Sunday School | God as the Trinity Part II

Introduction

We got a lot to talk about. What's up, Bren? Okay. How you guys doing? Good. Everybody happy? Yes. I'm glad you guys came. When I woke up this morning at 06:00, I could hear the ice falling. Did you hear it? I'm like, nobody's coming to church today. But you came, so it was great.

In this class, we're doing a series on all theology. A super comprehensive global doctrine survey. You guys are gonna all have a Masters of Divinity when we're done. It's gonna be amazing. Today though, we're gonna continue our conversation about the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity

If you were here last week, you know we've been walking through the attributes of God. He's just and he's righteous and he's omnipotent, all these things. And last week, we introduced the idea that he's actually multi-personal. It's an unusual thing. You are personal. He is multi-personal. And his multi-personality is what we call the doctrine of the Trinity, that there's one God who has eternally existed in three persons.

And we said that there are three double affirmations you have to hold, which kind of seem hard to hold in tension.

First, what's the most fundamental dualism about the Trinity? One and three. One and three. Is he more one or more three? Gil? Yes. You can't do it. We want to but you can't. He is where one God exists in three persons, and you don't get to resolve it.

Second, what about the dualism of coequal and yet? And yet there is submission and subordination. Exactly right. The persons of the Godhead are coequal—every person in the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit—equally worthy of honor and worship and glory and power and majesty and strength. And yet, the Son does not come to do his own will but the will of him who sent him. The Spirit exists to glorify the Son. So there is equality and yet subordination.

The third dualism: co-eternal and yet begotten and proceeding. Okay. There was never a time that there was the Father and not the Son. And yet the Son comes from the Father. The Spirit and the Son, I'm sorry, and the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son.

That comes from languages like Wincy, right? We have a hard time with this. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Okay.

Jonathan Edwards' Unpublished Essay

Normal people would leave it at that and just say, okay, that's weird enough but good enough. One guy to three persons. They're co-eternal and yet there's begetting and proceeding. They're co-equal and yet there's obedience and submission. We'll just take it and move on.

But one guy I know, well I don't know him, I would love to know him. One guy whose things I've read a great deal of wasn't content. The dude sat down and he said, yeah, okay, sure. But how does that happen? How did that come about? What is really the nature of God?

He wrote an essay that he never published in which he expressed what he thinks is really going on in the nature of the Trinity. And that is a bold move because you can barely get through a thirty-minute lecture on the Trinity without being on the knife edge of heresy.

This guy, his name is Jonathan Edwards. He wrote an essay—Jonathan Edwards' unpublished essay on the Trinity. It is one of the most absolutely fascinating things I've ever read in my entire life, and I'm gonna send it to you.

If you are in this class and you've asked to be included in emails that I send out from time to time, I'm gonna send this thing out. If you're not, then you want to send an email to chsdoctrine@gmail.com, and we'll add you to the list and I’ll send you the essay. So chsdoctrine@gmail.com.

I thought about emailing it to everyone ahead of time, but then I thought that was a bad idea because it's just going to take a little work to get through it. I didn't want to scare you off. So I'm going to give it to you. We're gonna help you digest it first, and then I'll send it to you. And if you want to read it, you can read it.

Edwards' View of the Trinity

Here's what Edwards does. He peers into the doctrine of the Trinity. Let's start with Edwards first. So Edwards, Jonathan Edwards—who's the smartest person alive today? Is it Elon Musk in the running? He's pretty exceptionally brilliant. Whoever your super genius is, that was Jonathan Edwards' status before the Revolutionary War.

Edwards lived in the 1617, early 1700s, before 1776 though. He was the president of Princeton College. He was a pastor in New England. He wrote and taught extensively. He was like the de facto leader of the Great Awakening. The guy is a legend. He's massively brilliant.

He stares into the doctrine of the Trinity, drawing on his enormous, vast knowledge of the scriptures, and he made some observations that are so surprising and incomprehensible. But if I had to bet, I'd say he was right.

He unpacks the Trinity by comparing it to something familiar. So, let's do this. Let's say, Gary, you have a sense of Gary, right? You have some idea of how tall you are, what you had for breakfast today, who your favorite football team is. There's Gary, and then there's Gary's self-awareness of Gary.

Your awareness of yourself is far from perfect. First, you probably don't remember what you had for breakfast seventeen days ago. You have no idea how your own kidney functions. And every once in a while, you get distracted and stop thinking about yourself. Okay?

Everyone in this room, there's you and then there's your sense of yourself. But your sense of yourself is far from perfect. If you could, Gary—if you could know literally everything about yourself, past, present, future, there was nothing about the way that your body functions that was mysterious to you, not only because you designed it, but because you're omniscient.

There would be you, and there would be your sense of yourself. And that sense of yourself would be perfect. It would be essentially an exact duplicate of yourself. You with me so far?

What Edwards argues is that that is exactly what is going on with God the Father. That God the Father has a perfect, exact sense of himself. So there is him, God the Father, and then there is this other thing that is so exactly a mirrored reflection, so perfectly representative of all that he is at all times, that it has from all eternity sprung to life and is the second person of the Godhead.

There is God the Father, prime, unoriginated deity existing in its direct form, and then there is the Father's sense of himself—his thought of himself. You might even say the logos of himself. Some of you might recognize John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, the Logos, the idea, the thought. And the Word was with God. — John 1:1

This is what Edwards argues: that there is God the Father, and then there is the Father's direct expression of himself, his perfect sense of himself, which is itself a living person and is the second person of the Trinity.

And then, if you can hang on to that, between God the Father and this exact expression of himself, there is between the two of them what Edwards alternately calls a divine action and a divine love. An admiration as the Father beholds the perfections of the Son, and as the Son beholds the supremacy of the Father, there exists between them a love and a delight and a joy that is itself so rich and so alive that it, from all eternity, is alive and is, in fact, the third person of the Trinity. It is the Holy Spirit.

There’s God the Father. There’s God the Father’s sense of himself, which is the second person. There is the love that exists between the Father and the Son, which is the third person: the Holy Spirit.

That in a nutshell is Edwards’ vision of the Trinity.

Understanding Edwards and Lewis

So you don't have to agree with it yet, although I would love you to because I think it is true. But step one is just to be like, okay, do you understand what I just said? Make sense?

God the Father, God thinks of himself. He recognizes literally everything about himself, and it is essentially, to quote Hebrews 1:

The radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his being. — Hebrews 1

And between the Father and the Son, there is this love, this adoration, this delight. And it is the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. The Son is the Logos, the thought, the wisdom of the Father in his self-reflection, and the Spirit is the love of God that exists between the Father and the Son.

And yet, those two beings besides the original prime Father are actual persons because your sense of yourself is not only inaccurate but it fades in and out of existence. His sense of himself is undiminished. Every minute of every day for eternity and beyond, God the Father has loved himself with all his soul, with all his heart, with all his mind, with all his strength.

This is Edwards’ view of the Trinity.

Deep Reflections and Further Considerations

Thoughts on that? Well, there's more, but we'll give you a chance to like just poke on it with a stick a little bit. It's okay.

Robin? In the creation story. Mhmm. In God spoke—and that's what I understood when it was in John 1:1—the Word was God and the Word was with God. That Christ was the pre-existent Christ was the spoken Word of God.

Go ahead. That's... and that's okay. So what Robin is saying is she'd always imagined that when John 1:1 says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God—he was with God in the beginning. This idea of the Logos of God—that in Robin’s mind was related to what back here in Genesis 1, where God speaks, presumably a word, and he speaks a word, and that word is the creative act.

And what Tim is saying, quoting Edwards—I'll just become Edwards for a second, which would be pretty amazing—is that the best way to conceive of the Logos of John 1 is to recognize it as the thought of God because that's really what Logos means.

Robin is suggesting: is it his thought, the words of his thinking, or is it the words of his speaking? And in particular, if it's the words of his speaking, is it the words of his speaking as a creative act?

Now, and what I would say to Robin is, first of all, I don't know. All of this is far beyond any of our comprehension. But I don't think so. I wouldn't associate the Logos in John 1 directly with the speaking of the word in Genesis 1. Because rather than being the word that is spoken, I believe Jesus is the Word, the one doing the speaking.

So Colossians 1 will say that he is actually the creative agent. And even later in John 1, apart from him, nothing was made that has been made. So I think Jesus is the speaker, not the spoken in Genesis 1. But there's three and they're one, and they're together—and I might be wrong.

So I don't know, but I haven't made that association. I'll leave it at that, but I might be wrong. This is deep stuff.

Randy? Did you want to say something? No? Gil? So I guess my only question—and this is just really a question—is that you said the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, was more the thought of Himself. So I guess my human mind being limited to thinking that God's thoughts are so powerful that they could basically be—

Yes, that's right. It's a struggle, but then it's more just a struggle because I'm thinking of it in a human perspective.

Great. Gillette’s being like, okay, but hang on a second. And of course, we're all functioning at a relatively limited intelligence—know, like relative to His omniscience—we're just so stupid. But doing our best, he's like, it seems strange to think that could you just think something and thereby it would be a person? Like, how does a thought become a person? That's odd. And it is odd, and I can't do that. And if you think you can do it, psycho. But God can do that. I mean, literally, he can speak things into being. And so I'm on record, I think Edwards is right. I never would have thought of this. I never could have conceived this. But I haven't even given you any of his evidence that it's true. We'll get to his evidence in a second. But I do think that it is the case, yes, that the creative thought—if three can be one, if the equal can be subordinated, if the eternal can be begotten and proceeding—then sure. Why not? Why would not God's perfect reflection of himself, in fact, be the result of his self-conception? I've been thinking about this for about fifteen years, so you have plenty of space if you're like, I might need a little time on this.

No sweat. That's great. But I do think it's plausibly the case that God could think His Son, that He is begotten. In some sense, the Son is of the Father, God of God, Light of Light.

This is what we just said this morning: His thoughts springing forth in a living person is entirely consistent. I know of nothing in the scriptures that this contradicts, nor the creeds that this would contradict. But it's still weird.

The Holy Spirit and the Love of God

DFB? The Father-Son thing I have less struggle with than the Holy Spirit thing. And the deep question I’ve never been able to resolve is how the love between the Father and the Son can acquire will.

Because we, I mean, we see the Holy Spirit makes decisions in scripture. How does love turn into will? Okay.

That's great. Let me suggest—we're gonna go to C.S. Lewis because what else are we gonna do? When I read this in Edwards’ essay, I thought it was the first time I’d ever seen anything like this before. But I was wrong, because I’d read it multiple times but didn't land on it.

C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity says precisely the same thing. Lewis tends to be a little easier to grasp than Edwards. When I read this, I didn’t recognize that it was in Lewis, but then I reread Mere Christianity a couple years later and was like, holy cow, it’s right here.

Here’s how Lewis does it in Mere Christianity:

In Christianity, God is not a static thing, not even a person, but a dynamic pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of a drama. Almost, if you will—do not think me irreverent—a kind of dance. Now here it is. The union between the Father and the Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a person.

I know this is almost inconceivable, but look at it thus: among human beings, when they get together in a family or a club or a trade union, people talk about the spirit of that family or club or trade union. They talk about its spirit because the individual members, when they are together, really do develop particular ways of talking and behaving, which they would not have if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence. Of course, it’s not a real person; it’s only rather like a person. But that is 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: the third of the three persons who are God.

Lewis continues, skipping down:

Perhaps some people might find it easier to begin with the third person and work backwards. God is love, and that love works through men, especially through the whole community of Christians. But this spirit of love is from all eternity, a love going on between the Father and the Son.

Now, I recognize that that doesn't necessarily explain it—simply reasserts it. But I’m reasserting it, and I will say this: that generally speaking, if Edwards is saying something super weird and Lewis is saying that same, hang on—saying that same super weird thing—and if we wanted to take the time and we're not gonna do it today, we could look at Augustine, who upon further research, said the exact same thing. When I get Edwards, Lewis, and Augustine all coming down on the line, I mean it’s possible I might disagree with them, but I’d want a really good reason because these guys are on point.

Lewis’ attempt to explain it via analogy— that or the spirit of a community—is just one more piece of evidence that this may be so. It's not proof, but it supports the idea. There are more arguments we can discuss, but you're free to be like, yeah, too weird. I get it. Maybe it’s true.

Compatibility with Scripture and Reflection

Bianca? Support your question, which I thought was very good. The analogy is this: a communal personality, which tends to, in these groups, act and move in union. So they kind of communally make decisions and work. Your question is how does it go at will? But in this analogy, communal personality—that’s exactly what happens. They kind of all align in union and make decisions together, which aligns with their unity.

Yes. Everyone. The idea that the Holy Spirit could have a will, but that it reflects what the Father has done—that's good. I like that word, Bianca—that the Holy Spirit has a will, but that it reflects the will of the Father and the Son. This is how they function together.

Again, we're using they language, which always makes me want to move back to Him language, because there's still just one God. And as you just drift off into this: okay, now we're polytheists? No, we're not. There is one God, but He exists as three persons.

Within that Trinity, within that multi-personality, there is an individuality of will, but there's no contradiction in will. They subordinate their wills to one another. Yes, and it's weird, and it's okay that it's weird. But I still think it does a pretty good job explaining things.

Final Thoughts

One more, then I’ll try to give you some of the evidence Edwards offers as to why this might be so. Question. Chris? It's more of a connecting—connecting that from my brain—where I think it's important—to say that if this is true, to found it in the fact that, you know, we're humans, and from the way we are, we need relationships to exist.

And so, how can we be made in God's image, like God? And then have God exist by himself as an individual? If He had personalities like us, He would need to be perfect and have relationship.

Obviously, then, we get into the facts of—is two enough? And then I would argue that it has to be at least three to have a true relationship.

Yes. Okay. So Chris is observing that there's something strange about this, and he's connecting it to our human need for relationship. We are made in God's image, but we're simpler. If He were a cube, we'd be a square. We're not cubes. We're made in His image.

So He, if He were a cube, you would be a square, but you're a square made for cubeness. And squares that are made for cubeness require other squares, right? That's why we're made in the image of a God who is a relationship. We're made for relationship, but we don't have that multi-personal nature ourselves. We are dependent creatures, whereas He is self-sufficient. We're just a bucket of needs. But we are like Him in some ways.

He is all love, and we are kind—under the perfect circumstances. He is omniscient, and we can tie our shoes. There's a huge gap between what He is and what we are.

Reflection on the Holy Spirit and God's Nature

A couple of thoughts: I’ll read you a little more from Edwards' essay, just a couple of points I’ll extract.

He does this thing with the Holy Spirit. And I think it’s a really good point. We're Trinitarians, we’re not Binitarians. Yet, over and over throughout the New Testament, you might draw the conclusion that we're Binitarians—that there's God the Father and God the Son:

Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. — Galatians 1:3

Have you ever been defensive on behalf of the Holy Spirit, like, how does that work? Why is it like the Father, the Son, and the third cousin? How come? You know what I’m talking about? Okay.

There are many instances in scripture where you see the Father loves you, the Son loves you, that the Father loves the Son, that the Son loves the Father. You will never find it that the Spirit of God loves you or that the Spirit loves the Son or that the Son loves the Spirit. It doesn't exist.

Over and over, you see the father and the son, but where is the Spirit?

And Edwards answers that: he's present, because he is the grace and the peace. When it says, “Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” Edwards would argue that the Spirit is the grace and peace that comes from them. This makes perfect sense, he says.

And why would it be that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both? This aligns well if the Spirit is the love existing between Father and Son.

This explains why, at the end of Revelation (Revelation 22), you see the Father and the Son seated on the thrones and a great river flowing from them. Throughout scripture, particularly in the New Testament, the river is the Spirit:

The river of the water of life, beating bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. — Revelation 22:1

John 4 and John 7 speak of a river, Psalm 36 also; the river being the Spirit of God.

God places His love in our hearts and His Spirit in our hearts. You can make a long list of interchangeability between the Spirit of God and the love of God.

There is truly something to this. I think the case is compelling. But here’s what Edwards does twice: he admits, I don’t pretend fully to explain how these things are. I’m sensible that many objections, doubts, and questions can be raised.

He says, “I can’t explain the Trinity so as to remove its mystery. I think it’s the highest and deepest divine mystery.”

He states, “Scripture with reason may lead us to say more about it than has been said, though many things remain incomprehensible.”

He’s basically saying, we’re lazy. God has given us His word, and we tend to pick the easy parts, then go play golf. He encourages us to think deeply, to ponder scripture, because there’s more to discover.

He later says, “I’m sensible that objections will be made against what I’ve said, and that difficulties will be found: How can this be? How can that be? I’m far from providing a complete explanation. There are difficulties, mysteries, and wonders. But I believe God's word has revealed more than we've grasped thus far.”

He advocates for diligent study: the scriptures contain more treasures than we have yet mined.

He concludes that in the eternal world, we won’t gain omniscience all at once, but rather, for eternity, we will continue discovering more of God. We will be surprised by new understanding even after billions of years, because God is infinite.

This, Edwards argues, provides motivation to keep learning and studying. The world is full of treasures. He believes this understanding is true, and he left his essay unpublished because he knew how deep and mysterious these truths are.

Closing and Reflection

And I will leave it to you to decide whether, in a week or five years, you agree. But if you email me—you already asked—I'll send you the essay. If not, email chsdoctrine@gmail.com.

We'll keep exploring the case for these ideas, and I think it’s absolutely fascinating. Thanks for your attention. We have about three minutes. If you want to process, ask questions, or pepper me with doubts, go ahead.

Final Comments and Q&A

Burn me as a heretic. Yeah, how are you doing? Questions? Thoughts? Process it out loud.

Nate? So, when I've heard people mention the Word's will—and I think of the commandments, like do unto others as you want others to do unto you—Jesus gave His life for us so that our sins could be made clean. And that speaks volumes of His greatness and His well-being.

It does. And whatever’s incomprehensible about Him, what’s clear is His power, His goodness, His beauty, His graciousness to us. Absolutely. And you have literally the best voice of anyone who’s ever spoken in this class. Was that not magnificent? Good work, Nate.

Eric? Well, I’ll do my best to do the Kermit the Frog voice. Yeah, do the best you can.

So, years ago, I was questioned by a coworker who was a Protestant atheist. He said, "If you're supposed to be formed in the image of God, why aren’t there three of these?"

And I said, “Well, there are. But remember, I’m formed in the image of God, not as God.” I said, “So I’m a father—I’m Gil’s father—but I’m also a son. And as Gil can attest, my spirit is a comfort to my son.”

And I said, “In that poor reflection, there is a kind of Trinity.”

Yes. So, a couple of thoughts. Every time we talk about the Trinity, we’re on the knife’s edge of heresy. And that was heresy. So, sincerely, it’s a deep mystery, but it’s okay.

The way I respond is: yes, we’re made in His image, but we are simple. We’re not Trinity; we’re not omniscient or omnipotent; we’re dependent and limited. There’s a big difference.

And I would say, He’s not modalistic—He doesn’t shift modes; He’s not partialist—He’s not partly Father, partly Son. He’s all that He is at all times. There are three, they are co-eternal, co-equal. Just accept it. We’re simpler, just singular beings, made in His image.

Alright. That’s all we have for today. Thanks for coming. We’ll see you next time. Bye-bye.