’ve already done a great deal of research and haven’t found anything that specifically limits the number of persons to three.

In that case, it would seem that your “need” has already been met.

It should be so incredibly easy for those who say with utmost confidence that this is the case where specifically to learn more about this reasoning.

Yes, I agree.

Why suspect, assume, cast aspersions when you can just provide the reasoning?

I have drawn a conclusion based upon what I have read in your posts. It is not an aspersion. Clearly you are quite proud of your own intellect, standards, and epistemology. I recognize and accept that the Church’s understanding of what is True does not meet your standards. I should think that you would take pride in this - as a compliment.

You say there are volumes of writings on the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity (and I agree as I’ve read some of them), yet I haven’t found any which saw why we can’t rule out as-yet-unrevealed persons. Can you point to specific writings that do so?

Yes, but you will not understand what they say in the same way that I do. Just like I understand that the Nicean Creed rules this out, but you do not.

Ok, so we are in agreement that we don't need to go back to the point of understanding in order to make sense of a discovery.  So when you said, "I mean, for a historical event in antiquity, what's the standard of proof?" can you now understand that we're not looking for proof of an event but a logical reasoning that can be worked through to this day?

Ok.

Dreams (including oracles) were sometimes used as a means of the Greek Gods to communicate with the people.  Does this mean that the Greek Gods are true as well?  And what does this have to do with this line of reading as to the Godhead that you say I can find if I'd just look hard enough?

It is evidence that there are other ways of knowing other than logic. But you are right. No matter how hard you look, or how much you read, nothing will convince you that there could not be more than three persons in the Godhead.

So you’re certain that there are no more than three persons in the Godhead, that the Church is correct in stating as such, that the makeup of the Godhead was debating for centuries, yet you know of no discussion in those centuries of putting a cap on the number of persons at three.

I think you are assuming that, since I have declined to post sources for you, that I know of no discussions.

 

[guanophore]

I hope you can see why this doesn’t add up.

No, sorry. I have ways of knowing things that are beyond the realm of scientific inquiry (as it functions today). For me it adds up.

I just want you to stop dodging the question. If I start a thread on CAF on transubstantiation, or the rapture, or squaring the gospels with history and each other I would get a flood of responses regarding one side or the other. The Church’s position wouldn’t be just stated, but explained.

Probably.

Here in this thread? Not so much. I’m accused of being on a power trip to get answers for questions on Catholicism in a Catholic discussion board.

Really?

It seems that the issue comes not from my questions but from the utter lack of answers.

Yes.

What I’m saying is a basic statement on knowing. If a person doesn’t understanding the majority of a certain thing or topic, then it strains credulity to say that same person can speak with confidence as to what that thing or topic is not.

Yes, I agree. Since your way of “knowing” is so limited, it is understandable that your credulity is strained.

It’s certain possible that person can be correct, but it falls on that person to explain their reasoning.

For Christians, it falls upon us to make a reasoned defense of our faith. Since it is not based only on logic (also on faith) then the explanation goes beyond the limits you have imposed.

I keep repeating it because you are unable or unwilling to show your work (or the Church’s work). Until you can back up any assertions I will keep repeating it.

Ok.

It seems the most logical, because God is said to be perfectly simple.

I don’t think that I ever said such a thing.

One of the things that is tough hurdle in understanding the Trinity is why there are three persons instead of one. That why would likely come from function, but if there is another explanation as to why I’d be glad to hear it.

Ok.

If there is no reasoning behind it other than God is a mystey then it’s safe to say that we can apply the same logic as to why seven persons and not four.

Yes.

It won’t be fulfilled unless someone can make even the slightest of cases for not there being more than 3 persons. Yes, the Church says it’s 3 but there is a complete lack of stating why the Church says so.

I accept that none of the statements that have been made about the “why” meet your standards of evidence.

What have I been saying for what seems like hundreds of times in this thread: Why?

Let’s break this down:

That means they believed in the Trinity for a long time.

That means the Church refers to the three known persons of God in Mass, prayer, and other ceremonies.

That means there are very old writings which refer to three known persons of the Godhead.

It does not state that there can’t be any more persons in the Godhead beyond the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and that’s what this whole thread is about.

You are unable to accept the sources that the Church uses as evidence.

Does any of that work of creation suggest it is impossible for there to be more than three persons in the Godhead. Again, I’m not asking to show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are or aren’t part of the Godhead, but where more persons are part that we are not yet aware of.

I am sure you can speculate endlessly about what the work of creation implies.

So there’s no reasoning behind it. The Bible mentions the three persons and it’s assumed that this is a complete understanding of the Godhead. So far there is nothing that runs counter to what I’ve been saying over and over again.

No, Mike this is a false statement. You do not accept the reasoning because it does not meet your standards. That is not the same as “no reasoning”. No one has EVER claimed that what is in the Bible is a “complete understanding” of anything, including the Trinity - a word that is not even contained in the Bible.

You are right, nothing of what the Church believes and teaches will convince you that there can be unlimted persons in the Godhead.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You’re being a tad disingenuous here.

Now if you can show me where, in the last 2000 years, there has been a Christian consensus for at least as long as “God is a Trinity” that states, “God is a Trinity so far as we know, but he might be more”, then we can have a discussion. Because then there would be an equivalent precedent for the idea that the statement “God is a Trinity” was not always seen as straightforward “God is a Trinity, no more no less”.

Otherwise, what you have is 2000 years of Christian thinkers who consistently taught that God is a Trinity (not a ‘putative’ Trinity, not a 'Trinity so far as we know", not a “Trinity for now”). What, short of divine revelation to the contrary, would indicate to the normal Christian that God is NOT ‘a Trinity alone’, especially when Christianity also teaches that God is eternal and unchanging?

How would you go about adding another Person to the mix and yet keep God 'unchanging"? Because you can deepen understanding of dogma (and the Trinity is dogma) but you cannot alter it. To alter the Trinity into a Quartet would change the nature of God. And that cannot be done, any more than God can make a square circle.

In no way have I said or even implied that there was a change in the configuration of the Godhead. I’m saying we don’t know if there have been other people in the Godhead beyond the three God chose to reveal, and those other people are also co-eternal, co-equal, etc.

When Christianity talks about the Jews, they don’t say they were wrong in how they understood God just that they have and had an incomplete understanding of God. In the same way, we can say that Christians from Jesus until now have an incomplete understanding of God.

It’s like if I have a bag and you see me put three items in it, you can accurately say those three items are in the bag but can’t be sure if there aren’t other items in it as well. God says his personage includes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but never says that’s it.

Christianity has pondered over the centuries everything possible about the Godhead, and yet no one can point us interested in this matter why there can’t be more than the three listed.

Also, as an atheist, you personally don’t accept God at all (by definition). So why on earth would you want to argue about the possibility of a Being you don’t believe in?

1. Christians when questioning why non-Christians might find Christianity wanting often lay the blame on non-Christians not studying the matter enough. It’s the non-Christians’ fault and not the message itself. So when a non-Christian comes up with a tough question on Christianity – and you are by no means the first to give this kind of response – the response is often that it makes no sense for a non-Christian to be questioning Christianity. Talk about disingenuous, doubters oddly can never do right in either assessing or not assessing Christian doctrine and literature.
2. I’m not sure if you visit the Non-Catholic section of CAF, but Catholics will give a thorough once-over on various non-Catholic faiths to a degree that sometimes is far greater than what I’m doing here – and that’s a good thing. That which can withstand scrutiny exceeds that which must avoid scrutiny. When a Catholic asks a Mormon questions on the various issues with the Golden Plates, a response asking why the Catholic even cares is a total non-answer.

What’s in it for you? I ask this in all sincerity. You don’t accept revealed truth about God Himself to begin with, so how would you accept any other revealed truth like the Trinity?

Knowledge is a good thing, especially if it’s knowledge about something outside of what one normally experiences. And as I told guanophore I am puzzle solver at heart. The puzzle of how to accept the internal consistency of acknowledging gaps in understanding with seemingly blind assuredness within that gap of understanding is something I’d like to see solved.

You remind me of a person who holds the idea of a flat earth, and keeps on insisting that shots of a ‘round earth’ from space are faked. These people see evidence that is right out there, accepted by the average ‘spherical earth’ believer, but they won’t accept it and will come up with all kinds of spurious reasons to reject it, because it contradicts what they ‘know’.

Let’s not put me, the guy going solely off rational thought, into the same category as people who forego rational thought. A few opposite me on this issue have outright said that the Godhead can not be understood rationally.

As an atheist, you’re in a position where it’s in your best interest to reject God.

Are you saying that Christians, those who have invested their lives toward the promise of the unseen, might not be in the position to deflect questions that might raise doubts about their faith or church. We all have our biases. It’s only through reasoned discussion can we lay out the debate bare for all to see.

. .and this kind of ‘I’m just looking to understand a philosophical question’ presents you as an enquirer who is open to ‘reason’ but allows you to oh-so-subtly paint all the people who painstakingly and honorably give you all the huge body of Christian teaching to support the Trinity as at best ‘slackers’ who can’t satisfy little old ultra-reasonable YOU, and at worst as dimwitted troglodytes who are so stupid they can’t even defend their own religion (to your satisfaction). Just my opinion, of course.

Yes, because guanophore didn’t paint me as unreasonable and intellectually unsound. You didn’t paint me in that very paragraph I just quoted as snobbish and disinterested in learning.

Can someone answer the question at hand? How do we know that God must only be three persons? What is the reasoning that a group like the Catholic Church says there can not be more than three persons?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This might apply if it were accurate, but it is not. In fact the evidence and reasoning that exists does not meet your standards, so it is irrelevant how much is out there.

No one has said you cannot be told what it is. There are dozens of people on CAF that could provide you with copious posts, links and resources that could provide this information. It is very possible for you to be told.

Are you unwilling to provide this information or incapable of doing so?

Our ability to produce it is not in question. I agree with you. The Catholic faith is reasonable, rational, and logical, and every Catholics should be equipped to make a reasoned defense of the faith.

So you’re saying there is a rational answer to these questions beyond just a misreading of Matthew? Great. So far no one has provided this answer. Why not pretend that it doesn’t say atheist on the top right of my posts and that I don’t have all of these ulterior motives that you have incorrectly ascribed to me. Pretend I am Joe Schmo, unsure of where he wants to move in his faith journey. What would you say to him if he asked these questions I have asked a multitude of times now?

The gap, I think, is where the leap of faith is required. Reason only can take us so far.

Again if I were to take a leap towards a non-Christian faith, one that says reason only takes you so far, would that be equally acceptable?
Also doesn’t the idea that reason only takes you so far run directly counter to the idea you said just above that the Catholic faith is “reasonable, rational, and logical”?

One has to wonder why this “trick” is so important for you.

Asked and answered. I don’t think getting an answer to a question on Catholic understanding on one of the most important topics in the faith should be this difficult.

I agree. Christianity cannot “prove” a great many things in such a way that suits your standards. They are too narrow, and too limited.

Which is it? Are there copious links of information to my question or is it beyond proof?

I suppose I would consider it a gift of God that this reaches out to you, and that you respond with curiosity and a desire to examine. Logic, though, and human understanding are insufficient to enable us to grasp divine mysteries. That is why they are called mysteries. It does not mean there is no logic or rationality involved, just that it is insufficient.

Either they are involved or insufficient.

No, I think the statements are actually a culmination of all the understanding, processing, discussion, prayer and examination of the history of the faith. They reflect the outcome of the discernment process. I say they are evidence because they are the capstone of the process that undergirded them.

A link that details this discernment process?

I don’t think I asked anything of the kind. Any such statements from any other faith or denomination will also fall short of your standards.

You are asking us to take on faith – a particular faith – how one is to understand the deity as well as to navigate around the internal consistency of being sure exactly what a mystery of God is not.

You have misunderstood the lack of engagement in the “trick” or the game as an unwillingness to examine. This is a false conclusion. Many of us had years of questioning fiats and examination of the doctrines of the faith before being able to embrace them. Those of us that did this wrestling know exactly what such research entails.

I doubt that you have performed any research.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Most of it would not meet your standards. It is based on the Sacred Tradition, which has been divinely protected by the Holy Spirit. We find it in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, in the prayers and liturgies, and in the lived faith of the believers. It has a strong phenomenological element, so if a researcher rejects phenomenology as a valid epistemological source, then it is irrelevant.

Where in these writings, prayers, liturgies does it go just beyond stating that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are part of the Godhead but that we can be certain that no other persons are contained within? You talk about epistemology but seeming have a hard time demonstrating it.

The declaration is confirmation that the evidence exists, has been challenged, been examined, and defined.

Wait, wait, wait. So a declaration by itself is confirmation that evidence exists and is true?

I can declare all sorts of things that are not true. A declaration can be completely unrelated to his truthfullness.

If you cannot accept all the excellent and scholarly philosophical writings of those who are much more qualified than I, what would be the point? I cannot hold a candle to the likes of Thomas Aquinas.

But you seem unable to even link to a specific passage within Aquinas’ writings that would answer these questions. You repeatedly have assured me the answers at there and have not demonstrated that to be true.

Well, I certainly can’t speak to the rest of your life, but it is clear on CAF that you have determined that certain things are not true because you do not consider certain factors to be evidence at all. The criteria you have set for how things can be verified is narrow and limited.

It’s another dodge. You’ve given me nothing and you’re all out of ideas.

Not at all. You are not getting a straight answer from me because

you can’t answer the question. Full stop.

I am not inclined to do your research for you. There may be others here that feel the same, or they may have other reasons for not responding.

[Superintendant Chalmers sees Principal Skinner’s kitchen on fire]

Superintendant Chalmers: Good Lord, what is happening in there?

Principal Skinner: The Aurora Borealis?

Superintendant Chalmers: The Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?

Principal Skinner: Yes.

Superintendant Chalmers: May I see it?

Principal Skinner: No.

I am saying that whatever it is that seems to be motivating your to ask the basic question may be coming from a yearning in your heart of hearts. One has to wonder why you are here on CAF.

To get answers, specifically Catholic ones. And what better place to do that than in a forum called Catholic Answers?

Yes, actually. You are very persuasive and high pressure in trying to get the “trick” performed.

I would think getting answers on Catholic issues from a board called Catholic Answers would be less of a “trick” and more of a “basic premise for being here”.

Ok. The declarations/statements of the Church mean what the Church defines them to mean. The meaning of them is not a matter for consensus, since they are the product of divine revelation. You seem to be saying that the statement is not worth discussing unless there is an agreement about what it means.

It means what they believe, but not why. I’m looking for the why.

This “statement” from the CC was created to combat heresies about the Trinity and the nature of the Godhead. For you, the “statement” does not exclude that a fourth person of the Trinity may exist, but to Christians it does. Therefore, since consensus on the meaning of the statement cannot be reached, it is not worthy of discussion.

I am not here to argue the Nicene Creed. I am here to discuss “Why must God only be three persons?” which is a premise that we can agree as to its meaning but differ as to its answer.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t think it was I that referenced it, but you are right, there is not a consensus about what it means. I understand that you believe it is not worth discusssing without consensus.

You’re right it was Gorgias who initially referenced it, although you did misinterpret when I referenced “consensus” in response to Gorgias’s reference.

I think your need is a reflection of a desire of your heart to seek God, and to find Him. I will pray that you do find Him, and get your need met.

My immediate need is an answer to a question, and I don’t need God for that.

Ok. But the result is the same. The topic is not worthy of discussion since consensus cannot be reached.

I must admit my patience is thinning a bit on this point. We agree what the topic is: “Why must God be only three persons?” There is a consensus as to its meaning. I, someone who does not believe there is a God understand the meaning of God and persons in that question so that we can discuss the manner clearly. Again, the statement’s meaning is not in question. It is a topic worthy of discussion.

You and I are on opposite ends as to the answer of this question. In a discussion it’s actually preferable that all parties don’t agree. We have a consensus as to the meaning of the statement but not what the answer is. Got it?

Of course you are! If it can be shown or proved that it is possible for there to be a fourth person, then the doctrine of the Trinity would be false.

That is incorrect. It doesn’t make a difference to me if Christianity states that the Godhead has revealed further persons so that the known number goes from 3 to whatever, just as when a part of Judaism broke off and became Christianity the Godhead was revealed to be not just 1 but at least 3.

No my point of content is the assuredness that there is not a sliver of possibility that it could be more than 3 while at the same can not speak to how the Godhead operates to rule out further persons.

Yes, I understand. It is curious that you seem so passionate about applying reason to an act of faith.

I have gotten plenty of responses on CAF that try to apply reason. When debating the Trinity the Church relied in part on reason. There’s no reason to shy away from reason.

Our complete assuredness comes from trust in the Source. That is not to say there is no reason involved, but faith stretches beyond reason. It is rooted in a relationship where what God reveals about Himself is 100% trustworthy because He is trustworthy. Trust is difficult to analyze with reason.

But you can’t even say what that source is, specifically where God said there were only three persons.

Ok.

So since the Biblical passages given so far don’t pass muster, can you cite ones that do?

How do you account for that?

Man’s quest to know is what put us at the top of the food chain. But we’re getting off-topic here.

The Catechism is a sure norm for the Catholic faith, but it is not considered divinely inspired as are the Scriptures.

And you said it was known that Jesus is the Lion of Judah. If it doesn’t say it in the Catechism, where does it say that in the Scriptures – as opposed to the possibility that the Lion is a fourth person of the Godhead?

I don’t believe that you can. According to your methods, and what you are able to accept as evidence, it seems that you need to hold onto this as a possibility.

What evidence do you have that would rule out a fourth person revealed at the Day of Judgment?

Yes this is a very effective method so far as earthly and temporal groups are concerned. It is a concept taught in group process, team functioning, and family functioning.

Finally, some agreement.

Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation to mankind. He gave to the Church, through the Apostles and prophets, a once for all divine deposit of faith. We expect no further public revelation until He returns. What has been revealed is completely sufficient for our salvation (we know all that we need to know). The Council declared what has been revealed to the Church. So, if there were to be more than three persons in the Godhead, it is not relevant to us, or to our salvation. He has promised to lead us into “all Truth”, so what He has given us is all the Truth we need.

Ok good. Now you agree that there will be more revelation when Jesus returns, with the understanding that any further persons were not needed for our salvation. Now prior to the birth of Jesus God had only revealed himself in the form of the Father. And during those many years people had salvation despite not being aware of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. This means that one can achieve salvation without knowing the entirety of the Godhead. And that means that people today can be saved even if the only know 3 out of X persons in the Godhead. Right?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I do not believe so.

Ok, we’re in agreement.

Even beyond that, they looked back and saw evidence of the Trinity.

And that’s fine.

People interpret Scriptures in many and various ways. The Arians and modern groups such as the Mormons read the same scriptures and understand them differently (non-Trinitarian). So I would have to say yes, since there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are belly buttons, I think it could be construed in such a way as to allow a later revelation showing that there are more persons.

Ok, good. That really sums up what I’m trying to say. Since we know God would reveal himself as he sees fit when he sees fit, we can’t rule out future revelation of other persons. We also can’t show anything scripturally that would prevent such a later revelation.

Yes. And different people have different methods of verification. For example:

3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:4

Luke researched and wrote a “memoir” about the life of Christ. He did this in order that those who had been taught the Gospel could "know the exact truth’. This document, along with all the other Church documents and writings upon which the Nicean Creed is based do not meet your standards of verification, and are rejected as reliable evidence. Yet, these writings are considered reliable evidence not just by the Christians for whom they were written in the first century, but all of them since that time.

But as I stated, the Nicene Creed is all what and no why. Show the why.

Of course. You must assume that my refusal to perform “tricks” for you has some relation to my inability to produce the evidence you demand, or that I am too narrow minded to engage in the discussion.

I wouldn’t say you are narrow-minded, but I must state that you nor backing up the assertion you made repeatedly and without provocation leads me to conclude it’s an inability to answer the question at hand (unless you can show otherwise). Answering questions is by no means a trick, but it’s practically an expectation when one states over and over that they possess such an answer.

Yes, I agree.

And yet here I sit with more non-answers.

I have drawn a conclusion based upon what I have read in your posts. It is not an aspersion. Clearly you are quite proud of your own intellect, standards, and epistemology. I recognize and accept that the Church’s understanding of what is True does not meet your standards. I should think that you would take pride in this - as a compliment.

How am I to know it is the Church’s understanding and not just an assumption if seemingly no one can make the case for the Church?

It is evidence that there are other ways of knowing other than logic. But you are right. No matter how hard you look, or how much you read, nothing will convince you that there could not be more than three persons in the Godhead.

You should hope that nothing will convince me, because that what you’ve given me: Nothing

I think you are assuming that, since I have declined to post sources for you, that I know of no discussions.

After so very many non-answers, yes, that is my assumption. I don’t believe you can point to any discussion where it’s explained why there can be more than three persons. I don’t believe you have a girlfriend living in Canada.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I’m cringing as I read this thread. The OP has a simple question, and the length to which you guys go to avoid answering it is astounding and exasperating.

Where does it say, in Catholic tradition, that is it impossible for God to be more than three persons, and why?

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a Pope, Council, or otherwise infallible teaching authority saying something to the affect of:

“There is no way God could be either more or less than the three exact persons we say he is because…[explanation other than “we’re always right” here]…”

Now, Tantum Ergo brought up some good points. The problem with his/her arguments is that they can be easily turned against the doctrine of the trinity itself. I can easily argue that the doctrine of the trinity is based on an “argument from silence” and totally unsupported by 5,000 years of tradition. I can easily argue that the doctrine of the trinity implies a “change” in God’s nature, which is impossible, etc.

In sum, find an infallible statement showing God must be only three persons with no possibility of further development of understanding or revelation supported by reasoning that does not also undercut the same arguments in support of trinity vs singularity.

Should be simple. No more avoidance. No more hedging. No more psychoanalysis of the questioners.

Man up and give your answer.

 

[PRmerger]

As I understand it:

The Father is God.
Even prior to any acts of creation, the Father has an idea of himself. Being God, the Father’s idea of himself is so perfect, that it manifests as the second person (of the Trinity).
The Father and the Son relate to each other, love each other. Their love relationship is so perfect that it manifests as the third person (of the Trinity), the Holy Spirit.

If I’ve understood this correctly (and related it correctly): What would you propose for a fourth person?

tee

Beautiful and perfect!

'nuff said.

Question asked and answered!

 

[petra22]

Ok.

Because Jesus is the fullest revelation by God of Himself, and He said so .

This is the real answer to you question. Jesus revealed it with his life, death, and resurrection… It is recorded in the Bible. It took time to gather the Bible together after Jesus’ resurrection and it took time and prayer and intervention of the Holy Spirit to UNDERSTAND what Jesus was saying… Then, it took and takes FAITH to believe what Jesus said that “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Beautiful and perfect!

'nuff said.

Question asked and answered!

Technically it is asked, answered, and then asked again. So, here’s a possible answer:

The Father is God.
Even prior to any acts of creation, the Father has an idea of himself. Being God, the Father’s idea of himself is so perfect, that it manifests as the second person (of the Trinity).
The Father and the Son relate to each other, love each other. Their love relationship is so perfect that it manifests as the third person (of the Trinity), the Holy Spirit. The Father knows the Son so perfectly, that his knowledge manifests as the fourth person, Sophia (who became incarnate as Mary and is prefigured in the Old Testament as the woman “wisdom.”) The love of Sophia for her Son is so perfect, that it manifests as the fifth person, Leo, who is pre-figured in the Old Testament as the “Lion of Judah” and will judge the nations at the end of the world.

I could keep doing this, but I think you get the point. Just in case it isn’t clear: our ability to come up with analogies or explanations for a trinity God doesn’t mean they conclusively exclude the possibility of more persons of God.

 

[petra22]

I’m cringing as I read this thread. The OP has a simple question, and the length to which you guys go to avoid answering it is astounding and exasperating.

Where does it say, in Catholic tradition, that is it impossible for God to be more than three persons, and why?

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a Pope, Council, or otherwise infallible teaching authority saying something to the affect of:

“There is no way God could be either more or less than the three exact persons we say he is because…[explanation other than “we’re always right” here]…”

Now, Tantum Ergo brought up some good points. The problem with his/her arguments is that they can be easily turned against the doctrine of the trinity itself. I can easily argue that the doctrine of the trinity is based on an “argument from silence” and totally unsupported by 5,000 years of tradition. I can easily argue that the doctrine of the trinity implies a “change” in God’s nature, which is impossible, etc.

In sum, find an infallible statement showing God must be only three persons with no possibility of further development of understanding or revelation supported by reasoning that does not also undercut the same arguments in support of trinity vs singularity.

Should be simple. No more avoidance. No more hedging. No more psychoanalysis of the questioners.

Man up and give your answer.

You all seem to be saying that God is plural. Even though there is a trinity inside God, God is still ONE, not plural. Now that is hard to grasp, but it is the TRUTH. Jesus said “the Father and I are ONE”!!!

 

[PRmerger]

Technically it is asked, answered, and then asked again. So, here’s a possible answer:

The Father is God.
Even prior to any acts of creation, the Father has an idea of himself. Being God, the Father’s idea of himself is so perfect, that it manifests as the second person (of the Trinity).
The Father and the Son relate to each other, love each other. Their love relationship is so perfect that it manifests as the third person (of the Trinity), the Holy Spirit. The Father knows the Son so perfectly, that his knowledge manifests as the fourth person, Sophia (who became incarnate as Mary and is prefigured in the Old Testament as the woman “wisdom.”)

Hold it right there…this presupposes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are lacking in wisdom and need a 4th.

This is an incorrect articulation of the truth.

When there was the 3rd Person (and this “when” is only used for our limited human language. In the eternity of the Trinity there is no “when”, but I use it only to be able to articulate the concept), the Godhead was perfect and complete.

Nothing more needs to be added.

Else, it’s not God, right? (Channeling St. Anselm here).

 

[guanophore]

In no way have I said or even implied that there was a change in the configuration of the Godhead. I’m saying we don’t know if there have been other people in the Godhead beyond the three God chose to reveal, and those other people are also co-eternal, co-equal, etc.

The “we” who don’t know this are only those who cannot accept the evidence that exists.

When Christianity talks about the Jews, they don’t say they were wrong in how they understood God just that they have and had an incomplete understanding of God. In the same way, we can say that Christians from Jesus until now have an incomplete understanding of God.

Yes. Your freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you like.

It's like if I have a bag and you see me put three items in it, you can accurately say those three items are in the bag but can't be sure if there aren't other items in it as well. God says his personage includes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but never says that's it.

From your point of view this has not been said, because you do not accept what has been said.

Christianity has pondered over the centuries everything possible about the Godhead, and yet no one can point us interested in this matter why there can’t be more than the three listed.

For us, this matter was closed at the Council of Nicea. As in other matters, dogma is silent in matters that are self evident.

1. Christians when questioning why non-Christians might find Christianity wanting often lay the blame on non-Christians not studying the matter enough. It’s the non-Christians’ fault and not the message itself.

I don’t think it is a matter of blame. That seems like a hostile response. There is no lifegiving use for blame. The fact is that there are many Christians who are ignorant about their faith, as well as non-Christians. It is not about finding “fault”. It is the responsibility of every Christian to study their faith,a nd be able to make a reasoned defense for it. It is the responsibility of any person, before they begin to criticize, to find out the facts around the target. Many accusations do come from ignorance.

So when a non-Christian comes up with a tough question on Christianity – and you are by no means the first to give this kind of response – the response is often that it makes no sense for a non-Christian to be questioning Christianity. Talk about disingenuous, doubters oddly can never do right in either assessing or not assessing Christian doctrine and literature.

You claim that your entire foundation is based in reas"doubters oddly can never do right in either assessing or not assessing Christian doctrine and literature." What is the standard of what is “right”? You have assessed the doctrine and the literature, and rejected it. This is what you believed was “right” for you to do. If you are at peace with your own conscience, why should what anyone else things matter?

2) I'm not sure if you visit the Non-Catholic section of CAF, but Catholics will give a thorough once-over on various non-Catholic faiths to a degree that sometimes is far greater than what I'm doing here -- and that's a good thing.  That which can withstand scrutiny exceeds that which must avoid scrutiny.  When a Catholic asks a Mormon questions on the various issues with the Golden Plates, a response asking why the Catholic even cares is a total non-answer.Knowledge is a good thing, especially if it's knowledge about something outside of what one normally experiences.

Yes, I would support this principle.

And as I told guanophore I am puzzle solver at heart.  The puzzle of how to accept the internal consistency of acknowledging gaps in understanding with seemingly blind assuredness within that gap of understanding is something I'd like to see solved.

I don’t think this will be possible for you, Mike. It seems like “blind assuredness” to you because it is based on evidence that you cannot accept as valid. That being the case, you perceive a “gap” that we do not.