The doctrine of the Trinity is unique to Christianity and also one of the most difficult to grasp, much less explain to others. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, in The Creator and the Cosmos, offers a most helpful paradigm from science for understanding the Trinity. Ross suggests that the discovery of multiple dimensions creates a context for resolving many apparent paradoxes. String theory posits 10, 11, even 26 possible dimensions. It is understandable that in our four dimensional world, certain concepts will be impregnable. However, by adding multiple dimensions to the equation, God’s triune nature may be less implausible.
It’s been suggested that the doctrine of the Trinity proves Christianity was not concocted by man. Who in their right mind would place something so complex — three distinct beings, eternally existent, co-equal in power, in one God — at the heart of their belief system? But while most apologetics deal with the WHAT and HOW of the Trinity — what is it and how do we defend it — few deal with the WHY. Why does God exist in trinity?
In The Unity of the Bible, Daniel P. Fuller offers one of the most intriguing perspectives on the Trinity I’ve come across. While the following hypothesis may not help us explain or defend the doctrine, it can possibly assist in our contemplation of the nature of God.
The outline of the argument goes something like this:
- God is perfect
- God is love
- Because God is perfect He doesn’t need the world — He is perfect in Himself
- But since God is love — and love requires an object or person of its affection — God requires an object / person to share His love
- In order for God to be love and remain perfect — without need of the world — He finds within Himself another Person to love (the Son)
- The Holy Spirit embodies the love that the Father and the Son share; He is the “spirit” of that Relationship, the joy and generation of that ecstatic union
Regarding the Holy Spirit, Scripture is clear that (1) He is a Person and (2) He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Hence, the Westminster Confession makes the following distinction:
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Notice that, while the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father, the Holy Spirit is “eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.” C.S. Lewis puts it this way in Beyond Personality:
The union between the Father and the Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person. I know that’s almost inconceivable, but look at it this way. You know that among human beings, when they get together in a family, or a club, or a trades union, people talk about the “spirit” of that family, or club, or trades union. They talk about its “spirit” because the individual members, when they’re together, do really develop particular ways of talking and behaving which they wouldn’t have if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence. Of course, it isn’t a real person: it is only rather like a person. But that’s just one of the differences between God and us. What grows out of the joint life of the Father and the Son is a real Person, is in fact the Third of the three Persons who are God.
I like that phrase “communal personality” — the Holy Spirit is the embodiment of the communal personality of the Godhead. Fuller points out another interesting aspect of this relationship: “[W]hile we have seen passages in which the Father loves the Son and vice-versa, nowhere does one read of the Father or the Son loving the Holy Spirit, or vice-versa.” Isn’t that fascinating? Why isn’t the Holy Spirit ever described as loving, or being loved by, the Father and the Son, if not for the fact that He has an entirely different relationship with the Father and the Son?
So, in answer to the question Why does God exist in Trinity, we could simply respond: “Because He is love.” Or, to quote Lewis again in Beyond Personality:
The words ‘God is love’ have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person then before the world was made, he was not love.
It’s a compelling assertion about the WHY of the Trinity. Of course, this understanding may not help you advance arguments with your Jehovah’s Witness neighbors, but it’s a provocative meditation concerning the nature of our mighty Triune God.
JWs are not the only group that do not believe in a trinity.
I consider myself a Christian *and* I question the doctrine of the trinity.
See http://www.christianmonotheism.com/ and watch the brief video “The 5 Problems with the Trinity” and also this link which has a full documentary on the historical roots of the idea of the trinity
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/php/media_center/media_displayer.php
Now hold on just a minute, Mike. I thought the purpose of the Trinity was to teach us about gender roles! What’s up with all this other stuff???!!! Creation Order! Creation Order!
I’m not sure why there must be a trinity in the first place, let alone a way to explain it. I get that it’s a convenient label, but it makes things difficult when speaking to Jews and Muslims, who believe Christians are idolaters for worshipping three Gods instead of one.
Yeah, I’m with you there, Jill.
But without a Trinity, we *would* be polytheists. The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of reconciling the Scriptures that say there is only one God and those that specify there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit.
I love this post. And my reading list just got longer. 🙂
I don’t think the human mind can comprehend the trinity. When it was explained to me that God IS relationship, it started making more sense, but I know I’ll never fully understand it. God’s never alone, never lonely. We are made in His image which means we naturally crave relationships as well. (Genesis 2:18, It is not good for man to be alone.)
Those who try to explain the trinity with physics, I wish them luck, but I suspect a scientific definition of God will continue to elude them.
Dear Mike,
very interesting post. I don’t have Fuller’s book, so that’s for posting. I am studying the historical literature on the Trinity and am always on the lookout for theologians discussing the Trinity.
I am wondering how you make the leap FROM:
1. Why isn’t the Holy Spirit ever described as loving, or being loved by, the Father and the Son
TO:
2. if not for the fact that He has an entirely different relationship with the Father and the Son?
If it is not a relationship of love, then what DIFFERENT relationship are you suggesting?
If you never hear a husband and wife say they love each other, or tell others that they love each other, does that mean they don’t love each other?
I enjoy most of CS Lewis’ writings, but His ‘communal personality, but not a person’ theory doesn’t seem to fit with Scripture. What about Jesus saying, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you ANOTHER advocate to help you and be with you forever–” John 14:16.
It is very interesting that ‘another’ in this passage is the Greek ‘allos’, which means ‘another of the same kind’.
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you John 14:26
Jesus appears to speak of the Holy Spirit as a separate person not as a communal personality, where the Holy Spirit is not a person. Again, John 16:7 – I’m going away, but the advocate will come to you, but can’t come UNLESS I go away…
It seems off the top of my head, that the Holy Spirit embodies the actions of love and is ONE EXACTLY LIKE JESUS. Jesus advocates for us in heaven and the Holy Spirit advocates for us (indwelling us) while on this earth.
Other points –
– All three were at creation
– the Holy Spirit came down like a dove upon Jesus during Baptism
Anyways you can see I am leaning away from Fuller’s explanation, but will take a closer look at it once the book arrives.
What is important to admit to ourselves is that we (and many, many theologians) are still struggling with the mystery of it all. Words and concepts like ‘begotten’, ‘send’, ‘proceeds from’ are still in discussion and debate as to what they actually mean, and how the meaning defines the relationship between Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
Sincerely in Christ,
Janet
ps. edit: that should say, ‘THANKS’ for posting. 🙂
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Janet — you mentioned a number of points (and scriptures) that crossed my mind, too. 🙂
Great post. I’m taking Trinitarianism this semester, so you’re timing is perfect. 😉 Of all the theology classes, I chose to start with this one because I’d like to better understand the Trinity. I believe there are 3 distinct manifestations of God, yet still one God because the Bible says so, but I don’t understand the mechanics of it (and may never).
Thanks for taking your time to write posts to provoke our thoughts and provide fodder for discussion. I find value in what you write even though I don’t often comment.
Blessings!
One of the most helpful books I have ever read on the subject is Dorothy Sayers’ “Mind of the Maker” in which she argues that the Trinity does in fact have an analogy in reality: in the minds and expressions of human creators. The Controlling Idea for a book is equated with God the Father; the book itself–the written word–is Jesus Christ, the “Word made Flesh;” and the power that it has to touch its audience is the Holy Spirit. She expresses it better than I can summarize it; but it’s definitely worth a read, particularly for those of us familiar with the creative process.
Oooo. I really like that analogy.
Very cool.
Another interesting take on the Trinity I’ve heard plays off the concept of “body, soul and spirit”. Not everybody agrees that soul and spirit are two separate things (and I understand why, given the variety of Old Testament words used for mind, heart, emotions, spirit, etc, and the inconclusive use in the NT). The folks who do believe that body, soul and spirit are distinct define the spirit as the eternal personality / essence of a person and the soul as made up of the “mind, will and emotions”.
So, the idea is that every human being is made up of spirit, soul and body. And that God is the same — with the Holy Spirit being God’s spirit, the Father being the soul (the one who is in charge and makes decisions), and Jesus being the body (the part of the Godhead that manifested in the flesh).
Fun idea, though I’m certainly not convinced…
Traditionally, while acknowledging that any analogy is imperfect, the basic gist of the Nicean Creed and the subsequent addition to it concerning the Holy Spirit, was three persons, one essence. This in reality should not be hard to understand, since on this Earth we have multiple persons in one essence. IOW, my son and I share the same essence of humanness.
The catch is that their essence is of the infinitely perfect divinity, one God. Because of that, they are in perfect harmony and act as one God, not three as would be the case in our humanness and multiple persons.
Also, I’d add, that looking at the Trinity as a relational paradigm is limited and particularly Western. The Nicean Creed as originally written, has that the Holy Spirit proceeds from just the Father. And if you are familiar with Church history, you are aware of the fact that “and the Son” wasn’t added until hundreds of years later by a local Spanish council and eventually adopted by the Pope, but the East believes it to be a heresy and not a correct understanding. Mainly because the proceeding of the Spirit was understood to speak of His essence, not His relationship. The relationship is inherent in the essence.
Anyway, that’s a debate that has been going on since around 800 AD. Not to get into that debate, only reminding that there is a huge chunk of Christians around the world who believe that to be an error, and it wasn’t even a consideration until that local Spanish council that added it in, in an attempt to combat semi-Arianism. You appear to base part of your argument on this as if it is a given in Christianity.
As to why, first you have God the Father, from who all things were created. The Son was necessary to provide the bridge between humanity and divinity. The Spirit was needed as the energy of life in each person united to God. If the Trinity is about relationships, it is more about our relationship to God than anything. Created by the Father, united by the Son, enlivened by the Holy Spirit.
Your last paragraph is a great summary, Rick.
The concept of the trinity – a concept I’ve admittedly had trouble grasping in its entirety – has been on my mind lately. I’ve actually recently prayed for understanding, not so much about grasping the concept, but rather about the hierarchy, if indeed there is one. And along comes this post. This kind of thing happens to me quite often, though. I’ll be struggling with something, and after praying about it, I’ll see something in a magazine, on the internet – like this post — or on television that addresses the subject. Interesting point, Mike, the Holy Spirit neither mentioned as being loved by the Father or the Son, nor returning that love.
This is a neat concept, if I’m grasping the essence of it correctly. Basically saying the reason God is who He is to us (loving, forgiving, desiring relationship, etc) is because of who He is to Himself. And the only way He can be someone to Himself is if He is more than One. Seems logical. (…which makes me doubt it right there, but that’s another issue…)
But I wouldn’t say this need for Him to be perfect and be Love is “why” He’s a Trinity. Rather I’d say that He is (to us) who He is (Love) because of His multi-self, triune nature. It’s not the why of Him. Maybe the “what” of Him. Or am I missing your point with the “why” thing?
I really don’t like the way #5 and #6 are worded, they sound so hokey to me. “He finds within Himself somebody to love”? Sounds like God looks around and says, “Oh, bummer, there’s nobody here. Maybe I’ve got someone inside Me I can love… Oh, look! Hello, there…” Ha!
Then making the Holy Spirit sound like He’s nothing more than an embodiment of the love between Father and Son, some sort of expression of their relationship? “Oh, look! A beautiful spiritual Thing has sprung up out of our Love!” Blech. Sure, that’s as good an explanation as any other Trinity explanation I’ve heard but that’s not saying much! Ha!
If anything, the Son would be who sprung out of the Father’s love-seed when the Spirit overshadowed Mary. *awkward*
Anyway…. thanks for making me think and giving me something fun to talk with Him about for the next little while until my brain lets this puzzle go again…
Thanks for posting the quote by CS Lewis Mike. It seems to me that his logic is impossible to naysay. I certainly have tried to think of it another way–and can’t. The question that nails it is “If love is defined as other-centeredness, then who was the other that God was loving before he created anything?”