“The idea of God, as the church fathers generally recognized, must be largely given over to mystery. Augustine said that we speak of the Trinity, not because we can explain this mystery, but only in order ‘not to be silent’ and allow greater error.” (41)

I found this statement by A.J. Conyers in A Basic Christian Theology to be quite fascinating. In one sense Conyers is exactly right. How do we explain three-in-one? It doesn’t even make logical sense that something could be both three things and one thing at the same time. The church fathers settled on the statement that God is of one ousia (substance) and three hypostasis (persons). One of the guys in my midweek study had a good illustration for this concept. He pointed out the different states of water and the parallel to our thinking on the Trinity. Water can take on the form of liquid, solid, or gas. Each form has distinctive features so that liquid is not the same as gas. However, they all carry the same basic substance: water. I think his illustration is a good parallel to the Trinity. God exists in three distinctions but all of these distinctions are comprised of one substance. As Conyers says, it is a great mystery. Yet the mystery of it all does not keep us from saying something about who God is. If it did, there would be no way to combat error or false teaching.

In another sense, Augustine’s quote is a bit narrow. We do not merely speak of the Trinity for the sake of combating false teaching (though this is important). We speak of a triune God because he has revealed himself in this manner. And God has revealed himself in this way because he exists in this manner. We must be careful not to make the same mistake that Sabellius made in thinking that God reveals himself by putting on three different masks though he is only one person. Scripture does not give us this picture of God. We also speak of the Trinity because God is actively working as each person though in different ways. The Spirit resides within us and guides us toward holiness. The Son intercedes on our behalf at the right hand of the Father who sits on the throne of righteousness.

Nevertheless, another one of the guys in my study said that this quote could also be representative of our pursuit of theology. There will never be a point when we will know exhaustively. There will always be some sense of mystery because there are things we do not understand. Yet we study theology so that we might be drawn closer to God, be transformed as a result, and learn to speak as representatives of His kingdom.

2 Replies to “The Mystery of the Trinity

  1. Great thoughts on the Trinity. I do have to quibble with your friend’s water analogy. Water can only be in only one of its three states at a time whereas God is three Persons simultaneously and eternally. The water analogy would really work better for Modalism. Perhaps this is part of speaking of the Trinity as a mystery: there really isn’t an analogy that does it justice.

  2. Yeah…it probably is a better illustration for Modalism than orthodox belief about the Trinity. However, he was making this point as it related to the issue of same substance. Something can have distinction and yet still be of the same substance. I used a pan of brownies to illustrate the point initially. Take the pan of brownies and cut it into three shapes: triangle, rectangle, and circle. Each section of brownie has distinction in its shape but still remains the same substance. And…they simultaneously exist as you mentioned. Ultimately, every illustration has a breaking point especially in the case of the Trinity. Something existing as three and as one just doesn’t make sense any way you slice it in a finite world. It is a beautiful mystery.

What Do You Think?