Why the Trinity?

[Counterpoint]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

 

[davidv]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

This seems like a false premise. Humans are finite, limited beings. How can the reasoning power of such a being, apprehend all things that can be known?

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

The objection above needs to be addressed first.

 

[Della]

As believers we accept revealed truth as well as that which we can discern with our 5 senses. Indeed, I think it is impossible to discuss a theological issue without referring to divine revelation. But, I’ll try.

The Trinity is composed of 3 persons with the same essence/one in being. So why does there need to be 3 persons if they have the same essence? If that is the question?

Assuming that it is, the simplest reason is that God is love. Love which cannot/does not express itself is not love. So, how does a being who exists without the necessity of any other beings express love? Within his being.

The expression of love within God’s being must be, like himself, eternal since God simply is/exists. He was not created and there never was a time when he did not exist. This being the case, his begetting of the Son is also eternal. Hence, two persons, eternally present and one.

All right, then why another person? Why isn’t two enough to express love? Well, love, is also a person not just an expression or a feeling–remember that God is love. He isn’t just filled with love or a loving person he is love. That person is the Holy Spirit, eternally present with and eternally emanating from both the Father and the Son.

All are equal in dignity and all are God, one in being, heart, mind, and will–to put it in terms we humans can grasp. If I am wrong I will no doubt be corrected, but this is how I understand it.

 

[davidv]

This seems like a false premise. Humans are finite, limited beings. How can the reasoning power of such a being, apprehend all things that can be known?

The objection above needs to be addressed first.

Additional data:

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH
36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12
37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13
38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

This seems like a false premise. Humans are finite, limited beings. How can the reasoning power of such a being, apprehend all things that can be known?.

Translation: “I am not able to articulate a (philosophical) reason for why God should be triune. Therefore, I cannot philosophically justify my theological belief. However, I will not acknowledge that my belief is based on blind faith…faith completely divorced from reason.”

Does that sound about right?

 

[davidv]

Translation: “I am not able to articulate a (philosophical) reason for why God should be triune. Therefore, I cannot philosophically justify my theological belief. However, I will not acknowledge that my belief is based on blind faith…faith completely divorced from reason.”

Does that sound about right?

Wrong.

Nice strawman though.

 

[Della]

Translation: “I am not able to articulate a (philosophical) reason for why God should be triune. Therefore, I cannot philosophically justify my theological belief. However, I will not acknowledge that my belief is based on blind faith…faith completely divorced from reason.”

Does that sound about right?

Yes, that’s fine. The Church does not expect us to believe by “blind” faith–faith which cannot be supported by reason. What we believe about the Trinity is a matter of faith but it is also reasonable. The one need not cancel out the other, rather they compliment each other and lend aid to one another.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

You may " expect " all you want, there is no philosophical " proof " for the Trinity. It can be known only by God’s Revelation. All we can do is make analogies and see that it is not opposed to reason. Such as : A human family is composed of Mom, Dad, and Children. God is a Being with three Persons, He is a Family. The Father begets the Son, eternally, and the Holy Spirit flows from each to compose the Person of the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are fully God, yet each has a special mission ( in which each participates fully). God is a Communion of Persons in One Being or Godhead. It is important to understand that Each not only shares the life of God, but Is the Life that is God, Each is " He Who Is. "

This is a philosophical reflection on the Revelation of the Trinity, it is not an argument for it. But that is the best we can do…

Our Faith in the Trinity is fully justified by God’s Revelation because this Revelation is from God, Who cannot lie and does not lie because He is Truth Itself.

 

[Counterpoint]

As believers we accept revealed truth as well as that which we can discern with our 5 senses. Indeed, I think it is impossible to discuss a theological issue without referring to divine revelation. But, I’ll try.

The Trinity is composed of 3 persons with the same essence/one in being. So why does there need to be 3 persons if they have the same essence? If that is the question?

Assuming that it is, the simplest reason is that God is love. Love which cannot/does not express itself is not love. So, how does a being who exists without the necessity of any other beings express love? Within his being.

The expression of love within God’s being must be, like himself, eternal since God simply is/exists. He was not created and there never was a time when he did not exist. This being the case, his begetting of the Son is also eternal. Hence, two persons, eternally present and one.

All right, then why another person? Why isn’t two enough to express love? Well, love, is also a person not just an expression or a feeling–remember that God is love. He isn’t just filled with love or a loving person he is love. That person is the Holy Spirit, eternally present with and eternally emanating from both the Father and the Son.

All are equal in dignity and all are God, one in being, heart, mind, and will–to put it in terms we humans can grasp. If I am wrong I will no doubt be corrected, but this is how I understand it.

Thank you Della from Minnesota. You made a good faith effort and are to be commended for that.

So, let me recapitulate: God is triune (three in unity) because God is love and love itself is triune (three in unity), namely, God is the lover, God is the beloved, and God is the love that unites the two as one.

Question(s);

Who (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) exactly is the “lover” in this relationship?

Who (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) exactly is the “beloved”: in this relationship?

Comment:

“Love” may be personal in the sense that it may be exchanged between persons. But love, in another sense, is impersonal because it is not a person. IOW, I see the basis for a bi-personal “threesome” (excuse the phrase), but not for a tri-personal one.

 

[Della]

Thank you Della from Minnesota. You made a good faith effort and are to be commended for that.

Thank you. :tiphat:

So, let me recapitulate: God is triune (three in unity) because God is love and love itself is triune (three in unity), namely, God is the lover, God is the beloved, and God is the love that unites the two as one.

Yes.

Question(s);

Who (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) exactly is the “lover” in this relationship?

Who (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) exactly is the “beloved”: in this relationship?

All are the Lover and the Beloved. The Holy Spirit is the love that flows from one to the other.

Comment:

“Love” may be personal in the sense that it may be exchanged between persons. But love, in another sense, is impersonal because it is not a person. IOW, I see the basis for a bi-personal “threesome” (excuse the phrase), but not for a tri-personal one.

We tend to think in this way because we cannot grasp how love can be a Person. But we are talking about the Divinity here not finite created beings. God is love, in all his Persons, but the Holy Spirit is that Love. This is where we need to take reason by the hand and lead it to faith. For the doctrine of the Trinity is not unreasonable, but it does take faith to accept it.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Translation: “I am not able to articulate a (philosophical) reason for why God should be triune. Therefore, I cannot philosophically justify my theological belief. However, I will not acknowledge that my belief is based on blind faith…faith completely divorced from reason.”

Does that sound about right?

This sort of response seems to suggest that you think that anything which is known solely from revelation is completely divorced from reason - but this is false. Our reason brings us to accept a purported revelation as an actual revelation, and once we do so then we know (via the reason that led us to accept the revelation) that what it reveals must be true. This is not blind faith completely divorced from reason, this is reason that accepts that we can know things that God tells it even if we doesn’t completely comprehend everything about them.

That said, I do like Della’s argument, though I haven’t yet decided what I think about it, and will be playing with that. But while it is nice to have a philosophic answer to every question; that’s not possible (see CCC mystery), and so even if the answer ends up being “we know God is triune because we know that revelation is true and revelation says so,” that does not mean the trinity comes from an irrational argument “based on blind faith divorced from reason.”

 

[Counterpoint]

Yes, that’s fine. The Church does not expect us to believe by “blind” faith–faith which cannot be supported by reason. What we believe about the Trinity is a matter of faith but it is also reasonable. The one need not cancel out the other, rather they compliment each other and lend aid to one another.

I considered your response to the question I presented in the OP to be reasonable (well…semi-reasonable…it needed some work…but it was a good start).

 

[Counterpoint]

You may " expect " all you want, there is no philosophical " proof " for the Trinity. It can be known only by God’s Revelation. All we can do is make analogies and see that it is not opposed to reason. Such as : A human family is composed of Mom, Dad, and Children. God is a Being with three Persons, He is a Family. The Father begets the Son, eternally, and the Holy Spirit flows from each to compose the Person of the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are fully God, yet each has a special mission ( in which each participates fully). God is a Communion of Persons in One Being or Godhead. It is important to understand that Each not only shares the life of God, but Is the Life that is God, Each is " He Who Is. "

Here’s the problem with your analogy. The Christian God is a “single-parent” family.

This is a philosophical reflection on the Revelation of the Trinity, it is not an argument for it. But that is the best we can do.

“We” can do better than that.

Our Faith in the Trinity is fully justified by God’s Revelation because this Revelation is from God, Who cannot lie and does not lie because He is Truth Itself.

You cannot justify it unless you can rationally justify it. Either that, or you have to justify it by rationally justifying blind faith. (Those are your only options here.)

 

[Della]

I considered your response to the question I presented in the OP to be reasonable (well…semi-reasonable…it needed some work…but it was a good start).

In what way did my response need some work? Seriously. How can I hope to answer if I don’t know what you mean.

 

[Counterpoint]

All are the Lover and the Beloved. The Holy Spirit is the love that flows from one to the other.

Just for the sake of clarity. Are you saying that the Father and Son are both “love” and that the Holy Spirit is both the “lover” and the “beloved?” IOW, are all three - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - equally the lover, the beloved, and the love?

We tend to think in this way because we cannot grasp how love can be a Person. But we are talking about the Divinity here not finite created beings. God is love, in all his Persons, but the Holy Spirit is that Love. This is where we need to take reason by the hand and lead it to faith. For the doctrine of the Trinity is not unreasonable, but it does take faith to accept it.

Well, it seems to me that you are taking reason by the tail (not the hand) to faith. (And he is going there kicking and screaming.)

 

[Della]

Just for the sake of clarity. Are you saying that the Father and Son are both “love” and that the Holy Spirit is both the “lover” and the “beloved?” IOW, are all three - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - equally the lover, the beloved, and the love?

Yes. Since the three persons of the Trinity are one in essence and being, they are all love and give each other love. There is no separation between them in what they are only in who they are to each other.

Well, it seems to me that you are taking reason by the tail (not the hand) to faith. (And he is going there kicking and screaming.)

What have I written that you find unreasonable? I have given you an explanation that requires only belief that God is eternal love in essence as he has manifested himself as Trinity. I see no need for “kicking and screaming” to go from that to faith. It seems to lead there quite naturally to me.

 

[Counterpoint]

In what way did my response need some work? Seriously. How can I hope to answer if I don’t know what you mean.

I agree that “love” entails a “lover” and a “beloved,” and that the lover also qualify as the beloved and vice versa. But I only see two persons here, not three. Therefore, you have rationally established a bi-personal threesome, not a tri-personal threesome.

 

[Della]

I agree that “love” entails a “lover” and a “beloved,” and that the lover also qualify as the beloved and vice versa. But I only see two persons here, not three. Therefore, you have rationally established a bi-personal threesome, not a tri-personal threesome.

You are overlooking part of my response. I explained in my posts that the person of the Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son and is Love and gives Love as they are and do to and through him. The Holy Spirit is the Love of the Father and the Son and is a Person as well. I can’t make it any plainer than that, I’m afraid.

 

[Counterpoint]

This sort of response seems to suggest that you think that anything which is known solely from revelation is completely divorced from reason - but this is false.

My response basically echoes what I have already argued in the OP: “If we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune.”

 

[Iron_Donkey]

My response basically echoes what I have already argued in the OP: “If we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune.”

And as I said, being able to articulate such a reason is not equivalent to being able to articulate one without recourse to revelaton, that is, philosophically. But again, if we can do so philosophically, that’s great, and attempting to do so or see if we can is also great.

I don’t want to overly distract from a philosophical discussion of the Trinity, I just have to point out that we can in fact articulate a reason to believe that God is Triune that is rational and reasonable and good, but is not purely philosophical (that is, it does reference revelation), namely: reason has shown that this purported revealation is true, and it says that God is Triune, therefore God is Triune.

But by all means, seek a purely philosophical explanation. Just know that finding one is neither required nor always possible for all things we know to be true.