A Rational Explanation of the Trinity

[Guest irichc]

We have three axioms:

1) There is no thought without a thinking subject, and vice versa, there is no thinking subject without a thought.

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.

3) Nothing is without an activity.

And I infer the following:

a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.

c) The Father thinks it, and that truth is the Son.

d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.

e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit.

f) So, I understand the Trinity as "The Thinker (Father) in the Act of Thinking (Holy Spirit) the Thought (Son)".

* * *

I.

"'The truth is the truth' is true" is a part of the set of truths, since it is true, but only in a tangencial way, as far as it doesn't need any other truth as a fundament and it exists necessarily.

Every truth must fulfill three properties: 1) coherence with itself, 2) coherence with other truths and 3) inference from other truths. God only fulfills 1) and 2). Thus, it is part and it isn't part of the set of truths.

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be someting logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater. In other words: truth is abstractive, that is to say, negative. That which is more composed is more contingent (it has more conditions of existence), innecessary or superfluous than that which is simpler.

II.

Trinity solves the following problem: How is possible the "creatio ex nihilo" of material things from the divine, inmaterial plenitude?

Gnostics proposed a prolation or pronunciation of God to the material world. Before this prolation occurred, it would have been some unavoidable Silence and Abyss between the Creator and the creature.

Catholic ortodoxy opposes to this conception the coeternity of the Word, engendered from the same substance of God before any time was. The divine Verb is, previous to its incarnation, the invisible Image of the Creator, but it is also the invisible or rational image of every creature. It acts as a mediator between both realities.

Truth would be inactive and it could not create anything if it wasn't, at the same time, expansive. The self-sufficient truth, then, also implies the true. So, Trinity can be condensed in this sentence: "'The truth (Father) is the truth' (Son) is true (Holy Spirit)". It doesn't exist a simpler way to express the first true proposition, the unfounded fundament of everything.

If Islam denies that this proposition is true, then Islam is wrong and leads to falsity, which can't be attributed to God, but to the doctrines of men. If Islam thinks that there is a simpler procedure in order to express this first true proposition, may Islam show it as soon as possible.

III.

1) God didn't create the world arbitrarily, but according to ideas supported by the Truth.

2) However, the Father can't be fully identified with that coeternal ideas, since they presuppose a creative intention and a preceptive order. In the other hand, the will of Creation is an accidental one compared to the eternal, unengendered and self-subsistent potency of God.

Plus, God's providence depends on his will, while his will doesn't depend on providence.

Finally, ideas are naturally conceivable, but God is absolutely inconceivable.

3) Christ (the Son) is the sum of all the ideas that tend to Creation, and he is also its engendered fundament: the Good, the Truth, the Life.

God, nevertheless, is Christ's fundament.

4) God, an absolutely undetermined potency, engenders the Truth, an absolutely determined potency. At last, it engenders the Spirit, which is the infinite and absolutely determined act, as far as it is coherent with the Truth.

Cheers.

Daniel.


[u][b]Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):[/b][/u]

[url="http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk"]http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk[/url]

[Jake Huether]

Very nice post! It fits quite closely with what FJ Sheed has written about in "Theology for Beginners".

I have one comment though.

you wrote:

[quote]d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.[/quote]

The Father is not greater than the Son. This is precisely why they must each be a person. The thinker didn't precede the thought.

As humans our thoughts are less than us. So that the thought can never understand the thinker. Only the thinker can understand his thought. This is because out thoughts are imperfect.

But with God, the thought is perfect. And in perfection, the thought is the perfect knowledge of God. And therefore the thought knows the thinker. The Word knows the Speaker. Only because they are equal in Divine nature, one not being greater than the other.

To simplify: The thought and the thinker are perfect. There can only be one infinite perfect. So, although there are two distinct persons, the thought and the thinker... they are both of One Nature.

I could go on to include the perfect Love of the Father for His Word - which is who the Holy Spirit is, for the same reason the Son is who His is.

But I'm almost late for a meeting.

God bless.... and again great post. It's so important to understand this.

[Era Might]

I noted the connection with Sheed too. I thought he was quoting him at first, hehe.

Edited August 31, 2005 by Era Might

[LittleLes]

Hi Daniel,

I'm afraid there seems to be some problems with your premises:

"(2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object."

Response:

This premise seems a little vague. I can think of myself and even think about myself thinking.

"(d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought."

Response:

If they are "the same reality" then the Father cannot be greater than the Son. They would be the same.

"(e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit."

Response: I don't believe my act of thinking is the Holy Spirit.

In sum, your logic is a bit fuzzy.

LittleLes

[White Knight]

I believe Saint Patrick, explained it the best by comparing the Trinity to a Three-leaf Clover Three Equal Persons Equal to One Equal God.


Three Leafs connected to one steam. 3 in 1 [b]"God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"[/b]
Liquid, Solid, Vapor. Three different forms of water, yet all water.

Normal Water, Ice is water, Vapor is water in steam form.

Edited August 31, 2005 by White Knight

[Aloysius]

I have this same concept, except instead of "thinking" I use "loving"... it works better I think and fills in a few holes

for example, the one that littleles pointed out (I thought I'd absolutely never ever in my life be referencing a valid point made by littleles!) about no one being able to be the subject of their own thought. actually- they can- but that would be selfish thinking. we must define God as Love first, and thus understand that He cannot be selfish, and then His thought cannot be of Himself, and His love cannot be of Himself.

here is a post from a long time ago I made that I think very much follows your line of thinking only using "love" rather than "thought"

[quote]God is Love. God must Love for it is in His nature to love. Man and angel did not always exist. God always existed, forever forward in time, and forever backward in time. Thus, as His nature is to Love, His love always begets a Son to Love. The Son is also God. They both exist in EVERYTHING in time and space and are thus ONE. The Son is God, so He must Love also, Love is in the very nature of God. Thus the Son loves the Father because of the Father's love for the son. The Son is begotten because of the Father's Love for the Son. The Love between the father and the Son is infinite. God is Love, Love is God, the Third Person. All three are completely infinite and exist everywhere in space and time, and thus are ONE.[/quote]

[LittleLes]

"The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought."

I continue to have difficulty with this assertion for two reasons.

First "greater" always implies a "lesser." And secondly, isn't your assertion about the same as that taught by Arius?

[Aloysius]

it's the end of the world. seriously. littleles is correct-

the Father cannot be said to be greater than the son. and He cannot have existed before the Son. for as the First Necean Council states "And those who say "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration -- these the catholic and apostlolic church anathematises."

the Athanasian Creed and the Nicene-constantinople creed both refute the idea of the Father being greater than the son.

[Myles Domini]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm"]Summa Theologica Prima Pars[/url]

Read what St Thomas Aquinas has to say about the Trinity. He is neither long winded nor particularly difficult to understand. The Summa you know was written as a theological textbook for his pupils and it still serves excellently towards that purpose

[Apotheoun]

The Father is greater because He is the cause of the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Spirit, the former by generation and the latter by existential procession. Thus, there is one God because there is one Father, the sole source of divinity.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 1 2005, 06:30 AM']The Father is greater because He is the cause of the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Spirit, the former by generation and the latter by existential procession.  Thus, there is one God because there is one Father, the sole source of divinity.
[right][snapback]707319[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So the Person of the Father is greater than the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit.

But the Nature of all three is the Same One God...

Am I reading you right on that?

If One Person in His Nature is greater than any of the other two, then really you are saying that God is greater than... another god. For One God cannot be greater than Himself.

But if one of the Person's of God is greater, it must not be in Nature, but rather simply in Person. God the Father is greater than God the Son, not because of their Nature - which is God in either case, but rather because of their Person.

I'm with you now... I think...

White Knight,

The analogies are great. And they help.

One must, however, realize that it would be impossible to come up with a very complete analogy for an infinite God, using only finite things.

A 3 leaf clover is devided into it's three parts so that while it is one leaf, it has three equal parts of the one leaf. If I rip off one of the parts of the leaf and ask if it itself is a clover, one would reply, "No". Because it is only a part of the clover.

H2O while it is frozen cannot at the same moment be water or vapor. Water cannot be Ice at the same time. And at the triple point of H20, you don't have all of the h20 being ice, water and vapor at the same time. You simply have parts of the h20 existing in their various states.

God on the other hand is always Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each one Being completely God. And if I take the Father and ask if He is God, one must say yes. If I take the Son and ask if He is God, one must also say yes. And the same with the Holy Spirit. This is because the Nature of each is God - infinite.

If God could somehow be infinite in whole, yet finite in three parts, than indeed the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would be distinct persons, who, when put together could be God... But this doesn't make sense since three finites will never be infinite.

But it helps nontheless to look at analogies to put together visual aid in spiritual realities.

God bless.

Edited September 1, 2005 by Jake Huether

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 1 2005, 07:30 AM']The Father is greater because He is the cause of the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Spirit, the former by generation and the latter by existential procession.  Thus, there is one God because there is one Father, the sole source of divinity.
[right][snapback]707319[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The problem with the above explanation is that a cause must preceed the effect it causes.

LittleLes

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 1 2005, 08:52 AM']RESPONSE:

The problem with the above explanation is that a cause must preceed the effect it causes.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]707394[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


But you are only thinking of the Nature's of each Person.

It wouldn't make sense, and you are right, if one were to say that God caused God.

But if Apotheoun is saying what I think He is saying...

It is the Nature of the Father, which is God, that causes the Person of the Son to be [b]who[/b] He is and the Holy Spirit to be [b]who[/b] He is.

Note the [b]who's[/b]. Who is answered by the Person.

What is answered by the Nature - which is God.

The Father didn't cause the Son to be What He is. Because that would mean that God is greater than God - which is imposible, since God is infinite. But the Person of the Father, because it is by His Nature - God that caused the Person of the Son and the Holy Spirit to be WHO they are, is greater.

The Persons of God are each, in Nature, God - and therefore, while God has always been who He is - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they all three have no begining. The cause in this case simply implies source, but does not carry with it time. There is no time in infinity. The cause of who God is, is God - and this necessitates that who God is, has always been who He is, since God doesn't change. He's always been who He is.

Cause doesn't always necessitate one thing preceeding another, even in our finite world. You are the source of who you are. But we don't supose that who you are came after your nature dicated it... It is by your nature that you are who you are, and both who you are and what you are entered into existence at conception.


Hope that helps.

God bless.

Edited September 1, 2005 by Jake Huether

[LittleLes]

Toward the end of the first century, perhaps in response to the growing Hellenistic influences on Chrisitianity, some of Jesus' original followers began to claim that Jesus himself was God. This more or less matches the concept of the Logos in Gnosticism.

But this, to be sure, conflicted with the strict monotheism of the Jewish Torah which claimed that God is one (see Deut 6:4) and even with 1 Cor 8:4 "...there is but no God, but one."

So it became necessary to merge the two divine persons into one. But, curiously, the Father is said to be unbegotten and non-preceeding. And the Son was begotten, but uncreated - there's a conflict. Still, Irenaeus claimed that "whatever is begotten of God is God."

But if everything that exists isn't eternal, isn't it all begotten of God?

LittleLes

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 1 2005, 09:00 AM']Toward the end of the first century, perhaps in response to the growing Hellenistic influences on Chrisitianity, some of Jesus' original followers began to claim that Jesus himself was God. This more or less matches the concept of the Logos in Gnosticism.

But this, to be sure, conflicted with the strict monotheism of the Jewish Torah which claimed that God is one (see Deut 6:4)  and even with 1 Cor 8:4 "...there is but no God, but one."

So it became necessary to merge the two divine persons into one. But, curiously, the Father is said to be unbegotten and non-preceeding. And the Son was begotten, but uncreated - there's a conflict. Still, Irenaeus claimed that "whatever is begotten of God is God."

But if everything that exists isn't eternal, isn't it all begotten of God?

LittleLes
[right][snapback]707402[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Where did you get this history from. Didn't Peter and the Apostles declare the Divinity of Christ, to which Jesus forbid them to tell anyone before He died? Peter said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God". Thomas said, "My Lord and my God".

From the very beginning they knew that Jesus was God... they simply hadn't yet figured out how. The understanding of the Trinity had developed over time. The reality of it has been since the begining.

And most things that exist aren't "eternal". Only human souls are eternal - and later our glorified bodies.

When begetting includes the transformation or creation of material by God, then yes, we are begotten by Him, being made by Him. But the Father doesn't beget the Son through creation. The Son is begotten, not made. Which means this. The Son is who He is because the Father is who He is. And the Holy Spirit is who He is, because the Father and Son are who they are. All Being God means that each Person has always been who each one is.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 1 2005, 10:22 AM']Where did you get this history from.  Didn't Peter and the Apostles declare the Divinity of Christ, to which Jesus forbid them to tell anyone before He died?  Peter said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".  Thomas said, "My Lord and my God".

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

From the on-line Wikipedia (The on-line Catholic Encyclopedia contains a similar, but much wordier explanation):


In the Hebrew Bible, the phrase "sons of god" has multiple meanings:
The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "The Sons of God", describes angels, demigods or immensely powerful human beings. See Genesis 6:2-4. Many Bible scholars believe that this is a reference to pre-Biblical near-eastern mythology.
It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28).
The phrases "sons of God" and "children of God" are applied to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1), the Jewish people, and also to all members of the human race.
In the Hebrew Bible the term does not connote any form of physical descent from, or essential unity with, God. The Hebrew idiom conveys an expression of godlikeness."

In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is referred to as the Messiah or the "Christ" the anointed and the Son of God. But this did not mean God. See above.

But when we come to John's Gospel, written between 95 A.D. to 105 A.D., the concept that Jesus was actually God was claimed ( see Thomas' exclamation). But this was not the case in the first three Gospels.

Note also that the original Christians remained a Temple worshipping sect within orthodox and monotheistic Judaism. But they were expelled as heretics about 90 A.D. Question: Would the Jewish leaders have allowed the early Christians to remain orthodox Jews if they had claimed divinity for Jesus early on?

And again from "Wiki" there is this about the term Messiah:

"In Judaism, the Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ "Anointed one", Standard Hebrew Mašíaḥ, Tiberian Hebrew Māšîªḥ) initially meant any person who was anointed by God. In the first century, it was interpreted to refer more specifically to someone appointed by God to lead His people in the face of their tribulations with Rome. The prophecies regarding this person refer to him as a descendant of King David who will rebuild the nation of Israel and bring world peace by restoring the Davidic Kingdom."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 1 2005, 07:48 AM']So the Person of the Father is greater than the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit.

But the Nature of all three is the Same One God...

Am I reading you right on that?

If One Person in His Nature is greater than any of the other two, then really you are saying that God is greater than... another god.  For One God cannot be greater than Himself.

But if one of the Person's of God is greater, it must not be in Nature, but rather simply in Person.  God the Father is greater than God the Son, not because of their Nature - which is God in either case, but rather because of their Person. 

I'm with you now... I think...
[right][snapback]707388[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, the Father is greater hypostatically because He takes His hypostatic origin from no one, and He is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit's hypostases.

In other words, the Father is hypostatically (as peson) greater than the Son and Spirit, but this involves no essential difference or inequality, because the three hypostases are one in essence.

The Father is the only source of divinity.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 1 2005, 07:52 AM']RESPONSE:

The problem with the above explanation is that a cause must preceed the effect it causes.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]707394[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is false, because the term "cause" ([i]aitia[/i]) is being used in a non-temporal sense in Byzantine theology.

One must not confuse -- as is commonly done in the West -- philosophy with theology.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 1 2005, 10:22 AM']

When begetting includes the transformation or creation of material by God, then yes, we are begotten by Him, being made by Him.  But the Father doesn't beget the Son through creation.  The Son is begotten, not made.  Which means this.  The Son is who He is because the Father is who He is.  And the Holy Spirit is who He is, because the Father and Son are who they are.  All Being God means that each Person has always been who each one is.
[right][snapback]707414[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If God the Father is "unbegotten" but Jesus was "begotten" and the Holy Spirit " proceeds from the Father and the So which is the greater, which is the second greater, and which is the least?

And Trinity isn't mentioned in the Old Testament. And in the New Testament, Jesus' sayings and actions seem th make him subordinate to God the Father and show him lacking in divine knowledge.

First of all, Jesus admits that the Father, but not himself, knows the day and hour of the end of the world. But he claims this will occur during the lifetime of some of those with him and that generation would not pass away untill it was accomplished. But it did. He tells one follower not to call him "good" because only God is good. He claims that he is going to the Father and that "the Father is greater than I." Of course, all these are found in the synoptic gospels.


LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 1 2005, 12:59 PM']This is false, because the term "cause" ([i]aitia[/i]) is being used in a non-temporal sense in Byzantine theology.

One must not confuse -- as is commonly done in the West -- philosophy with theology.
[right][snapback]707491[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

How can "cause" be used in a non-temporal sense? If something "causes" something else, it has "acted" upon it. And if something "acts" that presuposes that it already exists.


And don't the principles of philosophy form the underpinning of theology?Doesn't theology have to be reality oriented?