To What Shall I Compare the Trinity? An Intro to Perspectivalism

Are there analogies to the Trinity? If so, what?¹

Sometimes when people talk about analogies for the Trinity, they are exploring analogies from within the world that might help them better to understand the Trinity, or at least to illustrate the truth of the Trinity. For example, can the Trinity be fruitfully compared to three faculties of the human person, such as memory, understanding, and will? Or can the Trinity be compared to a human society of three human persons who act jointly?²

But we can approach the topic of analogies from the reverse direction. Given the doctrine of the Trinity, how is the trinitarian character of God displayed and reflected in various ways in how God acts, how he relates to us, and how he displays vestigia or “tracks” of himself in what he has created and sustains? In particular, how does the Bible itself provide resources for seeing how God’s trinitarian character is displayed in the world?

We will survey briefly the paths that a number of people have explored.³

Contributors

Let us examine the contributions of various writers to this question.

John Frame’s triads

Let us begin with the contributions of John M. Frame. Frame’s course lectures and his books use two main triads. The triad for lordship consists in three interlocking and interpenetrating perspectives on God’s lordship; namely, the perspectives of authority, control, and presence. The triad for ethics consists in three perspectives on the whole field of ethics; namely, the normative perspective, the situational perspective, and the existential perspective.⁴ Frame uses these perspectives for several reasons:

1. He finds them pedagogically fruitful in organizing his communication in memorable ways.
2. He finds them heuristically fruitful in encouraging him to notice many aspects of the truth, rather than falling into a rut of consistently limiting his focus to some favorite aspect.
3. The perspectives seem genuinely to express the structure of the field and the structure of human knowledge. For example, God’s lordship in the Bible consistently displays authority, control, and presence—all three. And all three interpenetrate.

It is important to note that the three perspectives describe three attributes of God that are always present in God. They are always manifested in God’s acts of lordship in the world. Some acts, indeed, may preeminently display God’s authority, such as when he gives the Ten Commandments as authoritative guides to human beings (Exod 20). Other acts, such as God’s miraculous work in dividing the waters of the Red Sea, preeminently display his control. Other acts, such as his display in the pillar of cloud, preeminently display his presence. But we cannot really have one without the other two. God always acts with authority, control, and presence. The three attributes are distinct in meaning, but the distinction is subtle. One cannot separate out authority as an isolated feature, as if one could have a god who was authoritative without control or presence, or as if “authority” was an abstract ideal that preceded God and defined who he would be when he subsequently came into existence in conformity with this abstract ideal. God is absolute and does not have anything that precedes him, either in time or in conception.

From an early point in time, Frame thought that this triadic interpenetration of perspectives mysteriously reflected the Trinity. The Father corresponds preeminently to authority, expressed especially in God’s plan. The Son corresponds preeminently to control, because the Son executes the plan of the Father. And the Holy Spirit corresponds preeminently to presence, because the Bible repeatedly associates the Spirit with the presence of God. The interpenetration of the three perspectives for lordship corresponds to the interpenetration of the three persons in coinherence, and the interpenetration of all the attributes of God in one God who was simple (indivisible).

Frame therefore tries to make it clear that he is not advocating any separation between two of the three attributes, or separation among the perspectives. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit—all three—are authoritative, exercising control, and expressing presence in the world. The correlation of one person with one attribute is a matter of prominence or preeminence only. It is subtle.

Kenneth Pike’s triads

Independent of John Frame’s work with perspectives, Kenneth L. Pike found triads of perspectives in linguistic analysis. He came to believe that these were rooted in and reflected the Trinity.⁵ Perhaps the most basic of these triads is the triad of three perspectives on theories and on linguistic data.

1. The particle perspective treats the subject matter under study as a collection of discrete particles. It can be called the static perspective because it focuses on what remains the same. Each particle remains a distinct unit.
2. The wave perspective or dynamic perspective treats its subject as a dynamically developing movement, a wave.
3. The field perspective or relational perspective treats its subject as a collection of relations, which together make up a “field” of relations.

Like Frame’s perspectives, Pike’s perspective interpenetrate and are inseparable. In this respect, they imitate the coinherence of persons in the Trinity.

Dorothy L. Sayers’s triad

Dorothy L. Sayers discusses the triad of Idea, Power, and Energy in her discussion of creativity, seeing these three as a reflection of the Trinity.⁶

Analogies for the Trinity in the Bible

Against these backgrounds, we may explore how we may find grounds in the Bible for saying that these triads and others present us with a reflection or a display of the Trinity. One key starting point is the question of whether the Bible itself presents us with analogies for the Trinity. That is not the same as asking whether it teaches the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is a set of legitimate inferences from a large number of texts. These texts are of a variety of kinds. In many cases, a single individual text presents us with teaching that confirms one aspect or one portion of trinitarian doctrine. But the doctrine as a whole is, as it were, distributed over a plurality of texts. So there is no prior guarantee that the Bible will offer us a coherent analogy or analogies for the Trinity.

When we ask for analogies found in the Bible, we are seeking more specifically for analogies that would explicate some of the distinct roles of the distinct persons. Is there any such analogy?

The analogy with a family

The most obvious such analogy is the analogy with a family. God the Father is like a human father; God the Son is like a human son. That analogy is built into the use of the terms “Father” and “Son” to designate the first two persons of the Trinity. A human father is a father in relation to his son. A human son is a son in relation to his father. The analogy with the divine Father and the divine Son underlines not only that the two divine persons are distinct, but that they differ from each other—with respect to their relation of being Father and Son. They are not simply identical to each other with an abstract concept of identity. They differ with respect to their relations to the other divine persons. The unity of one God corresponds roughly to the unity of a single human family with a father and a son. But of course we must not take this analogy in isolation from other teachings in the Bible, or we might end up with two or three gods in a “family” of gods.

We know from other verses in the Bible that the Holy Spirit is fully God, and that he is distinct from the Father and from the Son. It then becomes natural to ask how he fits into the analogy with a family. Does he fit? It is not so obvious. The terms Father and Son occur repeatedly in the Gospel of John. But they occur less often in the immediate vicinity of a mention of the Holy Spirit. There is, however, one key set of verses, John 3:34–35, that is revealing:

For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

Let us consider this passage more closely. Verse 35 has the key words Father and Son. This verse helps to specify the key descriptions in verse 34. “He whom God has sent” is the Son. The God who “has sent” is the Father. One may also see that the giving mentioned in verse 34 is closely related to the giving in verse 35. The two are not identical. In verse 34, the Father gives “the Spirit.” In verse 35, he has given “all things into his [the Son’s] hand.” The close connection does, however, confirm that the giving in verse 34 is a giving to the Son. The giving of the Spirit to the Son “without measure” is the basis (“for”) the Son uttering “the words of God.”

The focus of the larger context is on the Son’s ability to speak the word of God in the world (as also discussed in John 17). The mission of the Son toward humanity and toward the world is empowered by the gift of the Spirit. But the background for the giving is the Father’s love for the Son, as mentioned in verse 34. This love is eternal, as confirmed by John 17:24: “You loved me before the foundation of the world.” Eternal love implies an eternal giving. And what is given by the Father to the Son? As in verse 34, it must be the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is the supreme manifestation of the Father’s love. So, as Augustine suggested, the Holy Spirit can be said to be the love between the Father and the Son. This love is neither the Father nor the Son, as it were in isolation, but a love that goes between them. In that respect, it is a kind of third “thing.”⁷

We may observe that there is an interpenetration or mutual implication among the three aspects: the Father, the Son, and the love between them. For the Father to be Father implies that he has a Son. The aspect of Sonship is, as it were, built into the Father being Father. Conversely, for the Son to be Son, he must have a Father. And as the labels “Father” and “Son” imply, the relation must be a relation of love. The Holy Spirit necessarily exists in the loving relation between the Father and the Son.

We may also reason in the reverse direction. The Holy Spirit exists as the preeminent expression of the love of God. As Jonathan Edwards observed, love implies two parties, the lover and the beloved. Hence the existence of the Father, the lover, and the Son, the beloved, is implicit in the existence of the Holy Spirit.

It might be tempting to think that we can deduce the Trinity using a purely abstract logic. But logic itself has its origin in the Trinity, who is one God who is consistent with himself. It is better, then, to see the interpenetration of the ideas of father, son, and love as an expression of the Trinity. The God who already exists declares who he is in the various biblical texts that teach the various aspects of the Trinity. The expression of the Trinity as lover, beloved, and love is one analogical expression, using the analogy with a family.

We may note in addition that meanings in the world have their ultimate origin in the inner meanings in God’s mind, the meanings of God’s plan. The original Father is God; human fathers are fathers only by virtue of a derivative relation to this original meaning. So, in terms of ultimate analysis, we start with the Trinity and move from the Trinity to analogical reflections, such as the reflection of God’s Fatherhood in human fatherhood.

The analogy with communication

A second main analogy is the analogy with communication. This analogy is used in John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Revelation 19:13 is similar:

The name by which he [Jesus Christ] is called is The Word of God.

In this analogy, the Father is the speaker. The Second Person is the Word, that is, the speech. No explicit mention is made of the Holy Spirit. But here the common designation of the Holy Spirit as “Spirit” or “Spirit of God” comes to our aid. The underlying Greek word is πνεύμα (pneuma), which can mean spirit or breath or wind, depending on context. The corresponding Hebrew word רוּחַ (ruach) can also mean spirit or breath or wind. John 3:8 plays with the two meanings of wind and spirit. Ezekiel 37, in a context resonating with the later idea of new birth in John 3, uses all three meanings in deliberate juxtaposition (vv. 1, 5, 6, 8–10, 14). In the passage as a whole we see God as the divine source for Ezekiel’s prophetic utterance. God is the speaker. God’s utterance is the word. And the breath of God represents his Spirit (v. 14). We have the triad consisting of speaker (God), word (prophecy), and breath (Spirit). It is not hard to see an eternal trinitarian source behind this particular manifestation. The Second Person of the Trinity is the Word, as we observed from John 1:1. The language in John 1:1–3 alludes to God’s speech in creating the world in Genesis 1. We may infer that the particular words recorded in Genesis 1, such as “Let there be light” (v. 3), are particularizations of the eternal Word, who is the Second Person of the Trinity. The same goes for Ezekiel’s prophesying in Ezekiel 37.

So we have a perspectival triad consisting of speaker, speech, and breath. We call it perspectival because each of the three constitutes a perspective on the other two. A speaker can be a speaker only if he speaks, which produces a speech. If we are focusing on a speaker as a speaker, it means also including his speech. Conversely, a speech—in distinction from a mere chaos of noise—implies a speaker who produces the speech with a personal intention. And any speech must have a medium. The usual medium is sound. But we have the capability of developing alternative media, such as writing, Morse code, or sign language.

We may say, then, that the three perspectives of speaker, speech, and breath are perspectives on communication. Communication is the broader category because it may include other media like writing. The archetype for human communication is the original divine communication. In the original divine communication, the Father is the speaker; the Son is the Word; and the Holy Spirit is the breath sending the speech to its destination. This communication is an eternal communication, as indicated in John 1:1, “In the beginning.” The speeches of God in creating and governing the world are subordinate expressions of the original, eternal communication.

We may add one further point. John 16:13–14 indicates that the Holy Spirit is the recipient or hearer of divine speech:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Since the Holy Spirit is eternal rather than time-bound, his hearing must be an eternal hearing. In this context, we can say that the Father is the speaker, the Son is the speech, and the Holy Spirit is the hearer.

Dorothy Sayers had this analogy with communication in mind when she considered the way in which human creative artistry reflects the Trinity.

The analogy with reflections

A third analogy is the analogy with reflections. We see it in a number of verses where the Second Person of the Trinity is the reflection of the First Person.

He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1:15)

He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature. (Heb 1:3)

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor 4:4)

The last of these verses, 2 Corinthians 4:4, appears in the context of proclaiming the gospel. So it might be claimed that it is only relevant for Jesus’s role in his incarnation. But the other two verses occur in the context of creation. They do not yet speak of the incarnation, but of the role of the Second Person in relation to the First Person, as an eternal reality.

In these verses there is no explicit mention of the Holy Spirit. Does he fit in? The argument in this case is more complex.⁸ The Holy Spirit is associated with the glory of God in 1 Peter 4:14 (“Spirit of glory”) and in some of the Old Testament passages about glory that form the background of this text (see, e.g., Isa 63:10–14). One aspect of the Old Testament background for the theme of reflections and displays is the occurrence of theophanies, appearances of God. In theophany, God the Father is made manifest in an appearance, often in human form. The human form anticipates the incarnation of Christ in the New Testament (compare Ezek 1:26–28 and Daniel 7:9–10 with Rev 1:12–16). The glory of theophany is the glory both of the Father and of the Son, a shared glory. The Holy Spirit as the “relational” person in the Trinity is fittingly associated with this glory.⁹

The archetype or ultimate pattern of imaging is in God. In God, the Father is the original, the Son is the image, and the Holy Spirit is the glory shared by them. This glory is a kind of condensation of all the attributes of God. In Exodus 33:18, Moses asks to see God’s glory. In the subsequent narrative, what God gives is a description of his attributes in 34:5–7. When we deal with cases of imaging in the world, they follow this pattern. There is an original, an image, and a relation of resemblance and common features.

Suppose that an artist makes a portrait of a human subject, such as King Charles III of England. King Charles is the original, the portrait is the image, and the resemblance between them is a relation that expresses a salient connection. All three are perspectivally related. An “original,” to be an original, implies that it is the original of one or more copies. An image is an image of an original. And both ideas—the original and the image—necessarily depend on there being a resemblance.

The analogy with action

A fourth analogy sometimes appears in discussions of trinitarian action. We may call it the “action analogy.”¹⁰ It is an analogy concerning the distinct roles of persons of the Trinity in God’s action in the world, in a large-scale view. The Father is preeminently the planner of God’s actions in the world. The Son is the executor or accomplisher of God’s actions. And the Holy Spirit is the one who applies these accomplishments in his presence in the world. We then have a triad: planning, execution, and application. This triad is in the background with some of John Frame’s discussion about his two main triads, the triad for lordship and the triad for ethics.

I have chosen not to treat this action analogy on the same level as the three earlier analogies, the analogy with a family, the analogy with communication, and the analogy with reflections. There are two reasons. One is that though this analogy applies to God’s activities in the world, it is not so clear that it directly represents eternal relations among the persons, relations before time began. The word “execution,” in particular, suggests execution of an action in the world. The second reason is that this analogy seems best understood when we look at the “big picture” of the history of the world, rather than at any one text. It is true that the Father sends the Son into the world to accomplish the mission for which the Son is sent. This kind of language of “sending” recurs a number of times, especially in the Gospel of John. The Father, as the sender, is also the planner. The Son, as the one sent, is the one who executes the plan. But the texts that speak in this way usually use the language of “Father” and “Son,” not specially the language of planner and executor. So the triad consisting in planning, executing, and applying may be treated as one expression of the triad for divine love, the triad using the analogy with a family.

Two “models” for the Trinity

The four analogies above can be correlated with the discussions about two “models” for the Trinity. The “psychological model,” associated with Augustine, compares the Trinity to three human faculties within a single individual: memory, understanding, and will. People worry that this approach overstresses the unity of God, as over against the diversity of the three persons. The three persons are not merely three faculties in the divine mind. The other model, the “social model,” compares the Trinity to a society of three persons. This model has the opposite danger of overstressing the diversity of persons, and not doing justice to the unity of one God. God is not a loose “society” of three originally independent persons.

The first analogy, the analogy with a family, has an affinity with the social model. Since a human family consisting of father and son consists of two distinct persons who are separable from each other in space, are we to conclude that the divine unity is no more than a unity of a family with several persons? If the analogy with a family were to stand alone, it could suggest such an incorrect conclusion.

The second analogy, the analogy with communication, has an affinity with the psychological model. In case of human communication, a single person can set the communication going. The single person is the speaker. His speech and his breath are distinct from him in a way, but not so that they are themselves persons distinct from the speaker.

The third analogy, the analogy with reflections, is intermediate with respect to the picture of unity and diversity. An image or reflection of an original whole is naturally conceived of as not only distinct from the original, but separable from it. Moreover, if the original is a living being, an image made by human artistry can never be equal to it. The human artist does not have the power to impart life to the picture or statue that he creates. The glory and other features that belong both to the original and to the image do not together constitute a distinct “thing,” much less a distinct person.

The fourth analogy, the action analogy, can be conceived as a special instance of the family analogy. In case of human action, the planning, the execution, and the application can be the product of three distinct human persons. If this analogy is treated as a complete theory or “model” of the Trinity, it would imply tritheism (three gods). In addition, the planning, execution, and application may all be the product of a single human person acting by himself. The single person plans, and then executes, and then applies. This picture would result in modalism, the heresy according to which God is only one person, appearing in three ways—three “modes.”

All four analogies need to be treated as analogies. Any one analogy is not a precise theory that cleanly presents to us every aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity. The analogies need to be taken together; they are complementary. We need to affirm the unity that is evident in the analogy with communication. We need simultaneously to affirm the notable diversity that is evident in the analogy with a family. In fact, we need to consider still other verses in the Bible, which do not directly use any of the four analogies, but employ other kinds of language.

Improving on the use of the triangle as an illustration

Since we have touched on the topic of “models” of the Trinity, let us pause to consider the question of their value. Theologians have observed through the centuries that God is unique. He alone is God. He is the creator, while we are creatures. No created thing give us comprehensive insight into God. We must expect, therefore, that any representation of God is not a comprehensive model, but an analogy. An analogy, in the nature of the case, is partial in character. Every analogy has limitations, or it would be an identity.

So when people suggest analogies for the Trinity, there will inevitably be limitations. One analogy is a triangle. A triangle has three sides, and at the same time it is one triangle. But this analogy, if viewed as a complete model, suggests that the three persons are three parts of God. That is wrong. God cannot be divided up into parts. Each person is the whole God, not a part of God.

Could we improve on the triangle analogy? As we have already indicated, every analogy is an analogy, a partial analogy, not an identity. But we can consider the triangle not as composed of three parts, but as containing implicitly three perspectives. Let us consider a triangle whose vertices we label as A, B, and C. We imagine an observer who observes the whole triangle from the perspective of angle A. His view includes all three vertices and all three sides. Then we have an observer observe the triangle from the perspective of angle B. He too observes the whole triangle. A third observer may observe from the perspective on angle C. There is one triangle and three perspectives. Each perspective “includes” the other two within its vision. The observer from vertex A not only can see vertex B, but can imagine in his own mind everything that the observer sees from vertex B.

Human perspectives within this world do not offer us a comprehensive model for the Trinity. But it is true, according to Matthew 11:27 and 1 Corinthians 2:10–11, that each person of the Trinity has comprehensive knowledge of God that is personally qualified—we might say a personal perspective on knowledge.¹¹ So the interpenetration of of a triad of perspectives does relate analogically to its original; namely, the Trinity.

More triads of perspectives

Are there more instances of triads of perspectives that reflect the Trinity? Yes. We can gain a way to find more triads by observing what happened in the transition between two earlier triads, the triad of perspectives related to the analogy with a family, and the triad for the action analogy. The action analogy is so general that it is hard to find a clear-cut verse in the Bible that compares it directly to the work of the Trinity and the distinct roles of the distinct persons. We can reassure ourselves that it is an appropriate analogy if we use the analogy with a family as an intermediate point with which to start our reasoning. The Father sends the Son into the world to execute his will. The Father–Son terminology evokes the analogy with a family. Since we have already confirmed from the Bible that this is an appropriate analogy for the Trinity, we can extend our reach to include the related analogy with planning, execution, and application. Or we could start our reasoning with the analogy with communication. The Father has a conception or plan that he speaks. So the analogical picture includes a movement from conception or plan to speech. The speech is powerful and executes the plan. Finally, the breath of the speaker carries the speech to its designation and evokes events and effects in the world. The breath “applies” the speech. So we can see the triad of planning, execution, and application as a kind of reflection or derivation from the already-established triad of speaker, speech, and breath.¹²

The key role of the analogy with reflections

The analogy with reflections can play a key role in understanding how it is appropriate to derive more triads of perspectives. The analogy with reflections deals with an original and its image. It is plain from Genesis 1:26–27 that humanity reflects God in a multifaceted way. This reflection includes a reflection of the imaging process itself: “When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Gen 5:3). Adam imitated or reflected God by fathering a son. God had created Adam as his image or “son” (Luke 3:38). Adam procreated Seth as his image and his son. Seth in turn had a son, Enosh (5:6). The original divine creativity and fecundity of God is reflected in a certain creaturely creativity and fecundity in producing children.

It is not a big step, then, to look for other ways in which reflections can have further reflections. So the triads with which we started, the triads for the analogy with a family, for the analogy with communication, and for the analogy with reflections, lead to further triads. For example, Frame’s triad of perspectives for ethics can be derived either from the triad for the action analogy or the triad for communication.¹³ So also for the triad for lordship and the triad for offices (prophet, king, and priest).¹⁴ In the book Knowing and the Trinity are included a number of other significant triads. In focusing on God in himself, we have the triad of abstract attributes (absolute, simple, personal), the triad for coinherence (in knowing, in power, and in indwelling), and the triad for persons (the Father’s perspective, the Son’s perspective, and the Holy Spirit’s perspective).¹⁵ In the study of language, Kenneth Pike’s triad of perspectives on theory—namely, the particle, wave, and field perspectives—lead to a host of other triads in the study of language.¹⁶

Conclusion

What do we conclude? God made everything outside himself. In doing so, in accord with his absoluteness, he needed no extra resources, resources outside of himself. He himself is the only original pattern for everything in creation. And when he creates and rules, his acts of creation and rule always express the trinitarian pattern of who he is. So it should not be surprising that the creation and its order comprehensively express and reflect the original, the Trinity. The creation order does so without any blurring of the distinction between creator and creature. But one path of confusion for the rebellious creature is to distort the presence of God in creation into a confusion between creator and creation. The trinitarian patterns are then distorted into patterns that originate either innately within the world or innately within the human mind. Fallen humanity expresses thereby its flight from God and flight from his presence. But the flight is futile. God is everywhere (Ps 139).

Related books by Vern Poythress

Knowing and the Trinity: How Perspectives in Human Knowledge Imitate the Trinity

Regular price: $17.99

Add to cart

The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God

Regular price: $44.99

Add to cart

Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing

Regular price: $20.99

Add to cart

Reading the Word of God in the Presence of God: A Handbook for Biblical Interpretation

Regular price: $24.99

Add to cart

Related articles

• Trinity or Triarchy: Is There Authority and Submission in the Godhead? by Michael F. Bird
• 3 Terms about the Trinity You Should Know & How We Got Them by Jordan Steffaniak
  How the Early Church Found the Trinity in the Old Testament by Kyle Hughes

1. This paper was presented at the ETS annual meeting, November, 14–16, 2023, at the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center, San Antonio, TX. Convention Center Room 221B, Nov. 16, 2023.
2. Readers may recognize here an allusion to Augustine’s “psychological” analogy and the “social” analogy of some recent analysts.
3. See Vern S. Poythress, “Multiperspectivalism and the Reformed Faith,” in Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame, 173–200, ed. John J. Hughes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009); Vern S. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity: How Perspectives in Human Knowledge Imitate the Trinity (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2018); Vern S. Poythress, The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2020).
4. John M. Frame, “A Primer on Perspectivalism” (Revised 2008).
5. Poythress, “Multiperspectivalism,” 185–87; Pierce T. Hibbs, The Trinity, Language, and Human Behavior: A Reformed Exposition of the Language Theory of Kenneth L. Pike (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2018).
6. Poythress, “Multiperspectivalism,” 187–88; Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1941).
7. But the word “thing” is used loosely and analogically. In the technical terminology for the Trinity, God is one substance, one “thing.” The three persons have the same substance. They are one “thing” in this sense.
8. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity, 71–75.
9. Vern S. Poythress, Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), chs. 16–17.
10. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity, 83–90.
11. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity, ch. 30.
12. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity, 90.
13. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity, ch. 13.
14. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity, chs. 14–15.
15. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity, 308–09.
16. Poythress, Knowing and the Trinity, appendices D and F.