The Holy Spirit, as the bond between Father and Son, must Himself have a separate bond with either 'person', leading to an eternal regress

[Teofrastus]

The Holy Spirit is conceived as an independent third 'person' of the Trinity. He is the 'bond' between the Father and the Son (Epiphanius). This leads to a logical problem, in view of the fact that it requires yet another bond between the Holy Spirit Himself and the Father and the Son, respectively. These bonds, in themselves, require new bonds, and so forth, ad infinitum. However, such a regress is constitutive and unitive, and it explains why the unity of the Trinity constitutes love. Read my article "Turtles all the way down" - The Unity of the Trinity as Eternal Regress in the Godhead.

 

[Andrewn]

The Holy Spirit is conceived as an independent third 'person' of the Trinity. He is the 'bond' between the Father and the Son (Epiphanius). This leads to a logical problem, in view of the fact that it requires yet another bond between the Holy Spirit Himself and the Father and the Son, respectively. These bonds, in themselves, require new bonds, and so forth, ad infinitum. However, such a regress is constitutive and unitive, and it explains why the unity of the Trinity constitutes love. Read my article "Turtles all the way down" - The Unity of the Trinity as Eternal Regress in the Godhead.

Why does the Holy Spirit have to be conceived as an independent third 'person' of the Trinity?

 

[Teofrastus]

Why does the Holy Spirit have to be conceived as an independent third 'person' of the Trinity?

Encyclopedia.com says:

Trinitarian theology is par excellence the theology of relationship. Its fundamental principle is that God, who is self-communicating and self-giving love for us, is from all eternity love perfectly given and received. The traditional formula "God is three persons in one nature" compactly expresses that there are permanent features of God's eternal being (the three persons) that are the ontological precondition for the three distinct manners of God's tripersonal activity in the world (as Father, Son, Spirit). (Trinity)​

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The Holy Spirit is conceived as an independent third 'person' of the Trinity. He is the 'bond' between the Father and the Son (Epiphanius). This leads to a logical problem, in view of the fact that it requires yet another bond between the Holy Spirit Himself and the Father and the Son, respectively. These bonds, in themselves, require new bonds, and so forth, ad infinitum. However, such a regress is constitutive and unitive, and it explains why the unity of the Trinity constitutes love. Read my article "Turtles all the way down" - The Unity of the Trinity as Eternal Regress in the Godhead.

Before I read your article which I shall do with relish and shall report here about it after, I feel when introducing the situation the expression "logical problem" is too strong.

Some philosophers hold ontology (which doesn't require theology) to be a branch within logic while others say it is its needed twin. Either way it i ) wouldn't be inconsistent, ii ) wouldn't clash by definition.

Paradoxes in reality have always been essential to logic but readers would need to be guided by an epithet "apparent". I can't here apply the usage "problem" as a sample of calculation, possibly implied incorrect at that (mystification as the likes of Plotinus would do).

 

[Andrewn]

The traditional formula "God is three persons in one nature" compactly expresses that there are permanent features of God's eternal being (the three persons)

I understand that that is the traditional formula and do not contradict it. But how would you answer a Muslim person who responded by saying that you, I, and John are also three persons in one nature. This does not make us one human and makes Christians polytheists?

I'm not discussing the Holy Trinity here. I am asking how would you explain to a Muslim who the Holy Spirit is.

 

[Teofrastus]

I understand that that is the traditional formula and do not contradict it. But how would you answer a Muslim person who responded by saying that you, I, and John are also three persons in one nature. This does not make us one human and makes Christians polytheists?

I'm not discussing the Holy Trinity here. I am asking how would you explain to a Muslim who the Holy Spirit is.

No, three human persons have three natures, three different brains, and three different wills. God is three persons in One nature and has One will.

The Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son. I don't know who the Holy Spirit is! Only Jesus Christ knows that. However, I wrote an heretical article: Who is the Spirit Paraclete? - A new look on the Holy Spirit. After all, think of all the good that the heretics have done. Without them, Augustine, Irenaeus, and the others, would not have produced so much excellent theology.

 

[Teofrastus]

Before I read your article which I shall do with relish and shall report here about it after, I feel when introducing the situation the expression "logical problem" is too strong.

Some philosophers hold ontology (which doesn't require theology) to be a branch within logic while others say it is its needed twin. Either way it i ) wouldn't be inconsistent, ii ) wouldn't clash by definition.

Paradoxes in reality have always been essential to logic but readers would need to be guided by an epithet "apparent". I can't here apply the usage "problem" as a sample of calculation, possibly implied incorrect at that (mystification as the likes of Plotinus would do).

Yes, it's worthy of a read. At least it says something new, which is unusual in theology. Well, if we define the Holy Spirit as a standalone 'link' (vinculum amoris; nexus amoris), then who is the link between the Holy Spirit and the other two divine Persons? I do see it as a logical problem, even though it doesn't threaten the trinitarian dogma. After all, nexus amoris is merely a metaphor. Nevertheless, it is resolved by seeing it as a regress infinitism, which is very appealing. Plato had a similar problem, the so called Third Man problem. It is resolved similarly, as I've suggested in another article (The Platonic Form as Self-Generating Triunity).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Yes, it's worthy of a read. At least it says something new, which is unusual in theology. Well, if we define the Holy Spirit as a standalone 'link' (vinculum amoris; nexus amoris), then who is the link between the Holy Spirit and the other two divine Persons? I do see it as a logical problem, even though it doesn't threaten the trinitarian dogma. After all, nexus amoris is merely a metaphor. Nevertheless, it is resolved by seeing it as a regress infinitism, which is very appealing. Plato had a similar problem, the so called Third Man problem. It is resolved similarly, as I've suggested in another article (The Platonic Form as Self-Generating Triunity).

I get accused of saying something new as well! As I'm a leisure reader and armchair thinker my efforts aren't polished.

My revised aim is to build on your Turtles and your Third Man plus the meanings of Scriptures to show you a simpler way to arrive at Holy Spirit (much as I prize cultural semiotics).

I say "Holy Spirit" as a personal name (a bit like not saying The Princess Anne ;-) )