042. I. Questions Of The Trinity.

I. Questions Of The Trinity.

1. The Unity of God.—This is the first question of fact, but really a question not in issue. Trinitarianism is not tritheism; nor are trinitarians less pronounced on the unity of God than unitarians. The sense of this unity is embodied in the term designative of the personal distinctions in the Godhead. It follows that the unity of God is the basal truth in the doctrine of the Trinity. But as this question is not in issue as between trinitarianism and unitarianism, and especially as we have previously considered it in its distinctive application to God, it requires no further treatment here.

2. Trinal Distinction of Divine Persons.—The doctrine of the Trinity asserts the personal distinctions of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the essential divinity of each. Of course, there is no issue respecting the Father. “With all theists his personality and divinity are above question. However, the real sense of the divine Fatherhood must be determined by the doctrine of the Son. If the Son is only human in his nature, then, however rich his endowments, the relation of God to the human gives the fullest sense of his Fatherhood. Arianism may raise this sense to a higher significance, but the plenitude of its meaning can be given only with the essential divinity of the Son. Only this can give the full meaning of the Father’s love of the Son (Matthew 3:17; John 17:24); the full sense in which he is the only begotten Son” (John 1:14; John 1:18); the infinite significance of the Father’s love in the redemption of the world (John 3:16; Romans 8:32; 1 John 4:10).The sublimest theistic truth of the Scriptures is embodied in this definite reality of the divine Fatherhood. For the religious consciousness it possesses a fullness of truth and grace far above all the creative work of God. His fatherly relation to man and to all intelligences is a great and grateful truth; but the truth of his Fatherhood most replete with benedictions is given only with the divine Sonship of the Saviour. The doctrine of the Trinity encounters little issue respecting the personality of the Son. Even Sabellianism and Swedenborgianism, which hold a mere modal Trinity, admit his personality, though both deny to him any personal distinction from the Father. It is in this that both depart from the true doctrine of the Trinity. The antagonism to the divinity of the Son, as posited in the doctrine of the Trinity, represents different grades of doctrine respecting his nature, ranging all the way from Semi-Arianism down to the mere human Christ of Socinianism. The issue against the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as embodied in the doctrine of the Trinity, is in the denial of both his personality and divinity, but mostly the former. But if the Spirit is not a person, neither can he be divine in any sense necessary to the doctrine of the Trinity. The forms of this antagonism may be more conveniently brought into view, so far as necessary to this discussion, when treating the doctrine of the Spirit in its relation to the Trinity. Enough has already been stated to show that the questions respecting both the Son and the Spirit are vital to this doctrine. Without the personal distinction of the Son and the Spirit from the Father, and the essential divinity of each, there is for theology no question of the Trinity.

3. Union of the Three in Divine Unity.—This is the question of harmony in the constituent facts of the Trinity, and, as previously noted, the very difficult question of the doctrine. It is the point which the adversary mostly assails. The defense is not in a clear philosophy of the doctrine, for there is no such a philosophy. For our reason the unity of God in Trinity is a mystery. There is, however, a profound difference between a mystery and a contradiction. The latter is utterly incredible, while the former may be thoroughly credible, as many mysteries are. The strength of the doctrine for Christian faith lies in its sure Scripture ground, and not simply in the completeness of its constituent facts as therein given, but especially in its complete articulation with the cardinal truths of Christianity. With the strength of this ground, we simply require such a statement of the facts as shall at once be sufficient for the doctrine and yet place them above all contradictory opposition. With this attainment, the assaults of the adversary are futile.

It is not assumed that such a statement is easily made. The difficulties are serious, though we do not think them insuperable. For speculative thought the ground seems narrow between unitarianism, on the one hand, and tritheism, on the other. This is the real difficulty. In the treatment of the question there are not wanting instances in which this middle ground is lost, sometimes on the one side, and sometimes on the other. The predication of both unity and plurality in exactly the same view of God is a contradiction, and there must be error respecting either the unity or the plurality. God cannot be one person and three persons in the same definite sense of personality. Hence there must be a ground of unity below the trinal distinction of persons, or personality in this distinction must be held in a qualified sense. If we find a ground of unity below personality we must still confront the question whether such ground will answer for the unity of God as given in the Scriptures. Whatever the qualification in the sense of personality, it must still remain sufficient for the trinal distinction of persons, while the unity and the trinality must not be in contradictory opposition. Otherwise there is no question of the Trinity. The necessary elements of the doctrine disappear, with the result of either unitarianism or tritheism. It may thus be seen that we have not disguised the difficulties of the question.