# Trinity solves the One and the Many?



## Claudiu (Nov 24, 2012)

It's been mentioned before, on this board too, that God, the Trinity, solves the problem of the One and the Many (or One over Many). I haven't been able to find an argument here, or elsewhere supporting this (I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made. Rather, I'm trying to work out the problem, and was wondering what the argument is.) Could someone please explain to me how the Trinity is supposed to solve this problem! In what ways is it better, say, in comparison to Plato or Aristotle and their Universal-Particular arrangement of ontology?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 24, 2012)

I don't know if it solves the problem, but presupposing the God who is both One and Plural at the same time, may give some understanding as to the fact that it is His Universe that reflects or corresponds to Him in that way.

If there is such a problem in philosophy, the Christian can say that the foundation of the Universe, God, also is One and Plural, thus the One/Many problem reflects the mystery of the Triune God who created it and keeps it in being moment by moment.

I think it might have been Cornelius van Til that pointed this out first (?), and it is discussed in John Frame's book "Cornelius van Til:An Analysis of His Thought" (PandR)


----------



## Claudiu (Nov 24, 2012)

I think I have also found some helpful articles. Perhaps I spoke too soon! The last question still applies though. How does Plato's or Aristotle's Universal-Particular arrangement of ontology not work? Is it simply the fact that God as Trinity needs to exist for that way of thinking of ontology to be possible in the first place?

Answering Opponents of the Trinity: The One and Many

Van Til and the Trinity: Man's Quest for Truth


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 25, 2012)

> How does Plato's or Aristotle's Universal-Particular arrangement of ontology not work?



Someone else would have to deal with that one  A bit beyond me.

If you go to jwright82 's and philip 's profile pages, you might be able to get in touch with them. They used to enjoy discussing such philosophical issues in great depth, here.

See also, possibly:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/category/trinity/?orderby=title&order=ASC


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2012)

Rushdoony has written a book on the topic developing Van Til's thought. It would be a shame if this work fell by the wayside.

To state the problem -- what is fundamental? Unity or individuality? Philosophy see-saws (I think you call them teeter-totters) between impersonal universality and depersonal particularity, so there is never any answer which guards and guarantees full personhood. This has serious repercussions in ethical questions, especially when it comes to the foundations of social order.

What is the solution to the problem? Van Til demonstrates that Christianity removes the problem of fundamental priority. In God neither unity nor individuality is fundamental. Unity is inclusive without being all-absorbing and individuality is exclusive without being competitive.

Some examples. In Deism, the individual God is impersonal. In Islam, the individual Allah is impersonal. In pluralism and pantheism personhood is so divided that an individual cannot devote himself wholly to one, and is fragmented. Only in Trinitarianism, where the Lord our God is one Lord, and gives Himself in thrice blessed communion, can the individual give his whole person and find his whole person in union and communion with God.

As Rushdoony has shown, our Western concepts of personhood, freedom, law, etc., upon which our basic beliefs respecting social order and justice are founded, have developed from the Trinitarian contribution of Christianity, and are being undermined insofar as that contribution is now being rejected.


----------



## Philip (Nov 25, 2012)

I wouldn't say that the Trinity resolves the problem so much as it explains the problem. We're never going to figure out the Trinity, really, but it does explain why we have the problem of the one and the many in philosophy. In a world that reflects a triune God, we should expect that there would be this tension between the one and the many.


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 7, 2012)

For Plato the realm of ideas is ultimate but it is an impersonal reality that cannot interact with ours. How would it interact with ours? You have an impenetrable gulf between the world of ideas and our everyday world of experience. For Aristotle the “ideas” or essences are inherent in the thing itself. For Plato the individual thing, like chairs, participate (in some way) with the essence or idea of “chairness” in some way (never spelled out). For Aristotle the essence of say “chairness” is inherent, in some unsaid way, in the individual thing (like an individual chair). 

But the great error for them both is that they cannot explain how the essences participate in all the individual things in creation. That is a gulf they cannot cross.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 7, 2012)

Rushdoony's monumental work can be found for free PDF here.

R. J. Rushdoony's <BR> The One and The Many

Here is is on Amazon

One and the Many, The: Rousas John Rushdoony: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## KaphLamedh (Dec 7, 2012)

Claudiu said:


> It's been mentioned before, on this board too, that God, the Trinity, solves the problem of the One and the Many (or One over Many). I haven't been able to find an argument here, or elsewhere supporting this (I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made. Rather, I'm trying to work out the problem, and was wondering what the argument is.) Could someone please explain to me how the Trinity is supposed to solve this problem! In what ways is it better, say, in comparison to Plato or Aristotle and their Universal-Particular arrangement of ontology?



Not really easy task to solve this out. Interesting thread. Have to come back later.


----------



## Philip (Dec 7, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> But the great error for them both is that they cannot explain how the essences participate in all the individual things in creation. That is a gulf they cannot cross.



How does a Christian perspective clarify this one? Duns Scotus and Occam seem to have the same problems that plagued the ancients.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 8, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Rushdoony's monumental work can be found for free PDF here.
> 
> R. J. Rushdoony's <BR> The One and The Many
> 
> ...



That link appears to be only the preface to the book - unless the whole book is only 4 pages long.


----------

