The Trinity: Letters to Eric (Part 3)

Dear Eric,
After my last letter to you, where I rebuked you for dismissing an important part of my argument for the Trinity, you replied by apologising for having offended me. I just want to assure you that you haven't offended me; I merely wanted to point out that dismissing some point in your opponent's argument is rather frustrating. People do it to me all the time, so I see how it almost always leads to miscommunication, since the dismissed portion is almost always essential to the argument.

Thank you for taking the time to ask for clarification--I appreciate it, and can attest that you are seeking the truth, as evidenced by this behaviour. I too seek only the truth, and to share with others the truth that I have found.

Now, as to your other comments, you state outright that you disagree with my definition of love, but you supply no other alternative definition except to say "GOD IS LOVE." Yes, God is love, but that does nothing to define what Love is, so simply stating that you disagree with the definition is rather unhelpful. My whole point is that God is Love, and that Love is by nature the seeking of the good of another. Thus God, who is Love, is always by definition performing the Act of Love. Hence, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica, that God is pure act. He is never passive. He is always loving because He is Love. But before Creation, there was no one to love, and thus God could not have been acting in Love (and thus, passive, which is a change--and God does not change). That is, before creation, God could not be acting in Love, unless God is triune, and acting in Love within Himself, through the Love of the Father for the Son, the Son for the Father, each for the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit for each. Thus God exists, as Love, in one unending Act of Love, in the Trinity.

Therefore, simply stating that God is love, and following up by quoting 1 John, that love is of God and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God, does not negate my statements. I wholeheartedly agree with them, because they were my starting point. As such, I'm sad to say that you haven't contributed to furthering the conversation at this point.

In hope,
Gregory


(Category: Theology Proper: The Holy Trinity.)