Hypothesis on divine unity and trinity

There is no enumeration of things which has the divine nature as a member. In this sense, God is not one (this is the one of quantity or number). Again, we cannot include God in some enumeration of things such that the whole enumeration would be greater than the single member, God. This is true even when speaking of the persons of the Trinity- and is true a fortiori of  God and creatures.

The absolute oneness of God follows from the denial of any of the division we find in sensible and imaginable creatures. It follows that reason must allow for a the trinity of persons as a real possibility, since reason proves the unity of God by negating all division found in creatures as found in creatures, but not all division as it may be found in something other than a creature.


  1. Mike said,

    November 30, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Random thoughts:

    If God is a rational spirit, he possesses intellect and will; that is, the capacity to know things and the capacity to desire the fruits of the knowing. Each is a relationship with a subject and an object.

    We call the subject the Father in both cases, since it is one who knows and wills.

    But absent creation, what is the object of knowing but God himself? God as the object of knowing is called the Son. Knowing occurs with words, the Logos; and the results are called conceptions. God himself being the sole object of the knowing, he is, as Logos, the only-conceived.

    Again absent creation, what is the object of willing but God himself? God as the object of willing is called the Spirit. Willing occurs through desire to possess the object, and so must “go out.” God himself being the sole object of the willing, he, as Spirit, proceeds from the Father. (And since the Father and Son are one, proceeds from the Father and the Son, though this formula is subject to misunderstanding.)

    Because God is Being — he calls himself “(I) Am” — then “God as subject,” “God as object of knowing,” and “God as object of desire” each has complete and whole being, even though they are one in Being.

    Another view: God is experienced in the cosmos (the ordered universe), in history, and in ourselves; and these are called God as Father (Creator), God as Son (Incarnate), and God as Spirit (within us).

  2. a thomist said,

    December 1, 2008 at 12:29 am

    One of the peculiarities of meditation of Christian mysteries is that at one time we see that the mystery makes so much sense that we wonder if it is simply demonstrative, while at the same time we can be aware that it is a total and irreducible mystery that we can only touch by a faith which is not sight. In our own time, this double life of the christian reasoner is more focused on questions of grace and beatitude than the Trinity. If we know that our life is vain if we cannot see God, and our ability to see God is by a power above our nature, then isn’t grace necessary to bestow? There are answers to this question, but I point it out only as another example of an argument that seems to get to the necessity of a mystery of faith from natural premises. Original sin might be another point. At times it’s hard to see what we need faith for, at the same time it’s clear we cannot see without it.

%d bloggers like this: