No (good) trinitarian theologian wants to have a fourth thing – a divine substance considered apart from the Three Persons. But it’s important to be aware that this error (effectively having a quaternity) has two versions. There is a vulgar quaternity and a more insidious one.
The vulgar one looks like this:
Here is the “shamrock” trinity – three bits growing out of an underlying stuff. In practice this is, roughly, how many unthinkingly view the trinity. Such a vulgar quaternity is rightly rejected by theologians. It can be seen immediately that the ‘Godness of God’ is considered at a completely different level to the three Persons in their roles and relations. What makes God God is fundamentally impersonal attributes that may be expressed in the Persons but not constituted by their mutual inter-play. So we can safely reject this version of things.
But I find that many theologians, having rejected the vulgar quaternity, congratulate themselves prematurely. There is also the insidious quaternity to be dealt with. There is another way of having a fourth…
Fundamentally this error consists in conceiving of the one God separately to a consideration of the three Persons in communion. Recently I read a theologian say “God is both one and three – both a person and a community.” This is an example of the insidious quaternity. One-ness and Three-ness are laid side by side to uphold a belief in the equal ultimacy of one and three. Yet the one-ness of God is conceived of as a uni-personal one-ness – that is, it is separately considered to the multi-personal three-ness. One and Three were not mutually interpreting truths but instead the ‘one God’ is thought of in non-communal (that is, non trinitarian) terms.
This is the approach taken by by so many doctrine of God text books where De Deo Uno (on the One God) is addressed prior to De Deo Trino (on the Trinity). Yet, unless the two section are integrated at the deepest levels then there is grave danger of a fourth thing – i.e. “God plus Trinity” or “God apart from Trinity.“
When this theological method is followed, often (not always but most times) section one unfolds such that the Three Person’d interplay takes no meaningful part in the discussions of the attributes. Yet, typically, these attributes are asserted to be the virtue by which God is God. On this view it is still possible to discuss the ‘Godness of God’ without reference to the perichoretic life of the Three. Here One-ness and Three-ness are considered to be non-competing perspectives on the same God. This effectively means that it is possible to speak in non-triune terms about the living God. ’God’, then, is not the same thing as ‘the Three Persons united in love’.
This is also a quaternity. Just a more insidious one.
And the only way I can see to avoid this fourth thing is to side with the Cappodocians: God’s being consists without remainder in the Three Person’d perichoresis .
The one-ness of God is not a simple divine essence but the very unity of the Three. The being of God is not an underlying substance (contra the vulgar quaternity). But nor is it a separately conceived essence (contra the insidious quaternity). Rather God’s being is the very communion by which the Three are One.
Trinity is not a perspective on the one God. Rather the only God there is is trinity. And the only way to conceive of Him is in triune terms. ‘God’ is ‘Trinity’. Unless this strict identity is maintained a fourth enters in.
Thus we must never conceive of the one God in any other terms than trinitarian ones. (Re-write the text-books!). God’s being is in His communion (to use Zizioulas’s phrase). His One-ness is in His communion. And (let’s not forget) His Three-ness is in His communion – the Three are only who they are in this eternal perichoresis. To put it another way: God is love.
Therefore let’s guard against a ‘fourth’ whenever it threatens. Let’s reject the vulgar quaternity, but let’s also reject the insidious quaternity. And if people call us ‘extreme social trinitarians’ or ‘tritheists’ or whatever, let them. The dangers on the other side are far greater.
.
This is a re-working of an older post on One-ness and Three-ness.
“Therefore let’s guard against a ‘fourth’ whenever it threatens. Let’s reject the vulgar quaternity, but let’s also reject the insidious quaternity. And if people call us ‘extreme social trinitarians’ or ‘tritheists’ or whatever, let them. The dangers on the other side are far greater.”
I think I understand what you are saying. Have to work on that one a while and let it settle in on my mind though. The way you take it back to the simple truth “God is Love” is a very powerful argument for the truth of what you are saying.
I have a hard time understanding the trinity as I see God speaking of himself in both the singular and plural. I heard a preacher say one time about a difficult scripture, “What does that mean?” then he paused and said, “I don’t know what it means, but I believe what it says!” This is where I find myself in relation to the trinity.
What are the “dangers on the other side” that you speak of? Sometimes understanding the specific danger in being wrong helps me understand what is right. I always like to put shoe leather to my theology. If it doesn’t make it to the street, does it really matter? (A question I often ask myself)
Craig
Guess I should have read this post before steaming my brain over on the other one. The last diagram “looks” more like my understanding of the tri-unity.
I agree. God is Trinity. Amen. The end.
For some reason, Paul Tillich’s remix of the doctrine of the Trinity keeps coming to mind.
Perhaps its because some theologians go too far in attempting to understand the doctrine?
Or because of the slew of theologians who want to be “revolutionary” in the world of ideas?
When it comes to some doctrines, I think the Lord intended for there to remain a little bit of mystery. Why?
So we would remain humble…
perhaps?
So we would remain humble…
perhaps?
******************************
Nailed it! :o)
Actually, when we look at the Genesis account, there is evidence that even now we “know” a lot more than we ever were meant to.
We “think” we can handle such knowledge and constantly get into trouble. Yet Jesus is always calling to us, saying “Children! You are destroying yourselves. I’ll forgive you and I will take care of you if you will only come back to me…All you have to do is humble yourselves and let me show you the Most Excellent way”
Hi Craig,
I wrote a post called “so what??” a while back – it might help you with some of the ’shoe leather’ implications.
http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/so-what/
Essentially the danger is that we let western philosophy define who God is for us – rather than the Spirit anointed Son of the Father. Beginning with Jesus shows us a God who is radically different to anything the philosopher’s have imagined. But I find that people (with the insidious fourth) do trinitarian theology on the one hand and then straight-jacket it immediately with philosophical speculation on the other. Being thoroughly trinitarian is just another way of determining to know God in His eternal Son – it’s about centring our theology in revelation and not reason.
Hiram and Heather – we absolutely must do theology to be humbled. And I think the greatest way to be humbled is to press in very deeply to what God has revealed and be in awe of the profundity of His life.
I think there’s a danger of ’switching off’ from trinity talk in the name of humility – as though it’s more humble not to enquire further about the Father, Son and Spirit. I don’t think that’s right. There are certainly some *major* limits to our knowledge! But we mustn’t decide for ourselves what those limits are in advance.
The trinity is a mystery for sure. But in the bible, mysteries are things that are revealed! (see e.g. Eph 6:19 and many others) They are things you could never have worked out for yourself, but at the same time they are made manifest to us. And the way we honour these mysteries is to investigate them as thoroughly as we can.
The God who gives Himself to us in revelation is honoured when we greedily take as much as we can lay our hands on.
When Jesus defines eternal life as knowing God His Father and Himself – the Sent One (John 17:3) – He is defining our life *as* one of knowing God in His triune relations. This is the nature of our eternal life – knowing the Father through the Son and by the Spirit.
And when we press in to know God – there we are humbled by His awesome and majestic love and self-giving. There we really learn what 1 Cor 13 is all about. The most excellent way is love because the most excellent Being is love!
So I’d encourage you to keep asking, seeking and knocking (as I need to, constantly) to go further into these realities. It is the very stuff of our Christian (and eternal!) life.
Four talks that have really helped me on the trinity are by Mike Reeves and can be found here:
http://www.theologynetwork.org/christian-beliefs/doctrine-of-god/trinity-1–why-we-have-problems-with-trinity.htm
http://www.theologynetwork.org/christian-beliefs/doctrine-of-god/trinity-2–trinity-is-the-answer.htm
http://www.theologynetwork.org/christian-beliefs/doctrine-of-god/trinity-3–trinity-in-revelation-and-creation.htm
http://www.theologynetwork.org/christian-beliefs/doctrine-of-god/trinity-4–trinity-in-salvation.htm
These really are the best introduction to the trinity I’ve ever come across.
Glen