Why Three Persons, not four?

[Dan_Parker]

There was a discussion on this a long while back that you might still find.

The reason God is a Trinity is because God is love. Love requires twoness, in fact threeness: the lover, the beloved, and the act, or relationship, of love between them. God is Trinity because God is love itself in its completeness.

If love requires twoness then how can the New American Bible say “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39) If you love yourself are you two persons?

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

You will notice in my original post that I used the word “accused”.

I found it odd for a group who is usually accused of believing in a works-based salvation can also be accused of believing in an OSAS salvation. My comment was made in that regard and not to state that JW’s believe in a works-based salvation.

God bless you

It makes perfect sense when one considers the things of which Jesus was accused:

NAB Matthew 11:17 ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.’ 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, 'He is possessed by a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, 'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works."

Dan

 

[Convert66]

I disagree with the premise. Development of doctrine is not necessarily an interpolation on the texts we use to discern the Triune God. The belief that we should have a collection of Scriptures at all is a development. The biblical pattern is that the Word of the Lord came to ___________, and then somebody got around to writing it down, usually long after the fact. That is a development. This pattern is throughout the Scriptures.

However I also believe it is ultimately useless to debate the Dogma of the Trinity with someone who refuses first to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord (and what that means on the lips of faithful, monotheistic Jews of the 2nd Temple Period), and not St. Michael the Archangel.

And we are accused of idolatry . . .

 

[FCEGM]

If love requires twoness then how can the New American Bible say “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39) If you love yourself are you two persons?

Dan

Whatever love we have for our neighbor flows from God. Love is not our creation, but a reflection of the essential love between the Father and the Son; we “simply” love with His love by the grace of our participation in the Sonship in Christ, the One Beloved of the Father.

Further, since God’s knowledge of Himself is perfect and His knowledge of Himself is the Son, there cannot be another knowledge of Himself to love in the Unity of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Whatever love we have for our neighbor flows from God. Love is not our creation, but a reflection of the essential love between the Father and the Son; we “simply” love with His love by the grace of our participation in the Sonship in Christ, the One Beloved of the Father.

Further, since God’s knowledge of Himself is perfect and His knowledge of Himself is the Son, there cannot be another knowledge of Himself to love in the Unity of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, God is love, but when a persons loves themselves there is only one person, not two. So there is something terribly wrong with the argument I refuted that for someone to love there must be two persons.

Dan

 

[Convert66]

Dan,

Love of self is not Love at all, because Love does not seek its own. If, “no greater love hath any man than to lay down his life for his friends,” then how much greater is God’s love?

If God is Love; and, Love does not seek its own; then, Whom did God Love in Eternity? Himself? That is self-seeking, and therefore, not Love at all. It is idolatry. It is literally Self-Love. If I love my neighbor as myself I am actually loving my neighbor and not my self, because I am not seeking my own, but the good of another. I am giving my self away, because that is what love does. So again, whom did God love before there was an object to Love other than Himself? Whom did He give Himself to Eternally?

All my best . . .

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Love of self is not Love at all, because Love does not seek its own. If, “no greater love hath any man than to lay down his life for his friends,” then how much greater is God’s love?

If God is Love; and, Love does not seek its own; then, Whom did God Love in Eternity? Himself? That is self-seeking, and therefore, not Love at all. It is idolatry. It is literally Self-Love. If I love my neighbor as myself I am actually loving my neighbor and not my self, because I am not seeking my own, but the good of another. I am giving my self away, because that is what love does. So again, whom did God love before there was an object to Love other than Himself? Whom did He give Himself to Eternally?

All my best . . .

But the verse actually says that the love we give our neighbor is the the **same way (AS) **you love yourself!

“You shall love your neighbor **as **yourself.” (Matthew 22:39)

Why do you make a distinction when the bible does not?

Dan

 

[Convert66]

But the verse actually says that the love we give our neighbor is the the **same way (AS) **you love yourself!

Why do you make a distinction when the bible does not?

Dan

It says love your neighbor as yourself. The “as yourself” is the distinction. If I were to tell you to catch as Jerry Rice, you wouldn’t be catching Jerry Rice no matter how good you were. I am telling you to catch, and comparing that to something else—catching “as” Jerry Rice.

If I am loving my neighbor, I am loving them, period. I am not loving them “like” anything but themself. They are my neighbor, not me. They are “other” and the point is to Love. The method is to do so as you would do to yourself, that is, you would not leave yourself stranded in the rain; you would not let yourself go without food, or drink, or a visit when you are sick or in prison. “As yourself” is the method—the “how”; the neighbor is the “who” and the what is Love. Why? Because Jesus said. Where? Wherever we find “the least of these . . .” because there (not here) we find Christ.

The distinction is in the plain reading of the text. I am to love as I love myself, but in the act I am not loving myself, but rather another person—my neighbor.

Surely you can see this.

All my best . . .

 

[FCEGM]

Yes, God is love, but when a persons loves themselves there is only one person, not two. So there is something terribly wrong with the argument I refuted that for someone to love there must be two persons.

Of course you would think so with your lack of knowledge of the Most Holy Trinity - and of Divine Love.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Of course you would think so with your lack of knowledge of the Most Holy Trinity - and of Divine Love.

It is simple math. You say that God must be plural because he loves. But Scripture says we are to love our neighbor just **as **we love ourselves. If we can love ourselves without being a plurality then your argument is refuted.

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

It says love your neighbor as yourself. The “as yourself” is the distinction. If I were to tell you to catch as Jerry Rice, you wouldn’t be catching Jerry Rice no matter how good you were. I am telling you to catch, and comparing that to something else—catching “as” Jerry Rice.

If I am loving my neighbor, I am loving them, period. I am not loving them “like” anything but themself. They are my neighbor, not me. They are “other” and the point is to Love. The method is to do so as you would do to yourself, that is, you would not leave yourself stranded in the rain; you would not let yourself go without food, or drink, or a visit when you are sick or in prison. “As yourself” is the method—the “how”; the neighbor is the “who” and the what is Love. Why? Because Jesus said. Where? Wherever we find “the least of these . . .” because there (not here) we find Christ.

The distinction is in the plain reading of the text. I am to love as I love myself, but in the act I am not loving myself, but rather another person—my neighbor.

Surely you can see this.

All my best . . .

When you are loving yourself, there is only one person involved. Surely you can see that! It is not necessary to love someone else at the same time you love yourself. The text does not say that at all.

Dan

 

[Convert66]

The text doesn’t say to love yourself. It says to love your neighbor, who is not yourself.

 

[Dan_Parker]

The text doesn’t say to love yourself. It says to love your neighbor, who is not yourself.

Quote a bible version that read that way.

Dan

 

[Convert66]

What are you talking about, Dan? Show me where it says to love yourself?

I say it does not. You seem to think it does. Show me. It says “love your neighbor” it does not say, “love yourself.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Although the Trinity is completely logical and rational there is no way around the fact that it is a Divine Revelation. It is not man’s ability to rationalize the nature of God that has given us the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, It is because it was taught to us by God Himself through His Beloved Spouse, the Church and is confirmed by His Holy Word in the Scriptures.

 

[Luke_K]

If love requires twoness then how can the New American Bible say “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39) If you love yourself are you two persons?

Dan

We do need to love ourselves.

To love ourselves means to will the highest good for ourselves, which is to submit ourselves entirely over to God. That is what will bring us our greatest happiness.

If I hated myself, I would be totally self-centered and selfish, which ultimately brings the greatest unhappiness on myself.

Therefore, love still requires more than one person. :hug3:

 

[Dan_Parker]

We do need to love ourselves.

To love ourselves means to will the highest good for ourselves, which is to submit ourselves entirely over to God. That is what will bring us our greatest happiness.

If I hated myself, I would be totally self-centered and selfish, which ultimately brings the greatest unhappiness on myself.

Therefore, love still requires more than one person. :hug3:

That is not the context of the passage. Loving one’s neighbor as one loves oneself means that we should treat others as we would treat ourself.

I have a feeling that you cannot even find a well-known Catholic commentary who remotely has the view you propose for “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Dan

 

[Luke_K]

That is not the context of the passage. Loving one’s neighbor as one loves oneself means that we should treat others as we would treat ourself.

I have a feeling that you cannot even find a well-known Catholic commentary who remotely has the view you propose for “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Dan

I have a feeling that you have no idea what the Catholic, even Christian, concept of love is.

In answer to your challenge, here’s what St. Aquinas has to say:

On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 22:39): “The second” commandment “is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

I answer that, This precept is fittingly expressed, for it indicates both the reason for loving and the mode of love. The reason for loving is indicated in the word “neighbor,” because the reason why we ought to love others out of charity is because they are nigh to us, both as to the natural image of God, and as to the capacity for glory. Nor does it matter whether we say “neighbor,” or “brother” according to 1 John 4:21, or “friend,” according to Leviticus 19:18, because all these words express the same affinity.

The mode of love is indicated in the words “as thyself.” This does not mean that a man must love his neighbor equally as himself, but in like manner as himself, and this in three ways. First, as regards the end, namely, that he should love his neighbor for God’s sake, even as he loves himself for God’s sake, so that his love for his neighbor is a “holy” love. Secondly, as regards the rule of love, namely, that a man should not give way to his neighbor in evil, but only in good things, even as he ought to gratify his will in good things alone, so that his love for his neighbor may be a “righteous” love. Thirdly, as regards the reason for loving, namely, that a man should love his neighbor, not for his own profit, or pleasure, but in the sense of wishing his neighbor well, even as he wishes himself well, so that his love for his neighbor may be a " true" love: since when a man loves his neighbor for his own profit or pleasure, he does not love his neighbor truly, but loves himself.

Aquinas also says:

Well ordered self-love, whereby man desires a fitting good for himself, is right and natural…

I answer that, Happiness is the attainment of the Perfect Good. Whoever, therefore, is capable of the Perfect Good can attain Happiness. Now, that man is capable of the Perfect Good, is proved both because his intellect can apprehend the universal and perfect good, and because his will can desire it. And therefore man can attain Happiness. This can be proved again from the fact that man is capable of seeing God, as stated in I, 12, 1: in which vision, as we stated above (Question 3, Article 8) man’s perfect Happiness consists.

 

[FCEGM]

Luke beat me to the punch with Thomas Aquinas. I’ll just add this bit to what Luke has posted:

Since charity is a kind of friendship, as stated above (Question 23, Article 1), we may consider charity from two standpoints: first, under the general notion of friendship, and in this way we must hold that, properly speaking, a man is not a friend to himself, but something more than a friend, since friendship implies union, for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “love is a unitive force,” whereas a man is one with himself which is more than being united to another. Hence, just as unity is the principle of union, so the love with which a man loves himself is the form and root of friendship. For if we have friendship with others it is because we do unto them as we do unto ourselves, hence we read in Ethic. ix, 4,8, that “the origin of friendly relations with others lies in our relations to ourselves.” Thus too with regard to principles we have something greater than science, namely understanding.

Secondly, we may speak of charity in respect of its specific nature, namely as denoting man’s friendship with God in the first place, and, consequently, with the things of God, among which things is man himself who has charity. Hence, among these other things which he loves out of charity because they pertain to God, he loves also himself out of charity.

newadvent.org/summa/3025.htm

What you do not see, Dan, is that true love of oneself flows from love of God, since love of oneself is aimed at finding our greatest good - which is God. Thus two (ONE and one) to love oneself.

 

[FCEGM]

It is simple math. You say that God must be plural because he loves. But Scripture says we are to love our neighbor just **as **we love ourselves. If we can love ourselves without being a plurality then your argument is refuted.

Dan

As has been shown, we can only love ourselves precisely because of the Other, which is God.

Further, God could not be love if he did not have someone to love. The meaning of the trinity is not that there are three different Gods. The meaning is that there is one God, but within that one God there are three different persons. So God could be love only in the trinity because he loved the son and they loved the Holy Spirit. So since God is love, He is a Trinity of Persons.

In one of his addresses, Pope John Paul II speaks of this Mystery as one revealing that God, while One, is never alone. God is a Community of Persons, and it is in this Divine Communion that man finds the fulfillment of his desire for communion with another. It is only because of the “First” Communion of the Divine Persons that our communion is possible with one another and with the Divine Persons. These Persons have no need for Communion with one creature, let alone millions, yet out of the fruitfulness of the impenetrating Love within the Godhead we have been created in order to participate in that Divine Communion (primary) and communion with each other (secondary). “God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since He has in Himself fatherhood, sonship, and the essence of the family, which is love,” John Paul II. “A great mystery, a mystery of love, an ineffable mystery, before which words must give way to the silence of wonder and worship. A divine mystery that challenges and involves us, because a share in the Trinitarian life was given to us through grace, through the redemptive Incarnation of the Word and the gift of the Holy Spirit: ‘Anyone who loves me will be true to my word, and my Father will love him; we will come to him and make our dwelling-place with him’ (Jn 14: 23),” John Paul II.

Dan, consider that from His Infinity what is there for God to love but Himself? There is nothing existing but God, and since “God is Love”, God must be loving Himself in order that God doesn’t change. If God is infinitude, then God must infinitely love Himself, since there is nothing to love but Himself. But this poses a problem. The love as described here is a narcissistic, arrogant, self-indulging, masturbationary love - “I love me, only me, and infinitely me.” If God were a single Person and we echo Scripture and say, “God is Love,” this is the kind of loving we’d get: egotism, narcissism, pride, self-indulgence, arrogance, the ultimate self-loves - something that actually resembles the attributes of another creature: The Devil.

To describe God as Love without the Trinitarian knowledge of Him, you get a very ugly, misrepresenting picture of God. Now, we as Christians say that God the Father, loves God the Son, and the Son loves the Father. God the Father, loves a Person Eternally, without beginning or end, in the simplicity of the Godhead. Both Father and Son are within the same Nature (God), and the “utterance of love by the Father and the Son fills the whole of their nature, producing another Person,” i.e., the Holy Spirit. (Theology for Beginners, Frank Sheed). It is this Person of the Son that God the Father has always loved (and in Their Mutual and Creative loving spirate the Holy Spirit), and eternally generates (begets) Him. It is in creation, especially in the human form (that which is the image of God, the Logos) that we see God. We are but images of the Logos himself.

In Heaven the Blessed see clearly this Truth that we now can only see “through a glass darkly”. . . .we are called to see God, . …

. . . .not only in the mirror of creatures, however perfect, not only by His highest radiations in the world of angels. We are called to see Him without the medium of any creature, to see Him better than we see those to whom we speak on earth, because God, being spiritual, will be most intimately present in our intelligence, which He fortifies with power to see Him.

. .The blessed see clearly and intuitively God Himself as He is in Himself, that is, they see His essence, His attributes, and the three divine persons. . .the beatific vision surpasses immeasurably, not only the most sublime human philosophy, but even the natural knowledge of the most elevated angels . . . The blessed see the divine perfections, concentrated and harmonized in their common source, in the divine essence which contains them all, eminently and formally, in a far higher way than white light contains the color of the rainbow. Thus the blessed see how mercy the most tender, and justice the most inflexible, proceed from one and the same love, infinitely generous and infinitely holy. . . “In this intellectual vision, never interrupted, they see also how the infinite fecundity of the divine nature blossoms into three persons. They see the eternal generation of the Word, who is the splendor of the Father, figure of His substance. They see the ineffable spiration of the Holy Spirit, who is the terminus of the mutual love of the Father and the Son, who unites the Father and Son in the most intimate and mutual self-communication. Such is the primary object of the beatific vision. . .,”

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. Life Everlasting, TAN Books.

Such is the Vision to which we are called by the God Who is Love in His Communion of Divine Persons. To dispute this and thus aim for far less is a great diminution of (and a denial of) our spiritual heritage in Christ Jesus. In all charity I pray for you this wider and deeper Vision, Dan.