Testing the Trinity against logic
Which of the words we use to count and sort ordinary things can survive being said of God? Boethius takes the hardest Christian claim, three and yet one, as a problem in Aristotle's categories.
God is three yet one: Boethius asks which of Aristotle's ten categories, the basic ways we predicate anything, carry over to God and which break. Most break. The words that divide the world into separate substances do not apply, since God is utterly simple, with no parts and no inner distinction. The threeness, he argues, must be understood through relation, the one category that can distinguish Father, Son and Spirit without multiplying the divine substance into three gods. It is the most closely reasoned of his theological pieces, and the one medieval masters returned to most, for holding a mystery steady enough to examine.
- metaphysics
- categories
- logic
- relation
- divine simplicity
- predication
- substance
- essence
- trinity
Enter a dialogue
- You show the words we use to count and sort things break when said of God; what should a person make of that failure of language?
- Subjecting the Trinity to Aristotle's categories can look like caging a mystery in a pagan's grid; why should Greek logic have any grip on the Christian God?
- How does distinguishing Father, Son and Spirit by relation differ from distinguishing them as three separate substances, which you say would make three gods?
- To hold that God is utterly simple, no difference between what God is and that God is, what way of thinking must a person abandon?
- For someone who finds the whole doctrine of three-in-one simply unthinkable, does testing it against logic make it clearer, or only expose how far it exceeds us?
- If most of our categories break when applied to God, why trust the one you keep, relation, rather than conclude that logic reaches God nowhere at all?