Why must God be only three persons?

[PumpkinCookie]

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).

Rather the contrary, their wisdom is so real, it spirates as a person! Nothing is getting added or subtracted, it’s just that our understanding is…developing…

 

[guanophore]

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.
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.

I would say that most Christians, especially Catholics, are poorly equipped to defend their faith. And even those that are well prepared will be unable to provide an adequate defense to one who disallows their evidence.

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?

No one will be able to answer this to your satisfaction, since you do not accept as “evidence” the reasoning upon which this doctrine is based.

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

I think I have made it clear that I am unwilling to approach this “trick”. I am persuaded that it would be an exercise with no beneficial outome for either of us.

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?

Beleive me, I taken the same stance with many fundamentalists on CAF. Pulling together and providing evidence that one knows will not be accepted by the enquirer has limited value.

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?

Why not? You are created in the image and likeness of God. Part of this is that you have been given free will. You can choose for yourself what you want to believe.

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”?

Not at all. The need to take a leap of faith does not negate intellect… The leap must be taken from the far end of intellect.

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.

You have already been given an answer, Mike. You just can’t accept it. I am sorry it is difficult for you. I will pray for you.

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

This is one of the great beauties of Catholicism. In most cases, the answer is “both”.

Either they are involved or insufficient.

This is what I mean by your epistemological model being limiting. Both are true. Intellect is involved. Intellect alone is insufficient.

A link that details this discernment process?

I read in one of your posts above that you have already read several books on the Trinity. Perhaps you might consider checking their contents again as a refresher?

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.

I never made any such request of anyone.

I doubt that you have performed any research.

You are certainly entitled to your doubts.

 

[PRmerger]

Rather the contrary, their wisdom is so real, it spirates as a person! Nothing is getting added or subtracted, it’s just that our understanding is…developing…

Then this means that there was something lacking.

And that means this entity cannot be God.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Then this means that there was something lacking.

And that means this entity cannot be God.

There is no “was” for God. He has always been x persons.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no “was” for God. He has always been x persons.

Egg-zactly.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Egg-zactly.

Yup, where x is any positive integer, apparently.

 

[PRmerger]

Yup, where x is any positive integer, apparently.

No, not any.

He has always been 3, the fullness of love.

3, as they say, is the magic number.

youtube.com/watch?v=aU4pyiB-kq0

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’ll repeat.

God is eternal and unchanging. This is part of the definition of God.

For God to be Four (or More) Persons would mean that the current understanding and teaching that He is Three Persons in One God would be incorrect. IOW, there would be a change in the fundamental Nature of God.

That cannot be.

Let us take a triangle (3 sides). Now a square (4 sides). A triangle cannot be a square; it does not contain enough sides. But neither can a square be a triangle PLUS ANOTHER SIDE. The two things --triangle and square–are fundamentally different.

Some will argue that in the Old Testament there was only 'One God" and that the later understanding of Three Persons contradicts that.

Some will further argue that hey, if Three in One was OK, why not Four in One? What’s the big difference?

Well, once God revealed to us the nature of Three, He automatically (and this was well understood until the Clintonesque era ushered in the navel-gazing ‘depends on what ‘is’ is’ school of ‘thought’) by this revelation ‘closed off’ any notion of God being Two Persons, or Four Persons, or anything BUT Three Persons. There is simply no way that a deeper understanding of the nature of ‘Three’ can include "Four’ (no matter how high the value of ‘three’ goes, pace mathematicians.)

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll repeat.

God is eternal and unchanging. This is part of the definition of God.

For God to be Four (or More) Persons would mean that the current understanding and teaching that He is Three Persons in One God would be incorrect. IOW, there would be a change in the fundamental Nature of God.

That cannot be.

Let us take a triangle (3 sides). Now a square (4 sides). A triangle cannot be a square; it does not contain enough sides. But neither can a square be a triangle PLUS ANOTHER SIDE. The two things --triangle and square–are fundamentally different.

Some will argue that in the Old Testament there was only 'One God" and that the later understanding of Three Persons contradicts that.

Some will further argue that hey, if Three in One was OK, why not Four in One? What’s the big difference?

Well, once God revealed to us the nature of Three, He automatically (and this was well understood until the Clintonesque era ushered in the navel-gazing ‘depends on what ‘is’ is’ school of ‘thought’) by this revelation ‘closed off’ any notion of God being Two Persons, or Four Persons, or anything BUT Three Persons. There is simply no way that a deeper understanding of the nature of ‘Three’ can include "Four’ (no matter how high the value of ‘three’ goes, pace mathematicians.)

I think the question being posed in the OP is bigger than this. Your position presupposes that the Church is correct.

What the OP is asking, I think, is: is it a contrary to logic to say that God couldn’t be more than 3 persons. (Maybe the Church is wrong, IOW).

Or, without the negatives: MUST God be only 3 persons?

And the answer is: yes, it’s a contrary to logic to say God couldn’t be more than 3 persons. Yes, God must only be 3 persons.

Why? See the answer tee eff em gave.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think the question being posed in the OP is bigger than this. Your position presupposes that the Church is correct.

What the OP is asking, I think, is: is it a contrary to logic to say that God couldn’t be more than 3 persons. (Maybe the Church is wrong, IOW).

Or, without the negatives: MUST God be only 3 persons?

And the answer is: yes, it’s a contrary to logic to say God couldn’t be more than 3 persons. Yes, God must only be 3 persons.

Why? See the answer tee eff em gave.

Which is what the Church teaches, right? No matter how we slice it, it comes back to that we know what we know through the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Which is what the Church teaches, right? No matter how we slice it, it comes back to that we know what we know through the Church.

Yes.

But “because the Church says so” doesn’t work for someone who isn’t Catholic.

And the question implies “What if the Church is wrong”.

tee eff em’s answer shows that we don’t need to appeal to the Church. We can just appeal to Reason to see why God couldn’t be MORE than 3 persons.

EDIT:

NB: Sometimes the correct answer is: the ONLY way you know [A, B and C] is because the Catholic Church told you (to wit: that Hebrews, 3 John, Matthew are theopneustos),
but for this question, appeal to the Church’s authority isn’t necessary.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes.

But “because the Church says so” doesn’t work for someone who isn’t Catholic.

And the question implies “What if the Church is wrong”.

tee eff em’s answer shows that we don’t need to appeal to the Church. We can just appeal to Reason to see why God couldn’t be MORE than 3 persons.

EDIT:

NB: Sometimes the correct answer is: the ONLY way you know [A, B and C] is because the Catholic Church told you (to wit: that Hebrews, 3 John, Matthew are theopneustos),
but for this question, appeal to the Church’s authority isn’t necessary.

Got it. Excellent point and thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Got it. Excellent point and thank you.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I’ll repeat.

God is eternal and unchanging. This is part of the definition of God.

For God to be Four (or More) Persons would mean that the current understanding and teaching that He is Three Persons in One God would be incorrect. IOW, there would be a change in the fundamental Nature of God.

That cannot be.

Let us take a triangle (3 sides). Now a square (4 sides). A triangle cannot be a square; it does not contain enough sides. But neither can a square be a triangle PLUS ANOTHER SIDE. The two things --triangle and square–are fundamentally different.

Some will argue that in the Old Testament there was only 'One God" and that the later understanding of Three Persons contradicts that.

Some will further argue that hey, if Three in One was OK, why not Four in One? What’s the big difference?

Well, once God revealed to us the nature of Three, He automatically (and this was well understood until the Clintonesque era ushered in the navel-gazing ‘depends on what ‘is’ is’ school of ‘thought’) by this revelation ‘closed off’ any notion of God being Two Persons, or Four Persons, or anything BUT Three Persons. There is simply no way that a deeper understanding of the nature of ‘Three’ can include "Four’ (no matter how high the value of ‘three’ goes, pace mathematicians.)

OK so let me return these same arguments to you. Here:

1. God is eternal and unchanging. This is part of the definition of God.

For God to be Three (or More) Persons would mean that the 5,000 year old understanding and teaching that He is One God would be incorrect. IOW, there would be a change in the fundamental Nature of God.

That cannot be.

1. Let us take a point (no sides)… Now a triangle (three sides)… A point cannot be a triangle; it does not contain enough sides. But neither can a triangle be a point PLUS ANOTHER SIDE. The two things --triangle and point–are fundamentally different.
2. Well, once God revealed to us the nature of One, He automatically (and this was well understood until the Clintonesque era ushered in the navel-gazing ‘depends on what ‘is’ is’ school of ‘thought’) by this revelation ‘closed off’ any notion of God being Two Persons, or Four Persons, or anything BUT One Person. There is simply no way that a deeper understanding of the nature of ‘One’ can include "Three’ (no matter how high the value of ‘three’ goes, pace mathematicians.)

All I did was change the numbers. Your argument works just as well for me as it does for you, which is not at all my friend.

 

[PRmerger]

OK so let me return these same arguments to you. Here:

1. God is eternal and unchanging. This is part of the definition of God.

For God to be Three (or More) Persons would mean that the 5,000 year old understanding and teaching that He is One God would be incorrect. IOW, there would be a change in the fundamental Nature of God.

That cannot be.

Right.

It cannot be.

Because…

the 5000 year old understanding of God being One God was incomplete.

THAT’S why we needed Christ.

To make the Truth of God’s revelation complete.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… 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.

…

To me the most important aspect is that He is more than two, there is room for the other other (as per my post 71).

 

[guanophore]

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.

Well, you cant’ rule it out because you cannot accept what God has revealed.

And for the same reason, you cannot accept what the Scripture says on this matter (that a future revelation will not be forthcoming). Scripture does not meet your standards of evidence.

What the Apostles believed and taught does not qualify as evidence.

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

They why has already been referenced and rejected as “assumption”.

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.

Ok.

And yet here I sit with more non-answers.

Certainly it would not be logical to expect a satisfactory answer from a person who had not done the research, would it?

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?

You have made it clear from the outset that there is no way for you to 'know" this. Since the Church bases her teachings on what has been revealed by God, and this is not a logical or rational source (in your world), no one will be able to make an adequate case to satisfy you.

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

I hope and pray that you will have an encounter with the living God that persuades you that logic and reason can only take a person so far, then they must make a leap of faith.

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.

Right.

I don't believe you have a girlfriend living in Canada.

Ok. Since this is where you started, you have not lost any ground.

 

[guanophore]

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.

It has been quite a vicious circle, has it not? Something similar to trying to nail jello to a wall.

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

Many sources have been referenced on the thread. None of them are relevant, ulitmately, since they do not meet the standards of proof required.

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]…”

I beg to differ. I do not accept any such mission. If you wish to go on such a mssion yourself, or take a friend with you, I will wish you Godspeed.

It has been made abundantly clear that no amount of evidence or history presented by Trinitarians would suffice.

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.

We see it differently. God’s revelation of Himself has always been true and accurate.

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.

This is a bogus assignment because it is based upon a fals premise. God is one. He has always revealed Himself as One. The Trinity is not “vs singularity”. Both things are true.

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

Man up and give your answer.

Recognition of a spiritual need and search has nothing to do with psychoanalysis. The answer to this question will not meet the need, though it may seem like it might. No amount of logic and argument can replace an encounter.

 

[guanophore]

It's important to note a few things:

1. Just because a person of the Godhead has not been revealed as such yet doesn’t mean he won’t later be revealed as such in the future.

This may be a privilege you would like to reserve for yourself, but a Christian cannot accept this position. We believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. We believe that what the Apostles preached and taught is also the Word of God. Within that Word of God is the fact that there was a once for all divine deposit of faith made to the Church from which we are not at liberty to subtract and to which we are not at liberty to add.

Those who reject the teachings of the Apostles to plenty of adding and subtracting.

1. Assuming that the Messiah as spelled out in the Old Testament is Jesus, Son of God, then it must be noted that the Messiah was not presented as being a member of the Godhead until the New Testament.

Such a statement rules out certain passages of the OT that apply to the Messiah.

Interpretation by Jews both then and now had the Messiah as human and not divine. It’s quite possible such a fourth (or fifth, or sixth) person of the Godhead has been described in such a manner.

Indeed yes. You and the Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah can invent as many persons to be part of the Godhead as you wish.

1. Twice in the Old Testament there is a mention of The Holy Spirit.

If you only find this twice in your OT, we must be reading a very different collection of books. :sad_yes:

1. Any analogies to show that the Godhead is a Trinity can’t just be some thing or concept with three discrete things in it. It has to be analogous for it to be an analogy, meaning that it has to show how each component works in the way the Trinity does. The most difficult part is to show how each component is a part of the whole, while at the same time not fall into partialism. Each component must be the thing or concept as a whole, just as God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are each wholly God.

It is clearly very difficult to wrap our limited human minds around divine mysteries.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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

Where is that evidence that you claim is true? (That’s one.)

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

You dodged the point there. Christians say that the Jews were not wrong in their belief in God, but had an incomplete understanding of him (including only knowing God the Father). It’s quite possible that we are in the same boat now, that while we have a better understanding than the Israelites that we still have an incomplete understanding (including only knowing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

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

You again dodged the point here. Saying we know that some items are part of a group does not necessarily mean we know all items in that group.

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

Are you suggesting there weren’t heated debates as to the makeup of the Godhead? Also if you are saying that they are silent on these types of matters than this runs counter to your assertion that there is evidence for your claim. You can’t have it both ways.

I don’t think it is a matter of blame. That seems like a hostile response. There is no lifegiving use for blame.

And yet read practically any thread regarding why people aren’t become Christians or are leaving the Christian faith. Blame will most certainly be placed on those people for not studying Christianity enough or in the right way.

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.

You know what a good way to find out “facts around the target”? Ask those who claim to have the answers when the research comes up empty. In most cases those with the answers are more than willing to provide their reasoning. This case differs greatly.

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”?

The right in my description comes not from me but from those who respond to questions of non-believers. Don’t research enough by the believers’ standards and the non-believer has no right to question the beliefs. If you research too much then the non-believer must have sneaky ulterior motives for asking the questions they do of believers. To some believers there is never a “right” amount of research or questioning from non-believers.

Remember this is all in your repeated assessment that because I don’t believe in your version of God that I shouldn’t be asking questions of Christian doctrine.

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?

Just like how you repeatedly misused when I referenced “consensus” you are now misusing how I referenced “right”. And why should it matter? Shouldn’t we learn more about what others think? Shouldn’t we question when we see a paradox between unknowing and certain knowing? Knowledge truly is power.

Yes, I would support this principle.

Good. So let what is good for the goose be good for the gander and not concern ourselves with whether one group questions the rationale of another and just answer the question.