An Ontological Trinity

Trinity vs. Oneness

Bishop Kenneth Cragg, whom I met years ago when I was a young missionary in Egypt has said that God in Islam is distinguished by his absolute and indivisible unity. For instance, Cragg points out that “In sura 112, Muhammad defines God in these words:

“Say: He is God, The One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, Nor is He begotten; And there is none Like unto Him.” This sura is held to be worth a third of the whole Qur’an. The seven heavens and the seven earths are founded upon it. Islamic tradition affirms that to confess this verse sheds one’s sins as a man might strip a tree in autumn of its leaves” (Cragg 39).

Mulling over this just recently has got me to thinking. Muslims are not the only ones that have problems with understanding the Sonship of Jesus. Which, in many ways is a puzzle to me.

For example, the Psalmist David seem to have a clear understanding of the relationship that Jesus had with the Father, for David writes,

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (KJV)

He declared His eternal relationship with the Son, not on the basis of the begottenness of His Son as a man, but on the fact that His Sonship preceded His begottenness.

And the author of the book of Hebrews reaffirms this with,

“For to which of the angels did [God] ever say, You are My Son, today I have begotten You. And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He will be to Me a Son? (Hebrews 1:5)

However, when the Qur’an declares that He [God] begetteth not, then there is much with which to disagree, primarily because it denies the incarnation of His Son.

Now, I want to be careful to distinguish between my position that Jesus was God before He was begotten with that of the Gnostic Sabellianist David K. Bernard who embraces the adoptionists position that Jesus was not a son before he was begotten. As, of course, with all heresy Mr. Bernard has many nuances in his position, but none that grasps the significance of the fact that God declared Jesus a Son prior to His incarnation.

Personally, I think both the Muslims and the Sabellianist would profit from considering an ontology of God that allows an essence of a trinity of persons , or as some have called it, an Ontological Trinity.

Karl Rahner has said that Christians in their practical lives are all “almost mere

monotheists”—suggesting that if the doctrine of the Trinity were proven false tomorrow the majority of religious literature could “well remained virtually unchanged.”[1] I agree. Largely, because I believe that orthodox Christians are indeed monotheists doctrinally. 

Much can be said of the uniqueness of the Trinity but nothing is more distinctive than His all sufficiency. He is lacking in nothing. The essence of the Godhead is testimony to that. Let’s consider the personhood of Jesus for a moment.

I begin with a question: “Would God have been sufficient if he would have had to create or even father an earthly son in order to reconcile us through a human Jesus, whom he later adopted into the Godhead?” I think not. If so, why adopt him into the Godhead? Was the adoption some kind of congratulatory afterthought? The price that Jesus paid for our redemption as a mere man; albeit, a good and perfect man, seems rather trivial compared to God the Son, sacrificing Himself for us. To think less, cheapens the atonement.

If God the Son had not been present in Godly essence, then He could have ever fulfilled His Divine mission. Why? The Scriptures clearly state,

“[T]hat God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

So, when did Jesus become God? When did the adoption take place. When did God enter Jesus in His fullness? The Scripture is certainly silent on that, if one insists that Jesus was elevated into the Godhead, somewhere or time during His life here on earth.

His baptism for sure is not a confirmation of that position. For the voice from Heaven declared, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” [Matthew 3:17] Again, illustrating that He was already a Son.

And, we also know of that time Peter says,

For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 3.2 Peter 1:17

But, once again, God the Father declares first of all that “This is my beloved Son” [past tense] in whom I am well pleased [present tense]. And, it is from that declaration that Peter asserts that Jesus received honor and glory.

So, what we have here, in my opinion, is a Divine strategy played out in a human environment.

Once again, I refer you to the Scripture mention above,

“[T]hat God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

Now, I fully realize that prepositions in any language can be easily misinterpreted; but I believe that from the context and other verses we can truthful deduct that this “in” contains the essence of God in His fullness. How else then do we explain the verse that declares that in Him, that is Jesus Christ, “dwells the fullness of the Godhead [Deity] bodily”? (Colossians 2:9)

How much more plain can you get?

We know that this was pleasing to the Father, for in verse 19 and 20 of the first chapter of this same epistle, the Apostle  declares,

“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

[1] Rahner, Karl, The Trinity, trans. Joseph Donceel (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), 10-11.

---