Gelasian Dyarchy wrote, “Incompatibility between Divine Simplicity and the Trinity?”
Hello Everyone. I just wanted to seek guidance regarding the reconciliation between the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity and the Trinity. I feel these two concepts are incompatible, but I am not sure and just wanted to share my line of thinking with the group, given the Thomists concentrated here, as opposed to other locations.
•
We have the Trinity – one God who is one in essence, and exists as three co-eternal and equal persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are also really (not virtually) distinct from one another. I still do not see how this is compatible with the Thomistic doctrine of absolute divine simplicity, that is that God is not composed of any parts, and is identical with his essence, which is existence in Latin, Ipsum Esse.
•
The book by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Langrage OP: Reality: A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought seems to propose that the distinction between the three persons of the Trinity is purely relational and that in fact, a “person” in this context is nothing other than a “subsistent relation”.
•
I find this unsatisfactory because in my view it fails to explain how each member can be identical with the one divine essence and yet remain distinct from the other two.
Garrigou-Lagrange says:
•
“Here enters the saint’s response to an objection often heard. The objection runs thus: Things which are really identified with one and the same third thing are identified with one another. But the divine relations and the divine persons are really identified with the divine essence. [542] Hence the divine relations and the divine persons are identified with one another.”
•
“The solution runs thus: Things which are really identified with one and the same third thing are identified with one another; yes unless their mutual opposition is greater than their sameness with this third thing. Otherwise, I must say No. To illustrate. Look at the three angles of a triangle. Are they really distinct one from the other? Most certainly. Yet each of them is identified with one and the same surface.”
•
However, the triangle analogy fails because no one would say that any of the angles on its own is fully the triangle, unlike the Trinity, in which each person is fully God. Thus the triangle analogy sounds somewhat like the heresy known popularly as “partialism”.
•
Another inquiry to consider. Leibniz’s Law is a bi-conditional that claims the following: Necessarily, for anything, x, and anything, y, x is identical to y if and only if for any property x has, y has, and for any property y has, x has. Because this is a bi-conditional, it is comprised of two conditional statements (i) and (ii):
•
(i) If x is identical to y, then for any property x has, y has and for any property, y has, x has.
•
(ii) If for any property x has, y has, and for any property y has, x has, then x is identical to y.
•
The question here is how does Jesus being identical with God square with Leibniz’s law?
•
Thank you for your time and attention regarding these inquiries. I welcome all thoughts, critiques, objections, and comments.
Let me try, and fail… Sorry if I am missing it here. Because your’s is an important question!! And, you have formed the inquiry very well. However, might I propose that you could be missing something? I am attempting, as a fallen human, to take the issue up to where it belongs, i.e., well beyond a four-dimensional framework. So, here goes:
The approach to take (and one that our favorite Dumb Ox may very well have taken if he had been exposed to the Physics we have discovered), follows.
Here is my proposal: Scholars like Garrigou-Lagrange and Leibniz are working – in a case like this – to solve a problem that does not exist. Triangles, and binary 1/0 questions or models will not get us where we need to go. This does not take away from either of their fine work, and I pray you would continue to read and consider their thoughts – as they add greatly to our understanding.
In our existence we perceive existence in four dimensions: (Time, Up/Down, Left/Right, and Forward/Back). And, for us, each moment is a one-dimensional ‘slice’ of forever – called “now.” In a few moments, we sense there is more. But, like the inhabitants of ‘flatland,’ (do read that short book, if you haven’t!) it is very difficult for us to see beyond our paradigms.
Now, for the human frame, this is a good thing. We experience slice after slice of ‘now,’ which gives us the ability to track sequenced moments (time), and to orient ourselves in our environment. Further, this environment enables us to comprehend a wide range of processes and concepts. A four-dimensional environment, though, has a number of limitations to which God is NOT bound. Of course, he does indeed work within these four dimensions, but is not constrained by them.
The Simplicity of God is not limited to angles and models, because God “is,” rather than “ex-is-ting”. He does not flow out “from” anything. He is not bound by the laws of Physics, they flow from Him. Further, His Essence is not homogenous. It is, rather, that All of Him/Them simply are, and He/They are – everywhere, every-time. (By the way, even those things that we might perceive as ‘simple’ are wildly complex, but their complexity – e.g., a million gallon of utterly pure water – does not take away from the simplicity of the volume).
And here is why all of this is important. Just like a photograph is a two-dimensional representation of a four-dimensional reality. Our four-dimensional existence is a “flattened” representation of additional dimensions. And what these two scholars (and any of us who work along the same lines of thought) are doing, is trying to stuff a 10+ dimensional Being into the ‘flattened’ photograph of our four-dimensional physical existence.
Thus: The Simplicity of God means that God is totally God throughout all potential dimensions. And while there is strong disagreement by Physicists about the exact number (the more accepted approaches put the number between 10 and 26), there is TOTAL agreement that reality exists in more than the four dimensions we inhabit.
This is not ‘gobbledygook.’ The reality of 10+ dimensions enable infinite degrees of freedom that facilitate His/Their Being to live and move independent of time. And, we know that this is possible, beyond dimensionality, from quantum Physics. There’s the fact that two separated particles (even separated by hundreds of miles) can interact instantaneously, a phenomenon called quantum entanglement. And there’s another phenomenon called quantum superposition. This principle of quantum mechanics (superposition) shows that particles can exist in two separate locations at once. Both quantum entanglement and superposition have been proven in the lab. And superposition is the basis for quantum computing, which is now entering use in industry. Thus, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Langrage, is both correct and wrong. BUT, this actually is the best answer in light of the conundrum we face when working to describe the Trinity with logic and a linguistic model.
Ergo, God is Who He/They Is/Are forever. (Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD God Almighty. Who was, Who Is, and Who Is to come!) Said more simply, God is “right now” fully in the eternity we would call the ‘past.’ God is “right now” fully in the eternity we call ‘the present.’ And, God is “right now” fully in the eternity we call the ‘future.’ This is something we can ‘almost’ grasp, and this is the example we need to take the leap to the true answer.
The multidimensional ‘Is-ness’ of God manifests itself in our theology, and trumps any Leibniz-like model. There is no need to “square” with a model like these, because they are using a totally inadequate method to frame and measure the question. The trans-temporal, even trans-eternal nature of God, shows His Lordship over time. Can there be any doubt that He is LORD over every other dimension as well? He shows this even in the reality where classical physics break down; where the reality of sub-atomic quantum mechanics take over.
So, I am not avoiding your question. I am saying that is does not (indeed, cannot) solve the important dilemma you introduce vis-à-vis the Triune nature of God. What I am trying to do, is introduce that our thinking must be upgraded to a vastly different approach than the strictures that the Enlightenment attempt to reduce us into.
This is where we all end up, though. We end up where the Seraphim are, even now. We end up beholding His Glory, and we can but cover our eyes, and yell out: Holy! Holy! Holy! These angelic super-beings are not singing some boring triplet. These burning ones are continuously and ongoingly and utterly amazed at what they behold. Each moment of comprehension is blown away by another insight that broadens the horizon of their amazement.
As Augustine said: ‘si comprehendis non est Deus.’ And, as my co-patron saint, Thomas Aquinas, declared that short time before his death: “I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw.” And, as the oracle, Isaiah, quotes God in chapter 55 of his prophecies, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways—oracle of the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, My thoughts higher than your thoughts. Yet just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down And do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it fertile and fruitful, giving seed to the one who sows and bread to the one who eats, so shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, but shall do what pleases Me, achieving the end for which I sent it.”
The beauty though? One Day we shall understand. One Day, beyond time, we shall finally comprehend Him. This is, most likely, why we will experience Him in eternity. For it shall take at least that long to begin to begin to begin to know Him. But, when we do, oh my! Then, dear brother, our Life will have then just begun.
Grace to you, and peace.
No Responses