Why the Trinity?

[oldburkes]

This is extremely illogical statement if we assume the generally understood meanings of the words ‘dialectic’ and ‘process’.
But I see it coming that you’ll have new definitions for these words…

Jaaanosik, he’s given us his definition of the ‘Trinity’, and moved on to ‘Heven and Hell’, in another thread.
I’m on the edge of my seat.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I’ve never heard a sensible, reasonable, rational, convincing argument or explanation for the trinity.
In fact, most Christians I know don’t even understand it.

.

I would say that no one “understands” the Trinity, one may “know” that God Is a Trinity but still not understand, one may believe that God Is a Trinity but still not understand.

When we try to “explain” what God Is, all we seem to do is prove our incompetence in “explaining” the unexplainable.

“I AM WHO AM”, could be that simple.

Sometimes we just have to accept that some things are beyond our understanding even if they are not beyond our “knowing” if God wishes to reveal something to us.

Also, putting it into the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” could be a way of looking at it if we do not take it literally in a human way, in that God Is a Trinity only if God always was a Trinity, not that God became a Trinity.

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

God actualizes himself (or his “self”) through the three-fold dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

This is extremely illogical statement if we assume the generally understood meanings of the words ‘dialectic’ and ‘process’.
But I
see it coming that you’ll have new definitions for these words…

The dialectic is the rational principle (a.k.a. the “Logos”).

 

[oldburkes]

I would say that no one “understands” the Trinity, one may “know” that God Is a Trinity but still not understand, one may believe that God Is a Trinity but still not understand.

When we try to “explain” what God Is, all we seem to do is prove our incompetence in “explaining” the unexplainable.

“I AM WHO AM”, could be that simple.

Sometimes we just have to accept that some things are beyond our understanding even if they are not beyond our “knowing” if God wishes to reveal something to us.

Also, putting it into the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” could be a way of looking at it if we do not take it literally in a human way, in that God Is a Trinity only if God always was a Trinity, not that God became a Trinity.

That’s kinda what I thought, too. :yup:
I don’t know philosophy very well, but I know arrogance when I hear it.

 

[levinas12]

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.

It’s unusual that the Trinity is inserted into a purely philosophical discussion. Because traditionally the Trinity is cited as an example of a “revealed truth” as opposed to a “truth arrived at through natural reason”.

Now there are “truths” about God that can be approached through natural reason (e.g., God’s existence as in the five ways of Thomas).

But what is the cognitive status of a “revealed truth”. How do we know that a “revealed truth” is true if we cannot validate it philosophically?

A trinitarian Christian could respond as follows. I know about the Trinity from scripture and the tradition of the Church, not from some metaphysical argument. The believability of scripture and tradition can be rationally defended however. And, once I know about the Trinity, I can think about in philosophical terms. But even here there are pitfalls. For example, what happens when we think about the Trinity in terms of Aristotle’s metaphysics. Well, I think we run into a lot of difficulties.

This doesn’t mean that we cannot have a philosophical discussion of the Trinity. The question is: which philosophy?

That said … let us consider “begotten” and “procession”. I think these terms are quite tricky. They seem to suggest causality but we know that the Father did not create the Son, and that the Father and Son together did not create the Holy Spirit. So how can we parse them?

Perhaps “begotten” can be explained as the Father’s “giving Himself entirely to the Son” and the Son “totally receiving what the Father gives and in term giving Himself entirely to the Father”. There is no procreation here but a “self-giving” that is total.

What does “procession” from the Father and the Son mean? Again, we turn to the “self-giving”. The Holy Spirit is the “self-giving” of the Father to the Son, and the “self-giving” of the Son to the Father - or better, the Holy Spirit is the mutuality of the "self-giving’ (it’s the mutuality that would account for the procession from both the Father and Son). This procession takes place before and apart from creation.

But, then with the “event” of creation, the sending of the Holy Spirit to human beings is to bring about mutual “self-giving” on our planet both with respect to other human beings and with respect to God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, this thread is about “Why the Trinity?” However, when certain individuals could not muster up any kind of argument to explain why God should be triune, they became flustered and decided to hijack the thread instead.

No, what we are flustered about is your insistance on demanding some kind of scientific or philosophical proof for the Trinity when we have readily admitted that there is none. Also, you fail to grasp that we do not have to justify our faith to you ( especially you ) or anyone else. Personally, I don’t care what you and all the atheists, skeptics, Muslims, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Hindus, etc. think about the Christian Faith and what it teaches and adheres to. We wish you would open your eyes, but we aren’t loosing any sleep over it. And we aren’t flustered about it.

Linus2nd

 

[Counterpoint]

It’s unusual that the Trinity is inserted into a purely philosophical discussion. Because traditionally the Trinity is cited as an example of a “revealed truth” as opposed to a “truth arrived at through natural reason”.

Now there are “truths” about God that can be approached through natural reason (e.g., God’s existence as in the five ways of Thomas).

But what is the cognitive status of a “revealed truth”. How do we know that a “revealed truth” is true if we cannot validate it philosophically?

That’s the problem, If a “revealed truth” is a truth that is not arrived through natural reason, then you cannot employ any kind of reason to validate it. All you can say is that God revealed it to me.

This doesn’t mean that we cannot have a philosophical discussion of the Trinity. The question is: which philosophy?

That said … let us consider “begotten” and “procession”. I think these terms are quite tricky. They seem to suggest causality but we know that the Father did not create the Son, and that the Father and Son together did not create the Holy Spirit. So how can we parse them?

Perhaps “begotten” can be explained as the Father’s “giving Himself entirely to the Son” and the Son “totally receiving what the Father gives and in term giving Himself entirely to the Father”. There is no procreation here but a “self-giving” that is total.

What does “procession” from the Father and the Son mean? Again, we turn to the “self-giving”. The Holy Spirit is the “self-giving” of the Father to the Son, and the “self-giving” of the Son to the Father - or better, the Holy Spirit is the mutuality of the "self-giving’ (it’s the mutuality that would account for the procession from both the Father and Son). This procession takes place before and apart from creation.

But, then with the “event” of creation, the sending of the Holy Spirit to human beings is to bring about mutual “self-giving” on our planet both with respect to other human beings and with respect to God.

I have addressed these issues in the following threads:

“The Theology of the “Eternally Begotten”” and “The Theology of “Procession””

If the second person of the Trinity was not really “begotten” in any sense, then why call the Father the Father and the Son the Son?

 

[levinas12]

No, what we are flustered about is your insistance on demanding some kind of scientific or philosophical proof for the Trinity when we have readily admitted that there is none. Also, you fail to grasp that we do not have to justify our faith to you ( especially you ) or anyone else. Personally, I don’t care what you and all the atheists, skeptics, Muslims, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Hindus, etc. think about the Christian Faith and what it teaches and adheres to. We wish you would open your eyes, but we aren’t loosing any sleep over it. And we aren’t flustered about it.

Linus2nd

Peace, brothers, peace

 

[Counterpoint]

No, what we are flustered about is your insistance on demanding some kind of scientific or philosophical proof for the Trinity when we have readily admitted that there is none. Also, you fail to grasp that we do not have to justify our faith to you ( especially you ) or anyone else. Personally, I don’t care what you and all the atheists, skeptics, Muslims, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Hindus, etc. think about the Christian Faith and what it teaches and adheres to. We wish you would open your eyes, but we aren’t loosing any sleep over it. And we aren’t flustered about it.

I posted the OP of this thread in a philosophy forum. So, I am fully justified in asking that you provide a rational argument to support your belief.

Remember, no one is forcing you to participate on this thread.

 

[tonyrey]

One Person is the apotheosis of Egocentricity.

Two Persons are the apotheosis of Infertility.

Three Persons are Love’s creativity.

 

[Counterpoint]

One Person is the apotheosis of Egocentricity.

Two Persons are the apotheosis of Infertility.

Three Persons are Love’s creativity.

If love is infinitely creative, then why not an infinity of persons?

You could argue that each person in the “infininity” (infinite-unity) qualifies as the lover, the beloved, and the which love unites all the other persons in the infininity unto itself.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

Whether or not God is triune is a matter of ontological fact. He either is, or he isn’t. How we know that God is triune requires an examination of the sources of knowledge at our disposal. We certainly know some things about God from his effects; like the existence of the universe, or the existence of anything for that matter. We can make reasonable inferences about certain attributes of God from this as well.

What you want to examine is the internal makeup of God - the Immanent Trinity and internal relationship of (the alleged) three Persons. Can we reach any reasonable conclusions about this from observing God’s effects alone? Seemingly not.

Aristotle was unable to come to this conclusion. The great Jewish thinkers have been unable to come to this conclusion, despite the prefigurement in the Old Testament. Maybe the question to ask is: how we come to know things about a person’s innermost being?

We might be able to directly observe their actions and make some inferences. That won’t work with God since we cannot directly observe him. We may be able to make some attenuated inferences based on the effects of a person’s actions. This may or may not give us some insight, but apparently not enough for the pre-Christian philosophers. The way we normally learn about a person’s innermost being is by having them reveal it to us. Otherwise we end up with at least a certain amount of speculation.

Of course there is going to be faith involved in trusting the person who is giving us the revelation. We would need to have faith that the person isn’t lying or deceiving us. There ways to test this: veracity of past statements, consistency with prior actions, reputation for truth among others who know the person, etc. The point is, there are reasons for having faith (trusting) what a person reveals to us as true about themselves or even about others they know.

And that is what Christians mean by believing revelation based on “faith.” It is no different from the multiple faith-based commitments we all make everyday when trusting the word of another, particularly when it involves their innermost psyche and constitution, or someone who relays to us what they’ve been told by another regarding the same. There can be very good reasons for believing what people tell us about themselves.

It is a little bit perplexing then when you outright dismiss the revelation of Scripture and the Church regarding the Trinity because it’s based on “faith.” Of course, if Christians had no good reasons for believing these sources , then you would have something. You’ve hardly established that. What I find even more puzzling is that it appears you are relying on the same revelation for your own philosophical conclusions about the triune God.

The dialectic is the rational principle (a.k.a. the “Logos”).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11875826&postcount=84

Where did you get the term “the Logos”? In fact, where did you get the concept of a “trinitarian God,” as set out in your first post? You are borrowing from the very revelation that you claim is based on faith, and therefore to be rejected as unreasonable. Your argument isn’t purely “metaphysical” or “philosophical,” as you put it. It relies on the very Christian revelation you claim to be “blind faith." You’ve gotten yourself in quite a pickle here.

 

[tonyrey]

One Person is the apotheosis of Egocentricity.

There may well be an infinity of persons but it doesn’t follow that they are **all **divine. The principle of economy applies. Why multiply divine Persons unnecessarily?

 

[Counterpoint]

There may well be an infinity of persons but it doesn’t follow that they are **all **divine. The principle of economy applies. Why multiply divine Persons unnecessarily?

Well, it seems that you are conceding that there may well be an infinity of persons. Moreover the CCC teaches that ""The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “Tthe Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begottnen Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men god.” (source: Article 460, "The Cathechism of the the Catholic Church)

It’s pretty clear. Isn’t it? From the eternal aspect of God, there are an infinity of persons sharing in the divinity of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Richca]

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.

The doctrine of the Trinity is beyond the natural light of any created intellect. We believe it because God has revealed it.

 

[Counterpoint]

The doctrine of the Trinity is beyond the natural light of any created intellect. We believe it because God has revealed it.

And Muslims will argue that Allah (God) has clearly revealed to them in the Holy Qur’an that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be rejected. That’s the problem with the divine revelation argument. As I argued in the OP, if you can’t rationally justify your belief, then you really don’t have any rational basis for accepting it.

 

[Counterpoint]

It is a little bit perplexing then when you outright dismiss the revelation of Scripture and the Church regarding the Trinity because it’s based on “faith.”

The NT does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity took several centuries to be formalized. So, when you say it was divinely revealed, how exactly was it divinely revealed? It apparently was divinely revealed to early Christian theologians who engaged in philosophical reflection.

Where did you get the term “the Logos”? In fact, where did you get the concept of a “trinitarian God,” as set out in your first post? You are borrowing from the very revelation that you claim is based on faith, and therefore to be rejected as unreasonable. Your argument isn’t purely “metaphysical” or “philosophical,” as you put it. It relies on the very Christian revelation you claim to be “blind faith." You’ve gotten yourself in quite a pickle here.

The “Logos” is the rational principle. It was first used by the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus. Stoicism identified it with the divine. Philo, a Hellenized Jewish philosopher, adopted it when and attempted to synthesize it with the Jewish wisdom tradition. The author of the Gospel of John (allegedly the apostle John) co-opted it and ascribed it to Christ. And Hegel gives it the fullest articulation in the form of the dialectic.

Christianity is not the only religious tradition to have a “trinitarian” conception of the divine. Other religious traditions have one as well. For example, both Hinduism and Buddhism have doctrines similar to the Trinity (see the “Trimurti” and the “Trikaya”).

 

[jochoa]

Why the Trinity?

God, the Creator of Everything, is three distinct persons, who are each the same person who created everything, because as this person, who created everything, sharing love requires one to be three distinct persons.

To understand the reasoning for each person, consider the factors of eternal lovers: An everlasting communion of two or more persons who freely follow the rules of love. To grant free will, each lover cannot know every thought, feeling, and action past, present and future of the other lover.

Therefore:

1. In order to ensure any person will freely follow the rules of love forever, there must be an all-knowing judge of all, who must be the person who created everything.
2. Since God is a lover, who shares love, the person who created everything must also be a person who allows others to freely follow the rules of love. Therefore, the person who created everything must sacrifice all-knowledge, but not all-wisdom (which is a form of all-knowledge) through the process of being begotten, while also remaining the judge.
3. Since absolute freedom from love requires a time of everything and anything being permissible, a time in which both just and unjust persons must suffer, in His Loving Kindness, God fully demonstrates the growth process from complete ignorance of the rules of love to the complete perfection of the rules of love. Therefore, the person who created everything must sacrifice all-knowledge, wisdom, and perfect love to become all-wise and perfectly loving, in order to fully share with others, namely enemies of love, how they too can become all-wise and perfectly loving.

Thank you very much for sharing such a good question! I really enjoyed reading your discussions with others, and considering my understandings of the question. I look forward to further discussion. Until then, may the peace and joy of Christ be with you always!

 

[levinas12]

It is a little bit perplexing then when you outright dismiss the revelation of Scripture and the Church regarding the Trinity because it’s based on “faith.” Of course, if Christians had no good reasons for believing these sources , then you would have something.

Yes, “faith” (in terms of belief in “revealed truth” as opposed to “truth” arrived at through philosophy alone) is not without its “reasons”.

In this respect, it might be helpful to provide specific NT passages that point to the Trinity.

Also, someone might want to provide a more detailed history of the Nicene formula (including the heresies).

What’s interesting about this history is how it finally settled on the notion of “person”, an entirely new “item” in philosophy’s toolkit. Here we have a clear example of theology influencing philosophy rather than the other way around. Yes, Aristotle talked about the “rational” animal. But he never conceived of “person” - because “person” cannot be explained in terms of form and matter (or species and genus).

What is revolutionary about the doctrine of the Trinity is that the “logos” is a Person.

 

[Richca]

And Muslims will argue that Allah (God) has clearly revealed to them in the Holy Qur’an that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be rejected. That’s the problem with the divine revelation argument. As I argued in the OP, if you can’t rationally justify your belief, then you really don’t have any rational basis for accepting it.

Jesus Christ backed up his teaching with miracles and especially from rising from the dead. Now, in my mind, that makes his teaching very rational to except.