Episode 28: Year – The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, which deals with the readings for the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, we focus on three details that are relevant to doing apologetics. The first two are specific to the Solemnity and the other is not. Concerning the ones that are specific to the solemnity, one of them—God’s name as “I Who I Am” or “He Who Is”—comes from the first reading, which is taken from Exodus 34:4b-6, 8-9. The other, which is Jesus’s clear distinction between Himself and the Father, comes from the Gospel, which is taken from John 3:16-18. The detail that is not specific to the solemnity—the promise of eternal life for those who believe in Jesus—also comes from the Gospel reading.
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In this episode, which deals with the readings for the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, we’re going to focus on three details that are relevant to doing apologetics. The first two are specific to the Solemnity and the other is not. Concerning the ones that are specific to the solemnity, one of them—God’s name as “I Who I Am” or “He Who Is”—comes from the first reading, which is taken from Exodus 34:4b-6, 8-9. The other, which is Jesus’s clear distinction between Himself and the Father, comes from the Gospel, which is taken from John 3:16-18. The detail that is not specific to the solemnity—the promise of eternal life for those who believe in Jesus—also comes from the Gospel reading.
Let’s start with the detail from the first reading: the name of God. Here’s what we read:
Early in the morning Moses went up Mount Sinai as the LORD had commanded him, taking along the two stone tablets. Having come down in a cloud, the LORD stood with Moses there and proclaimed his name, “LORD.” Thus the LORD passed before him and cried out, “The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity.”
Note the proclamation of God’s name, which here is substituted with “Lord.” According to Exodus 3:14, God’s name is “I am who I am!”, or as some translations have it, “He Who is!”
There are two implications this has for apologetics.
First, some Christians claim that what we know about God through philosophical reasoning—that He is pure being or existence itself—doesn’t match with the God of the Bible. But God’s revealed name in Exodus 3:14 proves otherwise. As St. Thomas Aquinas observes, God’s revealed name signifies “simply existence itself” (Summa Theologiae I:13:11). And that God is pure being or existence is the very conclusion we come to through philosophical reasoning. Aquinas quotes Damascene for support in making this connection: “HE WHO IS is the principal of all names applied to God; for comprehending all in itself, it contains existence itself as an infinite and indeterminate sea of substance (De Fid. Orth. I).”
The second apologetical implication of God’s name is tied to the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity. Recall that the dogma of the Holy Trinity states that each of the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are God. This means that each of the persons are identical to the infinite pure being that we arrive at through philosophical reasoning and is revealed through God’s name in Exodus 3:14.
But an objection can reasonably be posed: if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all three identical to the divine being because it’s revealed they are all God, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit must be identical to each other. For example, if a is equal to b, and b is equal to c, then a is equal to c. This is known as the transitivity of identity—the identity that a has to b transfers over to c. So, it doesn’t seem that we can affirm all three divine persons as identical to the divine being and yet be distinct.
Aquinas dealt with this very objection in article three of question 28 in his Summa Theologiae. Here’s his answer in a nutshell.
Two things are identical to each other when they both are identical to a third thing if and only if the identity that each of the things has with the third thing is real and logical—that’s to say, they have an identity with the third thing in reality and in thought (can’t think of one without logically thinking of the other). Aquinas uses the example of the identity between a tunic and a garment. They are identical to a piece of cloth not only in reality—a tunic really is a garment—but also conceptually (you can’t think of one without the other). Consequently, you can’t affirm or deny anything about a tunic without at the same time affirming or denying something about a garment.
But if the identity that two things have with a third thing is true only in reality but not conceptually, then the two things are not identical to each other based on their identity with the third thing. To illustrate this Aquinas uses the example of motion considered as action and passion. Action is motion conceived of as originating from a substance and passion is motion conceived of as being received in a substance. Given that the conceptual content of motion conceived of as action is different than the conceptual content of motion conceived of as passion, they are logically distinct from motion. Neither action nor passion entirely exhausts the meaning of motion. For this reason action and passion are not identical to each other based on their real identity with motion.
Similarly, the three persons of the Trinity are identical to the divine being in reality, which is pure being itself. Yet, they are not logically identical to the divine being. The divine being conceived of as begetter, which is the Father, is conceptually distinct from the divine being conceived of as begotten, which is the Son, or the divine being conceived of as being spirated, which is the Holy Spirit. So, there is a conceptual distinction between the three persons and the divine being, a distinction that we make in the mind. But in reality the three persons are identical to the divine being. Given that the identity between the three persons and the divine being is an identity that holds only in reality but not conceptually, the three persons are not identical to each other. So, just because all three persons are identical to the divine being it doesn’t mean that all three persons are identical. They are distinct, although identical in essence or being.
Let’s now turn to the Gospel reading. Recall, the Gospel for this upcoming Sunday Mass is taken from the famous passage, John 3:16-18. Jesus says,
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
A brief note about this passage and its relevance to the Solemnity. Notice that Jesus speaks of God sending Him to save the world.
This is significant apologetically because there are some quasi-Christian sects, like Oneness Pentecostals, that don’t believe Jesus is a distinct person from the Father.
Yet here in this passage Jesus speaks of himself as being sent by the Father. One cannot send oneself. There is a clear distinction in Jesus’ mind between Himself and the Father who sent Him. Consequently, we can conclude that at least when it comes Jesus and the Father they are distinct persons.
Now, there’s another detail in this passage that is worthy to highlight for apologetical purposes. Note Jesus’ teaching that whoever believes in Him will not be condemned but will have eternal life.
For some Christians, this is a go-to passage for proving the idea that we can have absolute assurance that we’re going to heaven once we profess faith in Christ. As Norman Geisler states in reference to John 5:24, a passage where Jesus says the same thing as here in John 3:16, “Those who truly believe now can be certain now that they will be in heaven later” (that’s from his essay “A Moderate Calvinist View” in the book Four Views on Eternal Security). This leads him to conclude, “Eternal life is a present possession the moment people believe, and this assures Christians they will never be condemned.”
Should we read John 3:16 in the same way that Geisler reads John 5:24? The answer I’m going to give here comes from an article I wrote for Catholic Answers Magazine Online entitled “Don’t Take Eternal Life for Granted.”
The first thing we can say is that the present possession of eternal life via belief doesn’t mean a person will never be condemned. For a believer to never be condemned, Jesus would have to have said that a person who currently possesses eternal life via belief always remains in possession of this life, which in turn would mean that such a person would always remain in a state of belief. But Jesus doesn’t say that.
And the mere affirmation of the present status of a believer possessing eternal life doesn’t entail this either. It only proves that as long as a person believes, he has eternal life. And having such life when we stand before Christ in judgment at the end of our lives is what excludes us from condemnation.
Moreover, the New Testament teaches that a believer can fall away from faith, and thus lose possession of eternal life. For example, in reference to some who “hear the word” and “receive it with joy,” Jesus says, “they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). Since a believer can fall away from faith, it follows that a believer can lose the eternal life that is presently possessed. This being the case, the present possession of eternal life via belief doesn’t mean the believer will never be condemned.
A second response is that the logic embedded in Geisler’s interpretation of Jesus’ teaching about believing in Him and having eternal life—found in both John 3:16 and John 5:24—proves too much when applied elsewhere. Consider a parallel with John 3:36b:
John 3:16-18—“He who believes . . . will not be condemned.”
John 3:36b—“He who does not obey the Son (believes not) . . shall not see eternal life.”
Notice how the grammar and the syntax are parallel in structure. Each stipulates a condition and a consequence when the condition is met.
Now, on Geisler’s interpretation of Jesus’s teaching in John 3:16-18 and John 5:24, once the condition of belief is met, the consequence of not coming into judgment is secure. If we were to follow this line of reasoning when interpreting John 3:36b, we’d have to say that once the condition of not obeying the Son (or not believing) is met, then the consequence of not seeing eternal life is secure.
But this would mean that anyone who currently doesn’t believe can never repent of his unbelief and receive salvation. This contradicts Jesus’ call for repentance: “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). It also contradicts the apostolic call for repentance: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38).
Neither John 3:36b nor John 3:16-18 is addressing the issue of whether the condition of the person involved (believer or non-believer) can change. Rather, as New Testament professor Robert Picirilli points out, the emphasis is on the fulfillment of the promise “to those who persist in the respective state described” (Grace, Faith, and Free Will; emphasis added).
Since Geisler’s line of reasoning cannot be applied consistently throughout Scripture without leading to conclusions that contradict New Testament teaching, we’re justified in rejecting it, and consequently his interpretation of Jesus’s teaching in John 3:16 and John 5:24.
Here’s a third response, one used by apologist Jimmy Akin in his book A Daily Defense: the Bible doesn’t only speak of eternal life as something presently possessed by believers. Rather, it also speaks of it as something believers have not yet achieved. Consider, for example, Romans 2:7: “To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” Similarly, Paul writes elsewhere, “He who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal. 6:8). If there is a not yet dimension to receiving eternal life, then you can’t simply assert that believers are secure in the aspect of it that they currently possess. The not yetness allows for the possibility to lose it—that is, if a believer stops believing, stops seeking for glory, honor, and immortality, stops sowing to the Spirit, etc.
Now, a believer in the doctrine of eternal security might counter, “You’re gutting the meaning of eternal in the phrase ‘eternal life.’ Eternal life would not be eternal if we could lose it.”
This counter-argument assumes that the term denotes merely a quantity of life, in the sense of living forever. But this can’t be what Jesus is referring to because he says a few verses later that “those who done evil” will rise “to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:25, 29). If by “eternal life” Jesus meant simply that we will live forever, then it would appropriately be ascribed also to the damned. But surely, the damned don’t have “eternal life” in the same sense that believers do.
So what does the phrase refer to? As Akin concludes, “eternal life thus deals not just with a quantity but a quality or kind of life.” It is the life of God that we as believers participate in. This is what Peter means when he says, “We become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4).
May we, by God’s grace, always strive to remain partakers of the divine nature, holding “fast to our confession” (Heb. 4:14) so we may have eternal life until the moment of death and beyond, where we will experience it in full.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity obviously gives us an opportunity to reflect on the Most Holy Trinity and some apologetical issues surrounding it. But it also gives us an opportunity to reflect on the nature of our salvation that comes through belief in Christ.
Thank you for subscribing to the podcast. Please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. Also, if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity.