Why Only Three Persons In The Holy Trinity?

            The doctrine of the blessed Trinity is indeed complicated and construed as mysterious. This is not to say that the Trinitarian doctrine cannot be understood entirely.

            Rather, the complication, in my opinion, is this: it is an ongoing effort of our incorporeal (immaterial) mind dwelling in our corporeal (material) body and the universe, which constantly experiences an intellectual struggle while trying to comprehend the underlying schema of two opposing architectures (Corporeal vs. Incorporeal) inasmuch to understand the fullness of an uncaused, maximally great, incorporeal being, namely God, who is wholly Trinitarian in nature. However, this intellectual struggle could be conquered with the help of God Himself, who indwells us (cf. John 14:23).

            Thomistic philosopher Ed Feser offers a positive outlook, “...when Trinitarian theologians refer to the doctrine of the Trinity as a “mystery,” they do not mean that it is self-contradictory or unintelligible. Nor do they mean that there are no rational grounds for believing it. What they mean is that while it is perfectly consistent and intelligible in itself, our minds are too limited fully to comprehend it. And while, for that reason, the doctrine cannot be arrived at “from scratch” by purely philosophical arguments, we can be rationally justified in believing it on the basis of testimony, viz. the testimony of Jesus Christ, whose reliability is demonstrated by His resurrection...Furthermore, while human reason cannot fully grasp the Trinity even after it has been revealed, it can show that no attempts to prove the doctrine self-contradictory are successful...”¹

            Notwithstanding this backdrop, we can still contend with questions related to the Blessed Trinity. One such question is ‘Why are we limited to only three persons in the Trinity?’ Why can’t there be one, two, four, or more?   

            Medieval Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas posited the following:

            1. Argument from ontology: It is ontologically impossible to have more than three persons in the Godhead of the Blessed Trinity:²

            “First, the usual way you get multiple things from one thing is by cutting it into pieces, as you might produce a temple's worth of marble pillars from a single slab of marble. But that's not how we get the three Divine persons: we aren't cut God into pieces. God is a single substance, and by His essence has no pieces; that was determined by Thomas' initial argument for the existence of God. So how do we get multiple persons? Here's Thomas' summary:

There cannot be more than three persons in God. For the divine persons cannot be multiplied by a division of their substance, but solely by the relation of some procession; and not by any sort of procession, but only by such as does not have its term in something outside of God.”

            God is an uncaused immaterial being. So God, eternally, is composed of three persons. Since God cannot change, and since God is perfect, it would be metaphysically impossible for God to have less or more than 3 persons.

            2. Argument from Perfection: Since God is perfect, HE lacks nothing. Hence, the presence of three persons in the Blessed Trinity construes perfection and since perfection lacks nothing, the Blessed Trinity has no need for less or more persons:³

             “Thomas now makes an argument from perfection: a thing is perfect of its kind if it lacks nothing that would make it more itself. Half-an-apple is half an apple; part of it is missing. And if a thing's nature is perfect, then there can't be more than one of it: the one thing of that kind must perfectly express its nature. This is true of the Son and the Spirit, so we can't have more than one of each.

Again: the perfect is that beyond which there is nothing. Hence a being that would tolerate anything of its own class to be outside itself, would fall short of absolute perfection. This is why things that are simply perfect in their natures are not numerically multiplied... But both the Son and the Holy Spirit must be simply perfect, since each of them is God, as we have shown. Therefore several Sons or several Holy Spirits are impossible.”

            So to conclude, the blessed Godhead (the Blessed Trinity) can only have three persons.

Endnotes:

¹http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html ²https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crywoof/2015/11/todays-aquinas-why-a-trinity-why-not-a-quaternity/

³Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 30^th December 2021.

 

Christmas Myths: What Not To Believe!

            We should believe in facts and not fiction, especially if it relates to one of the essential beliefs of Historic Christianity. Herein, The Gospel Coalition details five common misconceptions Christians continue to believe about the Christmas narrative:¹

1. There Was a Star the Night Jesus Was Born

It’s difficult to find a nativity scene (or Christmas play) without a star over the manger. Indeed, this might be the quintessential symbol of the birth of Jesus.

The problem is there’s no indication the star hovered over the manger on the night Jesus was born. On the contrary, when the angels announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds watching their flocks by night (Luke 2:8–11), they weren’t told to look for a star. They were told to look for something else: “And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12).

The star was given not to the shepherds but to the Magi (Matt. 2:2), who appear to be visiting Jesus at a later time period. How much later is unclear, but the fact that Herod commands all the babies in the region younger than 2 years old to be killed suggests Jesus may have been in Bethlehem for some time.

2. There Were Three Wise Men

Speaking of the wise men, in both art and in song (“We Three Kings”) we get the undeniable impression there were three of them (also called “Magi”). The problem, however, is that this number is found nowhere in the biblical accounts.

Matthew simply tells us, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem” (Matt. 2:1).

The idea of three wise men likely came from the fact that Matthew mentions three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt. 2:11).

3. There Was No Room for Them in the Inn

Another staple of modern nativity plays is the scene at the inn. Joseph and his wife, Mary—who is on the verge of giving birth—are cruelly turned away by the innkeeper who shows them no compassion.

Here is another popular misconception. The Bible never mentions an innkeeper. In fact, it’s possible there was never even an “inn” at all.

A recent study by Stephen Carlson makes the case (a compelling one, I think) that the Greek word normally translated as “inn” (καταλύματι) in Luke 2:7 is best translated as “place to stay.” So the passage isn’t saying there was no room in the inn, but rather there was no room for baby Jesus in the place they stayed. In what place were they staying? Carlson argues it was probably in the home of Joseph’s family in Bethlehem, perhaps in an adjacent guest room (which would have been small).

4. Jesus Was Born in a Barn or Stable

Since Joseph could find no spot in the inn, the reasoning goes, he must have been forced to stay in the stable. Indeed, every nativity scene ever created places Jesus in a barn of sorts.

But the text doesn’t say he was born in a barn. It only says Mary “laid in him in a manger” (Luke 2:7). Although that might seem to suggest a barn, it was common for mangers to be kept in the main room of village houses during this time period. Why? Because the animals were often housed just a few feet away in an adjacent room.

It seems likely, then, that Mary gave birth to Jesus while they were staying at the home of Joseph’s relatives in Bethlehem. But the room in which they stayed—likely a tight guest room or hastily added chamber—couldn’t accommodate a birth. So, Mary had to give birth in the larger family room and lay Jesus in the nearby manger.

5. Jesus Was Born on December 25

If we celebrate Jesus’s birthday on December 25, it’s logical to think this was the day on which he was born. But the precise date of Jesus’s birth is uncertain. A variety of options have been suggested throughout church history, including March 21, April 15, and May 20.

So how did December 25 become the date? It’s commonly thought Christians took over the pagan holiday of Sol Invictus (“Unconquered Son”), which was on December 25. But there’s little evidence to back this up.

Instead it seems early Christians may have reasoned from the supposed date of Mary’s conception, which was thought to be March 25—the same day Jesus was thought to be crucified. Fast forward nine months and you land on December 25 for his birth.

Real Christmas Story

These five misconceptions remind us that sometimes our picture of scriptural stories is shaped more by popular perceptions and modern retellings than by the text itself. But when we take a closer look at the biblical clues, a wonderful—and hopefully more accurate—picture emerges of what happened that night nearly 2,000 years ago.

And what happened that night still stands as one of the most monumental events in human history. God became a man and entered our dark, cold world to redeem a sinful people.

And that is a story that makes Christmas worthy of being “Merry.”

Endnotes: 

¹ https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/5-popular-misconceptions-christmas-story/, last accessed on 23^rd December 2021. 

Could Cryptocurrency Be The Mark Of The Beast And The One-World Currency?

            Cryptocurrency, at this point in time, cannot be construed as the mark of the beast. 

            The mark of the beast will essentially force the bearer to:

            (1) Renounce Christ as the Lord and Savior.

            (2) Worship the Antichrist.

            Since cryptocurrency does not mandate the above, it cannot be the mark of the beast.

            However, could the cryptocurrency be the one-world currency of the end times?

            Gotquestions.org says:¹

The idea of a one-world currency is vaguely suggested in the Bible. Revelation 13:16–17 says that the Antichrist will require everyone to have the mark of the beast to engage in any financial transactions. It’s unknown what exactly this mark will be, but it’s entirely possible that some kind of cryptocurrency will be involved. That would certainly be more efficient than printing and distributing a standardized physical currency all over the world. It’s possible that the mark of the beast will be what allows people to access the cryptocurrency in their virtual accounts...

The current popularity of bitcoin doesn’t mean that bitcoin will be the Antichrist’s one-world currency. In fact, it probably won’t. Bitcoin is only one of over 1,000 different virtual currencies, including Litecoin, Ethereum, Zcash, Ripple, and Monero. It’s more likely that, if the Antichrist uses a form of cryptocurrency, it will be original and more advanced than anything we have today.

Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies could be precursors to the money eventually used in the end times. But this is pure speculation. The Bible doesn’t mention computers, let alone cryptocurrency. Until 1998 cryptocurrency wasn’t even a word, and there’s no saying what new technological and sociological changes will come before the tribulation and the appearance of the Antichrist.

 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.gotquestions.org/bitcoin-cryptocurrency.html, last accessed on 16^th December 2021.