Philosophical Musings on the Trinity

Not this Trinity

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is the most commonly held belief among Christians, and to a certain degree it has become a litmus test for Christians. While Catholics and Protestants might have ample disagreements regarding theological ideas such as papal universal jurisdiction, the Sacrament of Confession, the nature of Christ's Passion and Sacrifice, and prayer to saints, when it comes to who God essentially is, the term Trinity pops up instinctively in both circles of thought. So what is this mysterious unifying doctrine that, despite its complexities, has still managed to eclipse denominational differences? 

This of course is a question that shall not be answered in full over a blog post. Some things remain mysterious, with only small opportunities for clarity in understanding (hence the picture above). This mystery shall remain ever more so since the purpose of this blog is not to regard Scripture in all capacity when referring to the Trinity (and so remain in safe and accepted ground), but to keep Scripture in the back of our minds, so to say, as we discuss a more philosophical question; can the Trinity be proven to be true through natural reason?

To regard this question firstly requires addressing the first question of what the Trinity is, and here we shall use traditional and generally more solid understanding. 

Holy Trinity. 

the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the 

threefold personality of the one Divine Being. 

It is the latter half of the definition that applies to the serious philosopher. This is not to dismiss the important imagery of God as three persons, but it is to say that this image is precisely that; an image, used primarily for the purpose of offering an easier, though perhaps less accurate, understanding of the Godhead. This definition in itself, though telling us that God is (according to the claim) three 'persons' in one Godhead, tells us very little of who God is as a whole. For this understanding it is best to turn to the granddaddy of traditional theology; St. Augustine. According to Augustine, "God is being itself." St. Thomas Aquinas later verified this belief in far more philosophical detail, describing God as pure actuality, the foundation of all beings, in short "being itself". Before you freak out and state that God is 'all loving, all good, all etc', this classical theist understanding of God in no way conflicts with these notions; in fact, they only confirm them.

The fact of our existence verifies that though we are obviously unnecessary beings God desired to create us, not for the gaining of anything on His part but for the spreading of His goodness to beings and creation. As such, God is all loving. But St. John describes God as not only 'all loving' but as love itself; "God is love". This sounds strikingly similar to "God is being". The idea is that love and goodness are not simply traits of God, but that they are who God is. What is 'love' is God, and in submitting to love we submit to God Himself. Granted, this might begin to sound like God is simply a 'force' without personality, an 'energy' to be drawn upon by the Universe. But the opposite is the truth. We are told that we are made in the image of God (see Genesis). If such is so, we can imagine God to be something similar to us; possessing a will, an awareness and an intellect. Besides referring to Genesis we can also conclude by necessity that God is all these things (I suggest reading Aquinas for further discussion) For now, suffice it to say that, in the words of St. John, "God is love."

So we know that God is not only a being among many, possessing the trait of love, but rather that God is being and love itself. We know that God is a threefold personality. So how do these two ideas relate to each other? More so, can the latter be proven in the same way the former can?

The latter question shall be tackled here and in doing so the first question is answered...

I note beforehand that even if the Trinity cannot be proven philosophically, this is in no sense a reason to abandon it. The nature of God can only be known to a point by human reason, and only a fool thinks that they can truly understood the full implications and meaning of God. If we fail to prove the Trinity it is more so an implication of our lowly nature than it is that the Trinity is false. This is because the Trinity was revealed to mankind predominantly through the Son, and not through natural reason, and it is only through similar revelation that any soul is saved. We do not achieve our own salvation anymore than stories write themselves. 

This being said, it seems that this single question has hardly been asked. This could be due to several reasons. Firstly, the fact that its existence is revealed through revelation in Christ brings little reason for souls to question if it could be revealed and proved in any other way besides revelation. When your teachers reveal to you new information you rarely question where they got the information, but rather if the information is true or not. The former question might follow, but only for those who doubt the validity of the information and likewise spend a decent amount of time thinking about the specific piece of information. Granted that most Christians don't doubt the trinity specifically for long periods of time (there may be exceptions of course) and that those who do doubt the trinity likely are only doubting the trinity peripheral to a more general doubt of God, the actual time spent to think about a potential philosophical proof for the trinity likely rarely surfaces. Secondly, the presumptions involved in the case are likely to scare many serious Christian philosophers away from the question. A proof of the Trinity involves working on the presumption that we know what God is. As shown above we can know God to be like certain characterizations more than others, but each characterization hardly does justice to the real thing, and is hardly understood by even those putting such proofs together. We can say that God is pure actuality and pure love, but the actual meaning of such words are not fully witnessed and understood through intellect, for they are outside of human capacity. Thirdly and lastly, the fact that it seems as though no serious Christian philosopher has attempted to seriously compose a proof of the trinity is a very scary and daunting task for any subsequent Christian philosophers. No one wants to be 'that guy' who put together a failed argument in his/her ambition. 

One influential voice from the past that thought a philosophical proof of the trinity was gibberish is none other than St. Thomas Aquinas. According to Aquinas:

"It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained (12, 4, 12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating of God as above (Question 12, Article 12). Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons."

As one can see, the task of 'proving the trinity' in a philosophical sense is likely to be met with disappointment. Aquinas provides perhaps the best reason for this. Aquinas believes that while one can prove the general nature or essence of God, one cannot prove in a classical sense the roles and delegations of any specific 'person' of God. In other words, our natural reason can get us to the point of saying 'God is love', but it cannot get us to the point of saying 'God is a lover, a beloved, and the love shared between the two'. 

Despite all of this doubtful talk, I hold [drum roll please] that the trinity can be proven through natural reason. Aquinas holds that we can only know God's essence, and that this essence is "common to the whole Trinity". But in knowing a general essence we can also deduce certain realities about such an essence. Just as knowing that an organic material is human can reveal further truths about the said organic material, so too can knowing that God is love reveal further philosophical truths about God. To illuminate what I mean perhaps it is best to explain in full the philosophical proof I hold for the trinity. The following in no way must be correct for me to still have confidence in my Christian faith and I certainly don't expect (nor hope) it to be necessary for you to retain your Christian faith. I doubt that it is entirely true to be frank. The entirety of God is most definitely not on display in the argument, for in agreeing with Aquinas, natural reason cannot conceive of the full being of God. That being said, the proof is as follows:

1.) The ultimate end of a desire actualizes the desire.

2.) In this way, if one loves a thing, the reception of love on part of the end of a desire, aka the object of love, actualizes the desire into full being. So the desire is dependent for actualization upon the actuality of the end/object of the desire.

3.) The actualization of desire by the object of desire engenders another, separate state of realized love as shared between the two, rather than realized within the self of either.

4.) The resulting state of love that is 'being' is distinct from either the love given or the love received, since neither form in themselves and alone can generate the state of love generated between the two.

5.) With this in mind, it can reasonably be claimed that God is love (see Aquinas philosophical proofs and St. John for Scriptural proofs)

6.) Granted that God is thus all-loving, as His creation we are the object of His desire/will/love. 

7.) But creation cannot be the ultimate end, or object, of God's intention, since the intention is dependent upon the ultimate end in order to be actualized. God being pure actuality is not dependent upon that which is not pure actuality. God, being entirely necessary, is not dependent upon that which is not.

8.) So God Himself must be the ultimate end/primary object of God's intention. This aspect of God, named the ultimate end, must be in some way of self-orientation different than God's intention, for the fact that God's intention bears in mind that other than itself while God's end bears in mind only God's intention, which is the satisfaction God demands. 

9.) If God is both desire/will and the ultimate end of such a desire and will, God achieves His own condition of love, and a consciousness of this awareness.

10.) God as desire/will is known as the Father, God as the ultimate object of desire/will is known as the Son, and the state of love proceeding from the Father and Son is known as the Holy Spirit.

So there you have it. There is my quaint 'proof of the trinity'. I could be wrong. I might not be. Either way, my thoughts do not dictate the state of my confidence in the Trinity as primarily revealed to us in Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior.