“Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the Triune God.” – John Wesley
Describing God as Three and One with Metaphors
To understand God as three and one at the same time, the human mind searches for analogies.
Analogies drawn from physical nature have been popular, such as the three parts of the egg—which is one; or the three physical states of water-ice, liquid, and steam.
Viewers of the Veggie Tales video, Sumo of the Opera, will remember the Shamrock—three parts of the same leaf.
Each metaphor has its own emphasis, whether on God’s threeness, or oneness, and each is limited.
Another metaphor presents God as the sun, which reigns over the earth with power and might (1 Tim 6:15, 16). The Father represents the Source of the Godhead.
Jesus is the form and visibility of the Godhead including the light that makes life and sight (John 1:4, 6; 2 Cor 4:6; Heb 1:3).
The Holy Spirit represents the invisible energy emanations from the Godhead.
St. Augustine suggested that an analogy be taken from the realm of human personality since the human is made in the image of God, who is triune.
The analogy states that God is Triune similar to humans which are spirit, soul, and body.
In practice, it is difficult to cling simultaneously to the several components of the doctrine. One tends to alternate between tritheism and modalism.
One helpful analogy comes from the realm of individual human psychology. As a human being, one has multiple roles and responsibilities that are always in dynamic interplay with one another, yet each part informs each other part.
A person can engage in internal dialogue with him or herself, and think nothing of it, because of the unity of the personhood.
In humans, the difference is shown mostly in conflict situations. However, in God, there is always perfect harmony, communication, and love.[1]
There are no metaphors or human language fully capable of expressing the nature of God. Even the word “God” is insufficient.
The Difficulty Describing God as Three and One: A Short History
Even St. Augustine recognized the difficulties with the word “person.”[2] It is difficult because each is truly omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, outside of time and creation, existing as the unity of Father, (Son) Logos, and Holy Spirit.
However, it is necessary that humans attempt to define and articulate the doctrine of God in light of Biblical revelation as closely as humanly possible.
The images and terms used from the earliest Church Fathers express the difficulty in reconciling the fact that God is one and three.
Several doctrinal controversies motivated the development of a clearer doctrine of God during the late second and early third centuries:
- Monarchianism emerged that sought to assure the supremacy of God in monotheism. Dynamic Monarchianism promoted the idea that God was dynamically present in Jesus and higher than any other human, but not God.
- Modalistic Monarchianism defended God’s sovereignty by considering the three not as self-subsistent “persons” but as “modes” or “names” of the same God. The doctrine maintained that the Father, Son, and Spirit do not stand for real distinctions but are different ways God presented Himself at different times.
Tertullian’s response to these views introduced terms that would help cement orthodox doctrine.
He was convinced that God’s threeness was not incompatible with His essential unity.
To combat Monarchianism and polytheism, Tertullian introduced the idea of God as a Trinitas. 
He was the first to use the term for God.
The threeness of God comprises the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each is each a persona, and they are of a single substantia (substance).[3] Tertullian’s response was well received and provided significant terminology that furthered the dialogue.
Origen’s work continued to affirm and advance the discussion of the Triune God, upholding the coeternity of the Son. The eternal Son participates in the divinity of the Father and is also divine in substance. Pannenberg adds, “Only with Origen’s doctrine of the eternal begetting of the Son did the concept emerge of an eternal trinity in God.”[4]
- In Alexandria, a presbyter, Arius, proposed that if the Father begat the Son, then the Son must have had a beginning and there was a time when He was not. He believed that the Father is absolutely unique and transcendent, and His essence/substance (ousia) cannot be shared or transmitted to another. If the Father and Son are of the same substance, there are two gods, he proposed.
The Council of Nicea was called in 325 to address this Arian controversy which threatened to divide the Church.
According to the resulting statement of faith, the Nicene Creed, Christ was “begotten of the substance of the Father.” The key phrase used the word homoousios, which literally means “of the same substance.”[5]
Many others in the third, fourth, and fifth century continued to make significant contributions to the conversation. Notable among those is Athanasius, a celebrated Eastern father, who led in combating Arianism and affirming the Nicene Creed.
The Cappadocian fathers—the three bishops and theologians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Greggory of Nyssa continued the work of their predecessors in the second half of the fourth century. They understood the inner relations of God as ontological, or inherent to the nature of God’s unity of essence.[6]
For several centuries, the Church Fathers struggled to formulate and develop the uniquely Christian view of God. The Church Fathers countered many obstacles and doctrinal enemies, including Gnostic syncretism and Hellenistic rationalism to formulate an orthodox Christian faith.
Through hundreds of years what has remained solid has become the foundation for Christian faith and practice.
What This Means For You And Me
For most of us, to know church history is simply there as a foundation on which our doctrine stands is sufficient. Many believers can agree with Ann Lamott,
“I didn’t need to understand the hypostatic unity of the Trinity; I just needed to turn my life over to whoever came up with redwood trees.” ― Anne Lamott, Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith
Things to Keep in Mind
According to theologian, Millard Erickson, the essential elements in a doctrine of God must include these facts:
- The unity of God is basic. God is one, not several joined together.
- Each of the three is one deity, and each is qualitatively the same.
- God’s threeness and oneness are not in the same respect. God is one and at the same time three, and yet without contradiction. The way He is three is not the same as the way He is one.
- There have always been three, and all have always been divine. For example, one member did not come to be at a later time. God is always the same, eternal.
- The function of one may be subordinate to one or both for a period of time, but that does not mean He is in any way inferior in essence.
- The Triune God is incomprehensible, and human understanding is limited.[7]
It is important to know that God is a God Being and not some sort of invisible energy force that pervades the universe, as some religions and New Age adherents believe.
Martin Luther cautioned that the unity and complexity of God is an incomprehensibility, beyond which reason must not go. It is something one must believe. Luther says,
“For even to the angels, who unceasingly behold it with delight, it is unfathomable. And all who have wanted to comprehend it have broken their necks in the effort.”[8]
An Amazing Concluding Thought
A friend shared with me some amazing revelation you will find helpful. When he was seeking God for understanding on this subject, God suggested he think about God’s nature as 1x1x1=1 rather than 1+1+1=3. Now that sheds some light on God’s nature!
Blessing friend on your journey of knowing God more!
Learn more about the Christian Journey here
- Erickson, 346-367. ↑
- C.F. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 6 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 371. ↑
- Veli-Matti Karkkainen, The Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 70. ↑
- Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol.1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 275; quoted in Veli-Matti Karkkainen, The Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 74. ↑
- Karkkainen, 75. ↑
- Karkkainen, 75-79. ↑
- Erickson, 362-363. ↑
- Martin Luther, What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology of Luther for the Active Christian, ed. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1959); quoted in Veli-Matti Karkkainen, The Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 104. ↑
