3-3-05

Dear Bob,

Recently you had a show where the audience called in their answers to questions you
were posing about how to share belief in the Trinity with unbelievers who just don't "get it." It
was a great segment! Please do such things more often. It was extremely entertaining and also
useful. A lot of good examples were shared. Some even were good explanations. I would like to
offer you my own reflection, skimmed from St. Augustine:

Inside who I am, I am myself, I know myself, and with this knowledge, I can love myself,
meaning have proper regard for who I am. I‟m only a created being, with limited existence,
limited knowledge of who I am, and limited regard for who I am. Even without sin, I would be
limited, this is the nature of a created being. God, who is infinite existence, and has infinite
knowledge of himself, and infinite love of himself (self regard), is “something” I can‟t
understand. If God were to reveal that this knowledge (the Word) and love (Spirit) have always
existed inside himself, as completely as he himself exists, well then it would be a chore to
explain it to someone. But God HAS revealed these things about himself. So, in my opinion,
though it may be ambiguous how God is one yet three, this is the revelation with which all
believers have to come to terms. Actually, “Trinity” seems to be a useful term.

If I thought the unbeliever were able to handle a deeper level of reflection, one thing I
would point out is that one cannot comprehend the Trinity. It is revelation in its starkest, most
extreme expression. Reason cannot penetrate it. Some things are knowable by faith and reason,
some by reason alone, some by faith alone. This is one that is knowable by faith alone. Why? It
is a teaching about God's own inner life. It is not about God's external life, how he comes to us.
The Trinity isn‟t modalism, as unfortunately some of your listeners called in to share. For
example, identifying God‟s three persons with Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier is something
external. This point is obvious because what we are referencing, who God is in himself, pre-
existed any relating to creation. Being about God's inner life, one can only know it if God reveals
it, which he did in Jesus‟ preaching, backed up by miracles that could only come from God. If
God had revealed that he was two in one, or four in one, etc. it would have been all the same as
far as reason is concerned, or as far as examples from the physical universe are concerned. We
wouldn‟t know it unless it were revealed, and then the only choice is to accept it or reject it.

To press the argument even further, consider this: Everything we can think of we
understand piecemeal. This is this, that is that, because we have experienced them. They look,
feel, seem similar to or different from some other created thing. But all our understanding and
categorizing of our experiences depends on sorting them into other categories. The created thing
is made subject to its created category. God, however, made all categories. It is proper to
understand created things as determined to be this or that which it was made to be, but trying to
understand God by the same means is impossible. God created logic and math, therefore, they
cannot literally explain him. Everything that was created was modeled on himself, which
allowed it to be declared “good.” Logic and math are good. All things created reveal a bit about
God as they were modeled on God. But to use any created thing to explain God, even such a
crystal clear example as understanding what the number “one” means when we say “God is one”,
is attempting to do the impossible. Created things establish a similarity useful to know who God
is in part, but each is only a partial revelation and cannot be taken literally. Even comparing
created things to each other, any similarity, any comparison reaches a breaking point where they
are found to be truly different because they are not in fact exactly the same.
 In this sense, God is not literally “one” because “one” is itself a creation. Trying to
understand the Trinity is not literally possible, therefore, it can‟t literally be explained to another
person. So when people say they don‟t understand how God can be “three”, the truth is,
philosophically, they can‟t understand how God is one either, though they don‟t realize it. It may
seem simpler but it isn‟t. The purpose of the revelation that God is one is only to deny divinity
to all other so called „gods.‟ It is insufficient to describe who God is in himself. Similar things
can be said about “three” Thus, “Trinity” is not a fully defined concept; it is a reference to the
revelation that God is Father, Son, and Spirit. Now, if you were paying attention throughout this ;)
you will realize that the created categories of father and son and spirit are also inadequate! They
reveal God partially since they were created to be good and thus modeled on who God is, but
God is not a father, God is not a son, God is not a spirit. These too are created things. These have
their source in who God is, not the other way around. Their usefulness in the Christian revelation,
though they seem to assert things positively, literally only can be understood to stand in contrast
to other things or relationships that are less representative of who God is.

The formulation of the God as the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is itself a
comparison, not an encompassing definition. Trinity is not so much a term as it is a reference to a
God who can‟t be put into a box. He is who he is, same as was the revelation in Exodus 3:14.
This is the extent of reason: to recognize that it is not God, that some things are beyond it.
Articles of faith are reasonable, but not subject to reason. Ultimately, we can only let God reveal
himself to us and accept it.

God bless,
A Catholic who knows his faith.