Trinity as an extension of God's omnipotence

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Whether you agree or disagree, I think we can at least understand the concept of the Trinity if we approach this as a gradual point-by-point deductive process.

(Note: If you want to skip the necessary build-up, go ahead and skip to #6. But please keep-in-mind this cannot be taken out of its wider theological context.)

1a. God is omnipotent.

1b. Man is not omnipotent. Man is inherently finite.

2a. By extension of God's omnipotence, God is also omniscient (all knowing). This means that God has both perfect and complete omniscience of Himself. That is, God has a perfect self-image. He is psychologically perfect.

2b. Since man is not omnipotent, then man is by extension not omniscient. Man always has a limited knowledge of himself, both in psychology, as well as physiology. As a matter of fact, man's self-image is self-deceptive as well (Jer 17:9, Matt 15:19)! Man needs a mirror just to look at himself.

3a. God however, does not need a mirror. He is eternally conscious and aware. So much in fact, that He never sleeps (Isaiah 40:28). God is infinite; unlimited in His attributes and abilities. So much so, that he is capable of utilizing them all of them at the same time.

3b. Man is limited to only a few functions at once. Walking and chewing gum at the same time is occasionally even beyond him. :D

4a. God is spirit (John 4:24), Who is by extension also omnipresent and omnipotent all at the same time. God is totally conscious of everything that exists all at the same time. Again, God is perfectly aware of Himself.

4b.
Man is not. Not in God's sense, at the very least.

^ This is where man's contrast with God is necessarily complete.

5. God’s self-awareness is inexhaustive. Even though He doesn't need one, imagine what God would see if He did look in His own mirror (as an analogy).

Since God has a perfect self-image, there is NO difference between God’s concept of Himself and His IDEAL concept of Himself. He cannot aspire to be anything better than the very picture of pure holiness and ideal perfection!

6. Since there is no difference between God, or God’s ideal concept of Himself, both God and His ideal concept of Himself are exactly the same in every way! Both in Holiness, perfection, power, etc. As one theologian says, "His image of Himself goes out into all eternity. . .and reflects back perfectly to the mind of God."

This very image, likeness, or reflection of God (“eikon” in Greek) is the very same “image” spoken of in Colossians 1:15.

^ A duality is obvious here, and a distinction of persons becomes wholly necessary.

7. This very image of God is the “Logos” spoken of in John 1:1&2.

Of course, this Logos is none other than Jesus Christ! This second person of the Trinity is also the very image of God the Father. “I and my Father are ONE.” (John 10:30) So it's as if to say that the "mirror of God" always existed in scripture, we just didn't recognize it completely.

8. How does God relate to His self-image? Perfectly! Both God and the Logos (The Father and The Son) share the same sovereign, deliberate, and d eterminative will (John 5:17, John 9:4, John 17:4, John 17:11-12).

The Father and Son love and fellowship with each other in the same manner. <-- Consider this carefully.

This same fellowship and sovereign will between the Father and Son is an active and LIVING relationship between the Father and Son. This same relationship is Holy and at the same time carries between both Father and Son the SAME EXACT Spiritual attributes that the Father and Son possess. The relationship is what you might call the “Living Active Will of God”.

This Living Will, or Spirit, moves through the mirror as it were, between the Father and Son, and goes out into all creation enacting the same will as the Father and Son, The Spirit carries the same authority, omnipresence (Psalms 139:7), omniscience (Job 11:6-8 with 1 Corinthians 2:10) and very identity of God Himself. This is the same Holy Spirit of God that (as the Amplified puts it) brooded over the waters of creation; hovering there at the beginning of time.

This is the same Holy Spirit that goes out between the Father and Son at Christ’s baptism. This is the same Spirit of Truth both sent (John 15:26) and promised to the church (John 16:13) that worked through the apostles in signs and miracles later in Acts. And this is the same Holy Spirit that cannot be sinned against without the same justice due any other member of the Godhead (Acts 5:3-4, Acts 5:9).

"Blam!." There's your Trinity.

Free of charge, just as I have been given freely. You can present this during a single Sunday School session with only a few basic chalkboard illustrations.
 
Last edited:

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
This is the same Holy Spirit that goes out between the Father and Son at Christ’s baptism. This is the same Spirit of Truth both sent (John 15:26) and promised to the church (John 16:13) that worked through the apostles in signs and miracles later in Acts. And this is the same Holy Spirit that cannot be sinned against without the same justice due any other member of the Godhead (Acts 5:3-4, Acts 5:9).
This paragraph is remarkable to me. It seems to hint at an explanation as to why Christ said that the Spirit would not come unless Christ left. I can't quite put it into words though....John 16:7. I've always wondered why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulomycin
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,593
49
The Wild West
✟461,707.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Whether you agree or disagree, I think we can at least understand the concept of the Trinity if we approach this as a gradual point-by-point deductive process.

(Note: If you want to skip the necessary build-up, go ahead and skip to #6. But please keep-in-mind this cannot be taken out of its wider theological context.)

1a. God is omnipotent.

1b. Man is not omnipotent. Man is inherently finite.

2a. By extension of God's omnipotence, God is also omniscient (all knowing). This means that God has both perfect and complete omniscience of Himself. That is, God has a perfect self-image. He is psychologically perfect.

2b. Since man is not omnipotent, then man is by extension not omniscient. Man always has a limited knowledge of himself, both in psychology, as well as physiology. As a matter of fact, man's self-image is self-deceptive as well (Jer 17:9, Matt 15:19)! Man needs a mirror just to look at himself.

3a. God however, does not need a mirror. He is eternally conscious and aware. So much in fact, that He never sleeps (Isaiah 40:28). God is infinite; unlimited in His attributes and abilities. So much so, that he is capable of utilizing them all of them at the same time.

3b. Man is limited to only a few functions at once. Walking and chewing gum at the same time is occasionally even beyond him. :D

4a. God is spirit (John 4:24), Who is by extension also omnipresent and omnipotent all at the same time. God is totally conscious of everything that exists all at the same time. Again, God is perfectly aware of Himself.

4b.
Man is not. Not in God's sense, at the very least.

^ This is where man's contrast with God is necessarily complete.

5. God’s self-awareness is inexhaustive. Even though He doesn't need one, imagine what God would see if He did look in His own mirror (as an analogy).

Since God has a perfect self-image, there is NO difference between God’s concept of Himself and His IDEAL concept of Himself. He cannot aspire to be anything better than the very picture of pure holiness and ideal perfection!

6. Since there is no difference between God, or God’s ideal concept of Himself, both God and His ideal concept of Himself are exactly the same in every way! Both in Holiness, perfection, power, etc. As one theologian says, "His image of Himself goes out into all eternity. . .and reflects back perfectly to the mind of God."

This very image, likeness, or reflection of God (“eikon” in Greek) is the very same “image” spoken of in Colossians 1:15.

^ A duality is obvious here, and a distinction of persons becomes wholly necessary.

7. This very image of God is the “Logos” spoken of in John 1:1&2.

Of course, this Logos is none other than Jesus Christ! This second person of the Trinity is also the very image of God the Father. “I and my Father are ONE.” (John 10:30) So it's as if to say that the "mirror of God" always existed in scripture, we just didn't recognize it completely.

8. How does God relate to His self-image? Perfectly! Both God and the Logos (The Father and The Son) share the same sovereign, deliberate, and d eterminative will (John 5:17, John 9:4, John 17:4, John 17:11-12).

The Father and Son love and fellowship with each other in the same manner. <-- Consider this carefully.

This same fellowship and sovereign will between the Father and Son is an active and LIVING relationship between the Father and Son. This same relationship is Holy and at the same time carries between both Father and Son the SAME EXACT Spiritual attributes that the Father and Son possess. The relationship is what you might call the “Living Active Will of God”.

This Living Will, or Spirit, moves through the mirror as it were, between the Father and Son, and goes out into all creation enacting the same will as the Father and Son, The Spirit carries the same authority, omnipresence (Psalms 139:7), omniscience (Job 11:6-8 with 1 Corinthians 2:10) and very identity of God Himself. This is the same Holy Spirit of God that (as the Amplified puts it) brooded over the waters of creation; hovering there at the beginning of time.

This is the same Holy Spirit that goes out between the Father and Son at Christ’s baptism. This is the same Spirit of Truth both sent (John 15:26) and promised to the church (John 16:13) that worked through the apostles in signs and miracles later in Acts. And this is the same Holy Spirit that cannot be sinned against without the same justice due any other member of the Godhead (Acts 5:3-4, Acts 5:9).

"Blam!." There's your Trinity.

Free of charge, just as I have been given freely. You can present this during a single Sunday School session with only a few basic chalkboard illustrations.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Triadological system you propose is potentially readable borderline Pneumatomacchianism, or worse, because it de-emphasizes the unique prosopon of each person of the Trinity; also it makes assumptions about the inner workings of the Godhood that are not only unknown to us, but to a very great extent unknowable.

Gregory Palamas articulated an excellent doctrine which accords with the earlier Patristic statements on the Godhood, by St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologians, and Psuedo-Dionysius. That being, that we cannot comprehend the essence of God; everything about God we know is through His energies.

Based on those examples, I think when doing theology proper, it is best to accept the Apostolic kerygma, which includes sacred scripture and the doctrines and practices of the early church we still retain, for example, certain liturgical statements like “lift up your hearts,” which all liturgical churches ranging from the Presbyterians to the Ethiopian Orthodox, use, as the only sources of positive revelation, and then rather than attempting to work out positive statements (kataphatic theology), we use apophatic theology, also known as the via negativa or way of negation, because using the revelation of scripture, it is vastly more easy and more reliable in terms of avoiding doctrinal error, and produces results we can agree on, such as, God does not change, God is unbounded, God’s knowledge is without limit, there being nothing He does not know, and so on.

The best Triadological statement I know is by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, that describes the Trinity as an eternal union of perfect love between three persons, who form one God, whose true nature remains an eternal mystery which through faith and divine grace we can come closer to understanding, particularly if we receive salvation at the eschaton, in which knowing more about God becomes an eternal process of perfection for us.

When it comes to Sunday school, or education in general, teachers often fail if they simply try to provide rote facts. The successful catechist of youth is one who can either reflect divine love so that the doctrinal statements are accepted uncritically, or one who can engage the youth so they realize the mystery of God, and learn to contemplate it, and can differentiate it from God’s creation which is less inscrutable than the nature of God, in trinitarian and other theology. This may sound like mysticism and it basically is, in that there are aspects of the Christian revelation which are completely incomprehensible, but contemplating them and probing them with apophatic theology is a most joyous experience.

I reject, for similar reasons owing to a preference for Eastern theologians, the belief of Thomas Aquinas and the Schoolmen in Absolute Divine Simplicity, because such a positive assertion is unprovable and at best a theologoumemnon (theological opinion) and not sacred doctrine.

Speaking of Eastern theologians, your model also depends on the Filioque, which they reject, so this model would not help with Sunday School in a Russian Orthodox Church, for example.

Nonetheless, it was a noble effort on your part, expressed using clear logic, and falls into the same category as Aquinas, who was exceedingly intelligent. But based on Palamist logic, we can only know God through his energies, just as we can only see God the Father through the incarnation of His son, who put on humanity in order to repair our fallen condition and ensure we are the image of God.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Triadological system you propose is potentially readable borderline Pneumatomacchianism, or worse, because it de-emphasizes the unique prosopon of each person of the Trinity; also it makes assumptions about the inner workings of the Godhood that are not only unknown to us, but to a very great extent unknowable.

How? I'm maintaining the same substance here. They are still "one in essence" throughout. The essential nature of God is neither wholly divided, nor changed.

Gregory Palamas articulated an excellent doctrine which accords with the earlier Patristic statements on the Godhood, by St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologians, and Psuedo-Dionysius. That being, that we cannot comprehend the essence of God; everything about God we know is through His energies.

So. . .your conclusion is to quit studying? Give up?

Based on those examples, I think when doing theology proper, it is best to accept the Apostolic kerygma,

How is it violated or contradicted in the OP?

which includes sacred scripture and the doctrines and practices of the early church we still retain, for example, certain liturgical statements like “lift up your hearts,” which all liturgical churches ranging from the Presbyterians to the Ethiopian Orthodox, use, as the only sources of positive revelation, and then rather than attempting to work out positive statements (kataphatic theology),

Why, is this bad? And if so, then why is it bad?

we use apophatic theology, also known as the via negativa or way of negation, because using the revelation of scripture, it is vastly more easy and more reliable in terms of avoiding doctrinal error, and produces results we can agree on, such as, God does not change, God is unbounded, God’s knowledge is without limit, there being nothing He does not know, and so on.

I'm generally always open to the via negativa, but scripture also reveals cataphatic aspects of God as well. Obviously, we cannot know anything positive about a given subject if we only know what something is not.

The best Triadological statement I know is by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, that describes the Trinity as an eternal union of perfect love between three persons, who form one God, whose true nature remains an eternal mystery which through faith and divine grace we can come closer to understanding, particularly if we receive salvation at the eschaton, in which knowing more about God becomes an eternal process of perfection for us.

How is OP any different from this? I never claimed this was exhaustive knowledge of the godhead, only that a Trinitarian God can be known through scripture and plain reason.

This may sound like mysticism and it basically is, in that there are aspects of the Christian revelation which are completely incomprehensible, but contemplating them and probing them with apophatic theology is a most joyous experience.

^ (emphasis mine)

One cannot contemplate nor comprehend what is completely incomprehensible. God does not contradict Himself. I will not abandon truth for mysticism.

I reject, for similar reasons owing to a preference for Eastern theologians, the belief of Thomas Aquinas and the Schoolmen in Absolute Divine Simplicity, because such a positive assertion is unprovable and at best a theologoumemnon (theological opinion) and not sacred doctrine.

1. All deductive truth is God's truth.
2. God's existence is proven deductively.
3. Knowledge of God's mere existence is never any claim of exhaustive knowledge of the godhead. Such knowledge would require an infinite eternity.
4. Complexity requires finite and individual components subject to entropy. Omnipotence requires no external, nor internal components. Thus, God is simple.
5. The system of the Trinity is not complex, because the essential nature of God remains omnipotent. God is One in essence of omnipotence.

Speaking of Eastern theologians, your model also depends on the Filioque, which they reject, so this model would not help with Sunday School in a Russian Orthodox Church, for example.

I did not assume the Filioque, nor did I quote it. The EO essentially denies the consubstantiality of both the Father and the Son. If you deny the co-eternality of the Son, then your Christology is no better than that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The insertion of the Filioque is a historical admission of an implicit Christological error, and the subsequent attempt to correct it.

But based on Palamist logic, we can only know God through his energies, just as we can only see God the Father through the incarnation of His son, who put on humanity in order to repair our fallen condition and ensure we are the image of God.

Because (?) Gregory Palamas objectively deferred to deductive logic (which does not change), or is it because he made up his own "logic," based on his own arbitrary assumptions, and just speaking on his own authority alone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Whether you agree or disagree, I think we can at least understand the concept of the Trinity if we approach this as a gradual point-by-point deductive process.

(Note: If you want to skip the necessary build-up, go ahead and skip to #6. But please keep-in-mind this cannot be taken out of its wider theological context.)

1a. God is omnipotent.

1b. Man is not omnipotent. Man is inherently finite.

2a. By extension of God's omnipotence, God is also omniscient (all knowing). This means that God has both perfect and complete omniscience of Himself. That is, God has a perfect self-image. He is psychologically perfect.

2b. Since man is not omnipotent, then man is by extension not omniscient. Man always has a limited knowledge of himself, both in psychology, as well as physiology. As a matter of fact, man's self-image is self-deceptive as well (Jer 17:9, Matt 15:19)! Man needs a mirror just to look at himself.

3a. God however, does not need a mirror. He is eternally conscious and aware. So much in fact, that He never sleeps (Isaiah 40:28). God is infinite; unlimited in His attributes and abilities. So much so, that he is capable of utilizing them all of them at the same time.

3b. Man is limited to only a few functions at once. Walking and chewing gum at the same time is occasionally even beyond him. :D

4a. God is spirit (John 4:24), Who is by extension also omnipresent and omnipotent all at the same time. God is totally conscious of everything that exists all at the same time. Again, God is perfectly aware of Himself.

4b.
Man is not. Not in God's sense, at the very least.

^ This is where man's contrast with God is necessarily complete.

5. God’s self-awareness is inexhaustive. Even though He doesn't need one, imagine what God would see if He did look in His own mirror (as an analogy).

Since God has a perfect self-image, there is NO difference between God’s concept of Himself and His IDEAL concept of Himself. He cannot aspire to be anything better than the very picture of pure holiness and ideal perfection!

6. Since there is no difference between God, or God’s ideal concept of Himself, both God and His ideal concept of Himself are exactly the same in every way! Both in Holiness, perfection, power, etc. As one theologian says, "His image of Himself goes out into all eternity. . .and reflects back perfectly to the mind of God."

This very image, likeness, or reflection of God (“eikon” in Greek) is the very same “image” spoken of in Colossians 1:15.

^ A duality is obvious here, and a distinction of persons becomes wholly necessary.

7. This very image of God is the “Logos” spoken of in John 1:1&2.

Of course, this Logos is none other than Jesus Christ! This second person of the Trinity is also the very image of God the Father. “I and my Father are ONE.” (John 10:30) So it's as if to say that the "mirror of God" always existed in scripture, we just didn't recognize it completely.

8. How does God relate to His self-image? Perfectly! Both God and the Logos (The Father and The Son) share the same sovereign, deliberate, and d eterminative will (John 5:17, John 9:4, John 17:4, John 17:11-12).

The Father and Son love and fellowship with each other in the same manner. <-- Consider this carefully.

This same fellowship and sovereign will between the Father and Son is an active and LIVING relationship between the Father and Son. This same relationship is Holy and at the same time carries between both Father and Son the SAME EXACT Spiritual attributes that the Father and Son possess. The relationship is what you might call the “Living Active Will of God”.

This Living Will, or Spirit, moves through the mirror as it were, between the Father and Son, and goes out into all creation enacting the same will as the Father and Son, The Spirit carries the same authority, omnipresence (Psalms 139:7), omniscience (Job 11:6-8 with 1 Corinthians 2:10) and very identity of God Himself. This is the same Holy Spirit of God that (as the Amplified puts it) brooded over the waters of creation; hovering there at the beginning of time.

This is the same Holy Spirit that goes out between the Father and Son at Christ’s baptism. This is the same Spirit of Truth both sent (John 15:26) and promised to the church (John 16:13) that worked through the apostles in signs and miracles later in Acts. And this is the same Holy Spirit that cannot be sinned against without the same justice due any other member of the Godhead (Acts 5:3-4, Acts 5:9).

"Blam!." There's your Trinity.

Free of charge, just as I have been given freely. You can present this during a single Sunday School session with only a few basic chalkboard illustrations.
Not that it really means anything but I like how the order in which you develop this is the same as the hierarchy as described in Scripture. Father over the Son, both over the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Some questions were PM'd to me. I'd like to address them here:

6. Since there is no difference between God, or God’s ideal concept of Himself, both God and His ideal concept of Himself are exactly the same in every way! Both in Holiness, perfection, power, etc. As one theologian says, "His image of Himself goes out into all eternity. . .and reflects back perfectly to the mind of God."

This very image, likeness, or reflection of God (“eikon” in Greek) is the very same “image” spoken of in Colossians 1:15.

^ A duality is obvious here, and a distinction of persons becomes wholly necessary.

Question: This reads to me as, "The duality is obvious only because Scripture refers to the image of God, not because of some abstract thinking about what if God were to look into the mirror. i.e. not because you say so." At first you say there is no difference, but then it seems you are saying a distinction is obvious.

Answer: Yes, there is no difference between God and God's ideal concept of Himself. "They" are both harmonious. This is why "reflection" or "eikon" is used in this case. So it is both Scriptural and abstract.

The Son is the very image of the Father. Not in some merely rhetorical sense like, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree," but rather in a very heavy literal sense. God has a living and active self-image that reflects Him in every aspect. God's reflection (eikon) is not a mere reflection, but wholly complete, perfect, and eternal. The dual-nature then becomes apparent. The Son was in eternal co-existence with the Father, because they are mirror images of One another viewed by the same Essence, or Essential nature. . .reflecting upon Himself eternally.

7.This very image of God is the “Logos” spoken of in John 1:1&2.

Of course, this Logos is none other than Jesus Christ! This second person of the Trinity is also the very image of God the Father. “I and my Father are ONE.” (John 10:30) So it's as if to say that the "mirror of God" always existed in scripture, we just didn't recognize it completely.

Question: You seem to be saying so ("This very image of God is the "Logos"") by mere fiat. Appears as a logical leap to me.

Answer: God's Sovereign Will and God's Word come from the same source. If God's essential nature is Spirit (John 4:24), and a perfect self-awareness of that essential nature (Colossians 1:15), up to and including the extension of His Word literally being God in-essence (John 1:1-2), then how does this not also affirm John 10:30? The very image of God is the Logos.

We can even boil it down to just Colossians 1:15 and John 1:1-2, 14 describing the Son. The Word was God co-eternally, the Word became flesh as the only begotten of the Father, and the Son is the very image of the invisible God the Father.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Some questions were PM'd to me. I'd like to address them here:



Question: This reads to me as, "The duality is obvious only because Scripture refers to the image of God, not because of some abstract thinking about what if God were to look into the mirror. i.e. not because you say so." At first you say there is no difference, but then it seems you are saying a distinction is obvious.

Answer: Yes, there is no difference between God and God's ideal concept of Himself. "They" are both harmonious. This is why "reflection" or "eikon" is used in this case. So it is both Scriptural and abstract.

The Son is the very image of the Father. Not in some merely rhetorical sense like, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree," but rather in a very heavy literal sense. God has a living and active self-image that reflects Him in every aspect. God's reflection (eikon) is not a mere reflection, but wholly complete, perfect, and eternal. The dual-nature then becomes apparent. The Son was in eternal co-existence with the Father, because they are mirror images of One another viewed by the same Essence, or Essential nature. . .reflecting upon Himself eternally.



Question: You seem to be saying so ("This very image of God is the "Logos"") by mere fiat. Appears as a logical leap to me.

Answer: God's Sovereign Will and God's Word come from the same source. If God's essential nature is Spirit (John 4:24), and a perfect self-awareness of that essential nature (Colossians 1:15), up to and including the extension of His Word literally being God in-essence (John 1:1-2), then how does this not also affirm John 10:30? The very image of God is the Logos.

We can even boil it down to just Colossians 1:15 and John 1:1-2, 14 describing the Son. The Word was God co-eternally, the Word became flesh as the only begotten of the Father, and the Son is the very image of the invisible God the Father.
Very good, thank you. I was hoping you would fill in the gaps. I agreed with the OP, but wanted to be able to follow the logic across the leaps --(or so they seemed to me).

The logos is indeed the Son; this is a huge and beautiful play on words. Immense. And the Son is the image of God you had been describing in the abstract. (And, matter of fact, the sight of the logos also fits into the play on words. Literally, haha!)

Anyhow, thanks.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Paulomycin
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Whether you agree or disagree, I think we can at least understand the concept of the Trinity if we approach this as a gradual point-by-point deductive process.

(Note: If you want to skip the necessary build-up, go ahead and skip to #6. But please keep-in-mind this cannot be taken out of its wider theological context.)

1a. God is omnipotent.

1b. Man is not omnipotent. Man is inherently finite.

2a. By extension of God's omnipotence, God is also omniscient (all knowing). This means that God has both perfect and complete omniscience of Himself. That is, God has a perfect self-image. He is psychologically perfect.

2b. Since man is not omnipotent, then man is by extension not omniscient. Man always has a limited knowledge of himself, both in psychology, as well as physiology. As a matter of fact, man's self-image is self-deceptive as well (Jer 17:9, Matt 15:19)! Man needs a mirror just to look at himself.

3a. God however, does not need a mirror. He is eternally conscious and aware. So much in fact, that He never sleeps (Isaiah 40:28). God is infinite; unlimited in His attributes and abilities. So much so, that he is capable of utilizing them all of them at the same time.

3b. Man is limited to only a few functions at once. Walking and chewing gum at the same time is occasionally even beyond him. :D

4a. God is spirit (John 4:24), Who is by extension also omnipresent and omnipotent all at the same time. God is totally conscious of everything that exists all at the same time. Again, God is perfectly aware of Himself.

4b.
Man is not. Not in God's sense, at the very least.

^ This is where man's contrast with God is necessarily complete.

5. God’s self-awareness is inexhaustive. Even though He doesn't need one, imagine what God would see if He did look in His own mirror (as an analogy).

Since God has a perfect self-image, there is NO difference between God’s concept of Himself and His IDEAL concept of Himself. He cannot aspire to be anything better than the very picture of pure holiness and ideal perfection!

6. Since there is no difference between God, or God’s ideal concept of Himself, both God and His ideal concept of Himself are exactly the same in every way! Both in Holiness, perfection, power, etc. As one theologian says, "His image of Himself goes out into all eternity. . .and reflects back perfectly to the mind of God."

This very image, likeness, or reflection of God (“eikon” in Greek) is the very same “image” spoken of in Colossians 1:15.

^ A duality is obvious here, and a distinction of persons becomes wholly necessary.

7. This very image of God is the “Logos” spoken of in John 1:1&2.

Of course, this Logos is none other than Jesus Christ! This second person of the Trinity is also the very image of God the Father. “I and my Father are ONE.” (John 10:30) So it's as if to say that the "mirror of God" always existed in scripture, we just didn't recognize it completely.

8. How does God relate to His self-image? Perfectly! Both God and the Logos (The Father and The Son) share the same sovereign, deliberate, and d eterminative will (John 5:17, John 9:4, John 17:4, John 17:11-12).

The Father and Son love and fellowship with each other in the same manner. <-- Consider this carefully.

This same fellowship and sovereign will between the Father and Son is an active and LIVING relationship between the Father and Son. This same relationship is Holy and at the same time carries between both Father and Son the SAME EXACT Spiritual attributes that the Father and Son possess. The relationship is what you might call the “Living Active Will of God”.

This Living Will, or Spirit, moves through the mirror as it were, between the Father and Son, and goes out into all creation enacting the same will as the Father and Son, The Spirit carries the same authority, omnipresence (Psalms 139:7), omniscience (Job 11:6-8 with 1 Corinthians 2:10) and very identity of God Himself. This is the same Holy Spirit of God that (as the Amplified puts it) brooded over the waters of creation; hovering there at the beginning of time.

This is the same Holy Spirit that goes out between the Father and Son at Christ’s baptism. This is the same Spirit of Truth both sent (John 15:26) and promised to the church (John 16:13) that worked through the apostles in signs and miracles later in Acts. And this is the same Holy Spirit that cannot be sinned against without the same justice due any other member of the Godhead (Acts 5:3-4, Acts 5:9).

"Blam!." There's your Trinity.

Free of charge, just as I have been given freely. You can present this during a single Sunday School session with only a few basic chalkboard illustrations.


I had not considered the relationship and 'communication' between God the Father and God the Son as related, exactly, to the Person of the Holy Spirit, but it does fit with Scripture, as far as I can tell. It even helps understand some of the things I had not been able to see into --things you did not mention as confirmation of the validity of your conclusion. I'm not ready to present them yet; I have not developed them enough to do so, but you have opened up an avenue of considerations for me. Thank you.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Paulomycin
Upvote 0