130. Divine Notions and the Trinity

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem of Abstract and Concrete Names in God #

• God is absolutely simple, yet we speak of him using both concrete names (God, Father, wise) and abstract names (Godhood, fatherhood, wisdom)
• This apparent composition does not actually violate divine simplicity
• Our way of knowing God corresponds to our way of naming God, and we know God through creatures and sensible things
• The defect lies not in our speech but in our understanding—we must negate imperfections when applying creaturely concepts to God

The Necessity of Notions (Divine Properties) #

What Are Notions?

• Notions are abstract thoughts or reasons (rationes) by which we distinguish and know the divine persons
• They are not things in God but thoughts by which persons are known
• Five notions exist: unbornness (innascibilitas), fatherhood, sonship, common breathing (spiratio), and procession

Why Notions Are Necessary

1. To answer heretical objections: When asked “by what are they one God and by what are they three persons?” we respond: one by essence, three by the notions/properties
2. To account for multiple relations in one person: The Father relates to the Son by fatherhood and to the Holy Spirit by common breathing—two different relations requiring distinct notions to distinguish them

The 5-4-3 Reduction #

• Five notions reduce to four relations (unbornness is not strictly a relation but reduced to one)
• Four relations reduce to three persons (common breathing of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit does not create a fourth person)
• This pattern parallels the five powers of the soul (vegetative, sense, appetitive, intellectual, locomotive) reducing to four grades of life

Distinction Between Essential and Personal Names #

• The essence signifies the what (quid) in divine things
• The person signifies the who (quis) in divine things
• The property signifies the by what (quo) in divine things
• Personal names must appear in both abstract form (fatherhood) and concrete form (father) to express both simplicity and subsistence

What Can Be Predicated of Notions #

• Cannot be predicated: Actions or personal acts (fatherhood does not generate or create; fatherhood is not wise or understanding)
• Can be predicated: Essential names that remove creaturely conditions (fatherhood is eternal, immense) and identity statements by reason of the identity of the thing (fatherhood is really God; fatherhood is the Father)

The Objections Against Notions #

1. Notions are not mentioned in Scripture
2. Notions pertain to neither unity of essence nor trinity of persons
3. Simple things should not have abstract designations added to them

Thomas’s Responses #

1. Although notions are not explicitly mentioned, the persons in whom notions are understood are mentioned in Scripture; abstract notions are implicit in concrete persons (just as goodness is implicit in saying God is good)
2. Notions signify not as things in God but as reasons by which persons are known and distinguished; they are truly in God as relations but do not signify things
3. Although persons are simple, their proper thoughts can be signified in the abstract without prejudice to simplicity, because of our way of knowing

Key Arguments #

Against the Sufficiency of Concrete Names Alone #

• If we only said “Father” and “Son,” heretics would ask: “By what are they one God? By what are they three persons?”
• We need abstract terms (fatherhood, sonship) to explain the distinction while maintaining unity
• One person (the Father) must be related to two others by two distinct relations, requiring two abstract notions to express this

For the Compatibility of Abstract Names with Divine Simplicity #

• Our understanding cannot grasp divine simplicity as it is in itself
• We know God through sensible creatures, in which we use abstract names for simple forms (whiteness) and concrete names for subsistent things (white thing)
• Therefore, abstract names signify God’s simplicity; concrete names signify his subsistence and completion
• No real composition in God results because the abstraction is in our mode of understanding, not in the thing itself

On Why Both Ways of Speaking Are Necessary #

• If we say only “God is goodness,” we suggest God is goodness itself as a form, not that God himself is good
• If we say only “God has goodness,” we suggest composition between God and his goodness
• Both must be affirmed: God is good (concrete) AND God is his own goodness (abstract)
• The falsehood comes in only if we attribute our defective way of knowing to the way God is

Important Definitions #

Notio (Notion): An abstract thought or reason by which a divine person is known and distinguished from others; not a thing in God but a way of understanding.

Ratio (Reason/Thought): How notions are understood—as proper thoughts by which persons are known, derived from our manner of understanding.

Relatio (Relation): The real basis in God for distinction of persons; there are four relations in God (though five notions, as unbornness is not strictly a relation).

Quid, Quis, Quo: The essence signifies what (quid); the person signifies who (quis); the property signifies by what (quo).

Innascibilitas: Unbornness or having no beginning; a fifth notion that is not strictly a relation but is reduced to the genus of relations, used to know the Father as not proceeding from another.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Father’s Two Relations #

• To the Son: fatherhood (generation)
• To the Holy Spirit: common breathing (spiration with the Son)
• These are two distinct relations requiring two distinct notions
• Analogy: A father has one relation to his wife (husband) and another to his daughter (father)—he cannot have one relation to both

Concrete and Abstract Names #

• “God is good” (concrete) and “God is his own goodness” (abstract) are both true without introducing composition
• We cannot avoid using both because our understanding grasps God as we know him through sensible creatures
• The health of a healthy person: The health is not the person, but the person is his health; in God, the goodness is not God, but God is his goodness

The Five Powers and Four Grades of Life (Comparison) #

• Five powers of the soul: vegetative, sense, appetitive, intellectual, locomotive
• Four grades of life: plants (vegetative only), some animals (vegetative + sense, fixed), mobile animals (vegetative + sense + locomotive), rational beings (vegetative + sense + locomotive + intellectual)
• The appetitive powers do not constitute a separate grade because they follow upon sensation or reason
• Similarly, five notions reduce to four relations because unbornness is not strictly a relation

Why We Need Abstract Names Despite Simplicity #

• We say God is wise, but this seems to imply God has wisdom (composition)
• Yet if we only say God is wisdom, we suggest He is wisdom as a form, not wise Himself
• We are forced to use both by the necessity of our understanding, which knows God through creatures
• God himself is simple; our knowledge is not

Notable Quotes #

“But as has been shown above, it is not prejudicial to the divine simplicity that in divine things we use both concrete names and abstract names, right? Because according as we understand, thus we name things.”

“The notions signify divine things not as things in God, right? But as reasons by which the persons are known and distinguished.”

“For we can say that the Fatherhood is really God, right? And the Fatherhood is the Father.”

“The falsehood comes in when you say that the way of knowing is the way things are, right?”

“One of the generative powers doesn’t give rise to a separate grade, right? So you don’t have a separate grade because of that. So you’ve got five generative powers give you only four grades of life.”

Questions Addressed #

Question 32: Are Notions Necessary in Divine Things? #

Objections:

• Dionysius says we should not speak of God beyond what Scripture expresses; notions are not mentioned in Scripture
• Notions pertain to neither the unity of essence nor the trinity of persons
• In simple things, abstract designations should not be introduced because simple things are known by themselves

Resolution:

• Although notions are not explicitly mentioned, the persons (in whom notions are understood as abstract in concrete) are mentioned in Scripture; just as saying God is good implicitly contains that God has goodness
• Notions do not pertain to essence or persons as things, but as reasons by which persons are known and distinguished
• The persons are simple in themselves, but without prejudice to simplicity, their proper thoughts can be signified in the abstract because of our manner of knowing

Why Five Notions? #

• Unbornness (innascibilitas): Proper to the Father, known by not proceeding from another
• Fatherhood: The Father known by the Son proceeding from him
• Sonship: The Son known by proceeding from the Father
• Common breathing: The Father and Son known by the Holy Spirit proceeding from them
• Procession: The Holy Spirit known by proceeding from the Father and Son

Why Do Five Notions Reduce to Four Relations? #

• Unbornness is not strictly a relation (relatio) but is reduced to one; a relation properly implies reference to another, while unbornness signifies not being from another
• The other four notions correspond to four true relations

Why Do Four Relations Reduce to Three Persons? #

• Common breathing is one relation shared by the Father and Son to the Holy Spirit
• Therefore there are three persons but four relations (Father-Son, Son-Father, Father/Son-Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit-Father/Son)

Connections to Key Philosophical Points #

The Problem of Change (Heraclitus and Parmenides) #

• Heraclitus says things are and are not simultaneously to save change
• Parmenides denies change to preserve non-contradiction
• Aristotle solves this by introducing a third thing: the subject of contraries
• Applied here: In God, there is no temporal change, but we must speak of him as if there were parts (essence, persons, properties) because our understanding is bound to sensible knowledge

Our Mode of Understanding vs. The Mode of Being #

• We know God through effects (creatures), not as He is in Himself
• Our understanding cannot arrive at divine simplicity as it is in itself
• We grapple with this limitation through both abstract and concrete names
• The problem is not that we speak falsely, but that we speak defectively and must negate creaturely conditions

Philosophical Context #

This lecture continues Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of the Trinity from the Summa Theologiae, specifically addressing how human language and understanding can express divine mysteries without introducing real composition into God’s simple essence. The key insight is that notions are necessary not as things in God but as conceptual tools derived from our creaturely mode of understanding.