Let's try to break it down, but it's time for a disclaimer - in posting a an article of perhaps a few hundred words on probably the most difficult of theological subjects will naturally lead to a distilled sip of water out of a river of truth. Although much more could be said, I'll respond with a brief answer that will, for brevity's sake; omit other aspects of the truth of this doctrine.
First, let's talk about ontology - a fancy word for the nature of being, or existence. I think we would agree that human beings can be defined as one what and one who. We could say that another way by stating that people are one essence (human) and one person (uniqueness) Therefore, I am one what (human) and one who (Dave). Ruth
Now, let's postulate about a different kind of being altogether, non-human. This being can be defined as one what and three whos. OK, now it gets tricky doesn't it! We believe God is one what - meaning He is one in essence, and three whos - he is three separate, distinct persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Let's illustrate that with a chart (apologies for the poor quality):
What we see in this chart is that the Father is not the son, and the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. We also see that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God.
This is crucial for this reason - the doctrine of the trinity has been accused of being a logical contradiction, in that we are claiming that 1+1+1=1. That is not the case however. In order for something to be contradictory, it must violate the law of noncontradiction. This law states that A cannot be both A (what it is) and non-A (what it is not) at the same time and in the same relationship. In other words, you have contradicted yourself if you affirm and deny the same statement.
Let's look at some supporting documentation I pulled from several sources:
For example, if I say that that the moon is made entirely of cheese but then also say that the moon is not made entirely of cheese, I have contradicted myself. Other statements may at first seem contradictory but are really not.
Theologian R.C. Sproul cites as an example Dickens’ famous line, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Obviously this is a contradiction if Dickens means that it was the best of times in the same way that it was the worst of times. But Dickens avoids contradiction with this statement because he means that in one sense it was the best of times, but in another sense it was the worst of times.
Carrying this concept over to the Trinity, it is not a contradiction for God to be both three and one because He is not three and one in the same way. He is three in a different way than He is one. Thus, we are not speaking with contradiction by saying that God is one and then denying that He is one by saying that He is three. This is very important: God is one and three at the same time, but not in the same way.
How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in Person. Essence and person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same way that He is one.
Because each of these “forms of existence” are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as “I” and the others as “You.” Nonetheless, these three Persons all “consist of” the same “stuff” (that is, the same “what,” or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it:
while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one “what” but three “whos.”
Let's try another illustration to make the distinctions. Time for a little quiz! Don't panic, I'll put the answers right in there for you (collective sigh of relief):
- Existence: is there something in the classroom? Yes, there is something in the classroom.
- Essence: what is in the classroom? A human is in the classroom.
- Person: who is in the classroom? Ruth is in the classroom.
Now, let's take the EXACT SAME QUESTIONS and see how the outcome is different based on the ontological response to the question:
- Existence: is there something in the classroom? Yes, there is something in the classroom.
- Essence: what is in the classroom? God is in the classroom.
- Person: who is in the classroom? The Father is in the classroom. The Son is in the classroom. The Spirit is in the classroom.
Did you notice how much more important the words "what" and "who" became in the second set of questions? That's because, based on the response; a different ontological entity became the focus.
Let's go back up now to Ruth's illustration. Does this illustration work? I would respond "no" for this reason - that illustration (and this is a very common mistake) confuses the ontological being of humans and God. Ultimately, this leads to a heresy that is called modalisim.
Unfortunately, there are many illustrations which are not simply imperfect, but in error. Another type of this example is something that goes like this:
“I am one person, but I am a student, son, and brother. This explains how God can be both one and three.”
The problem with this is that God is not one person who plays three different roles, as this illustration suggests. He is one Being in three Persons (centers of consciousness), not merely three roles. This analogy ignores the personal distinctions within God and mitigates them to mere roles. Therefore, we conclude that the trinity represents God as a different ontological being than humans - He is one what and three whos!
