{"id":4356,"date":"2018-08-07T15:20:43","date_gmt":"2018-08-07T15:20:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/08\/07\/the-logic-of-the-trinity-revisited\/"},"modified":"2018-08-07T15:20:43","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T15:20:43","slug":"the-logic-of-the-trinity-revisited","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/08\/07\/the-logic-of-the-trinity-revisited\/","title":{"rendered":"The Logic of the Trinity Revisited"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Trinity<\/a>Our question concerns the logical consistency of the following septad, each limb of which seems entailed by the dogma of the Trinity as set forth<\/a> in the Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em>.  How can the following propositions all be true?  My concern is whether the dogma in its Roman Catholic form can be expressed in such a way as to satisfy the exigencies of the discursive intellect.  The prime exigency or requirement is that it not violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. The question is not whether the dogma can be known to be true by reason unaided by revelation; it can't. The question is whether the dogma can be rendered rationally acceptable to intellects of our sort.  Can it be expressed in such a way as to make logical sense to us?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1) There is only one God.<\/span>
2) The Father is God.<\/span>
3) The Son is God.<\/span>
4) The Holy Spirit is God.<\/span>
5) The Father is not the Son.<\/span>
6) The Son is not the Holy Spirit.<\/span>
7) The Father is not the Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If we assume that in (2)-(7), the 'is' expresses absolute numerical identity, then it is clear that the septad is inconsistent.  (Identity has the following properties: it is reflexive, symmetric, transitive, and governed by the Indiscernibility of Identicals).  For example, from (2) and (3) taken together it follows that the Father is the Son by Transitivity of Identity.  But this contradicts (5).<\/span><\/p>\n

To spell it out: if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and these are identity statements, and identity is symmetric and transitive, then the Father is the Son, which contradicts (5).<\/span><\/p>\n

So what we have above is an inconsistent septad each limb of which appears to be a commitment of orthodoxy.  The task is to remove the contradiction without abandoning orthodoxy.  There are different ways to proceed.<\/span><\/p>\n

One way is to invoke the standard distinction between the 'is' of identity and the 'is' of predication, and construe (2), (3), and (4) as predications rather than as statements of identity.  Well, suppose we do this.  We get:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1)There is only one God.<\/span>
2*) The Father is divine.<\/span>
3*) The Son is divine.<\/span>
4*) The Holy Spirit is divine.<\/span>
5) The Father is not the Son.<\/span>
6) The Son is not the Holy Spirit.<\/span>
7) The Father is not the Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But this implies that there are three Gods, which contradicts (1).  The trick is to retain real distinctness of Persons while avoiding tritheism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Matthew Kirby in correspondence suggests the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1K) There is only one Divine Nature.<\/span>
2K) The Father hypostasises the fullness of that Divine Nature (as Source\/Lover).<\/span>
3K) The Son hypostasises the fullness of that Divine Nature (as Logos\/Form\/Image\/Beloved).<\/span>
4K) The Holy Ghost hypostasises the fullness of that Divine Nature (as Spirit\/Gift\/Loving).<\/span>
5K) The Father is not the Son, but gives him fully his essence.<\/span>
6K) The Son is not the Holy Spirit, but shares with him fully the very same essence.<\/span>
7K) The Father is not the Holy Spirit, but gives him fully his essence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Unfortunately, Fr. Kirby does not explain what he means by 'hypostasises,' but I think I know what he means. He means that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each subjects of the divine nature.  One nature, three hypostases\/persons.  Compare the Incarnation: One hypostasis, two natures. Thus the Son has two natures, one human, the other divine. In the Trinity, however, we have one divine nature in three divine persons.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, are we in the clear now?  I can't see that we are. For Fr. Kirby's septad is just a variation on the second one we examined. If the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each subjects of the divine nature, then we have three Gods, when the dogma clearly implies that there is exactly one God in three divine persons.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Our question concerns the logical consistency of the following septad, each limb of which seems entailed by the dogma of the Trinity as set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  How can the following propositions all be true?  My concern is whether the dogma in its Roman Catholic form can be expressed in such a … Continue reading “The Logic of the Trinity Revisited”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[288],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trinity-and-incarnation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}