“What will it avail thee to argue profoundly of the Trinity, if thou be void of humility, and are thereby displeasing to the Trinity?” This probing question put forth by a fourteenth-century Christian writer serves to remind any Christian who would probe the depths of the mys- tery of the Three-in-Oneness of God of the need for humility and for the recognition of one’s own finite apprehension of this great truth.

I. THE THREENESS IN THE THREE-IN-ONENESS OF GOD#

A. The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa) and some modem Anglicans either assumed or taught that the threeness is the beginning point for explicating the Trinity.

In support of this view it may be argued that threeness is the very point where Christian belief was and is to be differentiated from Jewish and Muslim beliefs and that therefore the threeness should be the initial step in moving toward a comprehensive doctrine of the Trinity.

B. The entire history of interpreting the threeness in the Three-in-Oneness of God has centered around the problem of language, that is, the Latin term personae, the Greek term hypostaseis, the English term “persons,” etc.

Tertullian first employed tres personae in reference to the Christian doctrine of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Among its usages as a term in the Latin language persona had been employed of the mask worn by an actor and of the different characters in a drama. Only slowly and with the help of the Cappadocian Fathers did the Greek hypostaseis become the standard Greek equivalent for the Latin personae vis-a-vis the Trinity.

Did personae mean for Latin-speaking Christians during the third century A D. the same thing as or something quite different from the twenty-first century English term “person” (or its equivalent in European or other languages) when applied to the Trinity?

The modem use of “person” and “personality” connotes self-consciousness and individuation, whereas the patristic usage of personae connoted something less than full individuation. Hence, Karl Barth himself, turning from “persons,” preferred to use the term “modes of being” (“Seinsweise”) but without a Sabellianist meaning.

Clement Charles Julian Webb (1865-1954) and Leonard Hodgson, on the other hand, were representative of those Anglicans and others who have insisted that the usage of personae has not significantly changed between the patristic and the modem eras. Webb affirmed that until the modem era only heretics would affirm “the Personality of God”; rather the orthodox would refer to “Personality in God”.

Whatever may be concluded and established as to change and continuity in the meaning of personae and “persons,” the term “persons” must not be used of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit so as to mean three individual deities.

C. As previously noted, the English term “person” must in present-day usage do double duty both as an anti-pantheistic term and as a Trinitarian term, and these usages must not be confused.

D.The threeness in the Three-in-Oneness of God means furthermore that the Trinity involves a union of “persons,” not the union of “members of a species” in a impersonal sense, or the union of the bond of “love or friendship,” or the “union of members of a group.”

II. THE ONENESS IN THE THREE-IN-ONENESS OF GOD#

A. Augustine of Hippo regarded the oneness or the unity of God as the proper beginning point for the explication of the Trinity. In support of this approach is the fact that the oneness of God is Christianity’s essential debt to and link with Jewish monotheism.

B. Interpreting the oneness in the Three-in-Oneness of God has involved the question as to the nature and meaning of that oneness or unity. How can there be oneness if there be threeness?

The sixth-century so-called Athanasian Creed (or Quicumque), which expounds in creedal form Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity, declares that Father, Son, and Spirit “are not three eternals,” “not three uncreated,” not “three incomprehensibles,” “not three Almighties,” “not three Gods,” and “not three Lords,” “but one God” and “one Lord.”

Even so, when one speaks of such oneness in God, vis-a-vis his threeness, what kind of oneness should one have in mind? Should it be primarily an arithmetical unity or oneness, that is, without regard to fractions and hence the oneness of the integer?

• Karl Barth has answered in the affirmative because, he has contended, God is the one God only as He triply repeats himself.

• Leonard Hodgson has held that organic unity, rather than mathematical unity, should be the model for the doctrine of the Trinity. Mathematical unity, despite fractions, is characterized by an “absence ofinner multiplicity,” whereas the organic unity of a cell “exists by virtue of an inner multiplicity.”

The doctrine of the Trinity, according to Hodgson, needs mathematical unity only when contrasting monotheism with polytheism.

C. The oneness or unity in the Three-in-Oneness of God also pertains to the work of the triune God.

The work of the Father, of the Son, and of the Spirit can be identified and even differentiated, but the work of each is not exclusive. The work of each is in a sense the work of the Godhead.

• God the Father may be called Creator, but the Son and the Spirit are not excluded from the work of creation.

• God the Son may be called Redeemer, but the Father and the Spirit are not excluded from the work of redemption.

• The Holy Spirit may be called Sanctifier, but the Father and the Son are not excluded from the work of sanctification.

Some of the Church Fathers, notably John of Damascus (c. 675-749), expounded a doctrine of divine coinherence (Greek, perichoresis; Latin, circumincessio), whereby the Father, the Son, and the Spirit “condition and permeate one another mutually with such perfection, that one is as invariably in the other two as the other two are in the one.”

III. THE TRINITY AS ETERNAL, ESSENTIAL, AND IMMANENTAL#

A. The triune nature of God needs to be understood as more than merely a Trinity of historic self-manifestation, or what some have called an “economic” Trinity.

Some acknowledge a certain three-in-oneness of God in the advent of Jesus Christ among human beings and in the manifestation of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost but deny or are reluctant to affirm that this three-in-oneness in God reflects the eternal being of God. The crucial question is this: Is the Three-in-Oneness of God which is manifested in the events to which the New Testament bears witness a true reflection or disclosure of an eternal and immanental Three-in-Oneness? The factor of divine revelation argues for an affirmative answer.

B. The triune nature of God needs to be understood as more than a triplex of divine attributes.

Peter Abelard was condemned by the Council of Soissons (1121) for his views concerning the Trinity. Reportedly his teaching was tritheistic in nature. In actual fact he seems to have held to a Sabellianism of divine attributes. God is essentially Power, Wisdom, and Goodness or Love. Hence this distinction of attributes seems to have stood in place of a distinction of persons.

C. The triune nature of God needs to be understood as more than merely an equality of rank, station, or power for the Father, the Son, and the Spirit that lacks also an equality of being, essence, or nature.

Concerning Phil. 2:6 Michael Servetus declared: “for the expression, equally denotes not his nature but his station; and he U esus] could pronounce himself on an equality with God in power, who promises that he can do all things soever that the Father does [Matt. 11:27; John 3:35; 5: 19; 13:3].” The New Testament admittedly does, especially in John 17, refer to the preincarnate and postincarnate station and glory of the Son of God, but in its books one finds no usage of station or glory as a substitute for divine being or essence.

D. Rather the doctrine of the triune nature of God is “the projection into eternity of this essential relationship, the assertion that eternally the Divine life is a life of mutual self-giving to one another.”

The doctrine of an eternal, essential, and immanental Trinity has been built upon various affirmations which were first made during the patristic age:

1. The eternal generation of the Son from the Father (Origen)

2. The consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and hence his co-eternity and coequality (Nicaea I, Athanasius)

3. The consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son (Gregory ofNazianzus)

4. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son (Cappadocian Fathers)

5. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son (Western insertion of.filioque)

6. The coinherence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (John Chrysostom,John of Damasrus)

Conceived in more intimate terms, the “doctrine of the Trinity is the teaching that God, who as the Father hath made me and all the world, who as the Son hath redeemed me and all mankind, and who as the Holy Spirit sanctifieth me and all the people of God, is within the unity and perfection of His eternal being Three as well as One, and that the Divine Three are mutually and personally related to one another.”

E. The essential or immanental Trinity is, therefore, important for the Christian worship of God.

Christians worship the one God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-on the basis that the historical self-manifestation of this God is a true and valid, if not perfect, reflection of the eternal and essential being of this God.

IV. ANALOGIES TO THE TRINITY?#

Many and varied are the analogies which have been applied by Christians to the Trinity in an effort to illustrate the Trinity or to bring the Trinity into the range of human experience. But one should not be too sanguine concerning the effectiveness or adequacy of these efforts.

A. PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALOGIES#

Augustine of Hippo taught that there are numerous “vestiges” of the Trinity, especially in human beings themselves. He explored the possibility of numerous psychological analogies.

• In the field of optics one has the object of vision, the human representation of the object, and intentional focusing.

• Augustine saw the possible analogy of memory, internal memory image, and intention of the will and also that of the sound of words in the memory, mental recollection, and the will of man who remembers and thinks that unites the other two.

• The bishop of Hippo also thought of human being, knowing, and willing; of memory, understanding, and will; and of the mind, the mind’s knowledge of itself, and the mind’s love of itself.

• It seems, however, that Augustine regarded as the most satisfying analogy to the Trinity the human mind as remembering, knowing, and loving God.

In the twentieth century Karl Barth employed a psychological analogy (Revealer, revelation, revealedness), and so did Dorothy Leigh Sayers (1893-1957) (idea, energy, and power for the creative writer).

B. NATURAL ANALOGIES#

Other analogies to the Trinity have been drawn from nature

• Tertullian mentioned three: 1) the root, the tree, and the fruit; 2) the fountain, the stream, and the lake; 3) the sun, the ray, and the apex

• Augustine of Hippo, perhaps influenced by Tertullian, suggested: 4) the fountain, the river, and the lake; 5) the root, the trunk, and the branches.

• Anselm of Canterbury reiterated 6) the fountain, the river, and the lake; and utilized 7) the sun, brightness, and heat.

C. MODAL ANALOGY#

Still others have utilized the differing functions or roles of a human being as analogous to the Trinity. Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) was at the same time president, sportsman, and playmate to the young.

D. HUMAN ANALOGIES#

Even human beings have been employed in the effort to locate adequate analogies to the Trinity.

• Greogory of Nazianzus cited Adam, Eve, and Seth

• Greogy of Nyssa used Peter, James, and John

• Augustine of Hippo referred to the lover, the beloved, and love

• Karl Barth to Begetter, Begotten, and begottenness

E. WHAT OF THE ANALOGIES?#

The human analogies to the Trinity prove to be analogies to tritheism rather than to the Three-in-Oneness of God.

• Adam, Eve, and Seth have the bond of a common humanity and the added tie of family relationship but are essentially three individuated human beings.

• Peter, James, and John have the bond of a common humanity and the added commonality of apostleship but are three distinct human beings.

• The alternatives offered by Augustine and by Barth tend to illustrate binitarianism.

The modal analogy centering in the differing roles or functions of a single human being is perfectly adapted to the modalistic alternative to the Trinity but does not allow for hypostatic differentiations among the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

The analogies from nature tend to involve either organic growth in plant life, differing states of water, or differing aspects oflight. Such natural analogies function in a manner similar to the modal analogy in that they illustrate three stages or phases of one reality, not that which is basically both one and three.

The psychological analogies also illustrate three functions of the human self. The result is that oneness of being and diversity of functions are that which is being illustrated, and there is no analogy to the threeness of persons.

However widespread and recurrent the usage of analogies to the Trinity and whatever elements of true analogy one may detect in them, it must be concluded that the efforts to locate or identify the all-satisfactory analogy have not been successful.

V. THE TRINITY AND THE NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS#

Efforts have been made to locate and identify triune features or parallels to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in non-Christian religions. Are there indeed instances of three-in-oneness among non-Christian deities? Several so-called instances have been identified.

• In ancient Egyptian religion Osiris (the father), Isis (the mother), and Horus (the son) have been cited

• In contemporary Hinduism Brahma (the ultimate reality), Siva (the destroyer), and Vishnu (the restorer)

These instances, however, seem to be tritheistic rather than trinitarian.

• In the religious philosophy of the Neo-Platonist, Plotinus, one finds the Good, Intelligence (nous), and the World-Soul.

These three, however, are states or stages in modalistic emanation, not the simultaneous Three-in-Oneness of God.

Hence the Christian belief in and affirmation of the Three-in-Oneness of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, seems to be a distinctive of Christianity.

VI. THE TRINITY AND THE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS OR CONFESSIONS#

The doctrine of the Trinity constitutes significant common theological ground among the various Christian denominations or confessions. There is no distinctively Baptist doctrine of the Trinity as distinct from the Presbyterian or Methodist or Lutheran doctrines of the Trinity. Here Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox can find much common ground. Differences concerning the understanding of the Trinity today tend to be within denominations more than between denominations, although some rather distinctive Anglican emphases have been noted.

Rejection of the Trinity is basic to the Unitarians-Universalists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. These differences in teaching and these rejections tend to be a repetition of views first set forth during the patristic or medieval or even Reformation eras rather than completely new positions.

Although there is no distinctive Baptist doctrine of the Trinity, Baptists, as indeed also members of other Christian denominations, can unduly neglect or deemphasize the Trinity in theological study, church curriculum, congregational worship, or personal piety.

VII. THE TRINITY IN LATTER TWENTIETH-CENTURY THEOLOGY#

Building on Karl Barth, who reckoned the Trinity to be an immediate implication of the revelation in Jesus Christ, rather than on Emil Brunner’s concept of the Trinity as a defensive wall against heresy, Claude Welch called upon Protestants in 1952 to give to the Trinity “a central place in the Christian understanding of God,” for the threefoldness of Father, Son, and Spirit is a threefoldness in the structure of the being as well as the activity of the God in whom there is “an eternal communion or communityness of love.”

Karl Rahner, seeking to bridge abstract theology and the “mystery of salvation,” insisted: “The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.”

This immanent Trinity was identified by John Macquarrie in the “existential-ontological” language of Being, which he traces to Exod. 3:14. Thus the Father can “be called primordial Being,” the Son can be identified as “expressive Being,” and the Spirit can be described as “unitive Being.”

Rahner’s correlation of economic Trinity and immanental Trinity has been explicated by one who stands in the line of Barth, Eberhard Jüngel, who saw the correlation in terms of God’s relatedness. Because God is self-related within the Trinitarian being of God, he can be related to the world. Jüngel referred to God’s “becoming,” not according to process thought, but in terms of the death of the Son of God.

Jürgen Moltmann, after critiquing that line of Trinitarian doctrine which he labeled “monotheism” from Arius to Barth and Rahner and after strongly embracing the passibility of God, adopted the social analogy to the Trinity. He celebrated the work of Joachim of Fiore (c. 1132-1202), while having a less acknowledged debt to the Cappadocian Fathers. Using perichoresis, Moltmann emphasized “the circulation of the divine life” and the fellowship of Father, Son, and Spirit in connection with the kingdom of God and divine freedom.

Catherine Mowry LaCugna (1952-), charging that theologia (the immanent Trinity) and oikonomia (the economic Trinity) were tragically separated after the Council of Nicaea I and seeking to go beyond Rahner, proposed a pattern of “emanation and return” (a Patre ad Patrem) which seems to draw from Neo-Platonism.

VII. THE TRINITY: MYSTERY AND WORSHIP#

The doctrine of the Trinity points to the mystery of the Divine Being whom Christians worship and serve and who by their confession is at work in their lives. As a truth the Trinity has baffled the most astute Christian thinkers through the history of Christianity. It defies normal human logic and transcends our human, modal, natural, and psychological analogies.

Yet the Trinity has been regarded as basic to the Christian understanding of God’s reality. In creeds and confessions of faith Christian theologians have sought to bear witness to and to demarcate, if not to explain, the Trinity. Christian musicians, architects, and artists have attempted to celebrate and illustrate the Trinity. Amid all their limitations of knowledge and understanding, Christians have continued to teach about and to worship and praise the Triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.