Harmonizing Simplicity and Trinity by Analogy

Question 53: What is a good analogy for how the harmony of Trinity and Simplicity are explained?

Introduction to the Analogies of the SSGO

My systematic presentation on the concept of the Catholic God articulates God’s act of existence as fundamentally and irreducibly relational, constituting the ultimate transmundane reality that God is. In this view, the full actualization of His being is not a static essence but a dynamic relationality, manifested in the Father, Son, and Spirit as self‑standing relational modes that fully and indivisibly express the one divine essence in an eternal act of self‑givenness. I have called this total presentation the Self‑Standing Givenness Ontology “SSGO.” The SSGO, than, harmonizes Divine Simplicity and the Trinity by showing that God’s one, undivided essence fully actualizes itself in three irreducible relational modes (Father, Son, and Spirit) without composition or division, but rather as the very act of divine self‑givenness: God’s own self‑ordering principle is His act of existence and its inherent relationality. Below is a full explication of how this theology portrays, analogically, both God and humanity in preserving transcendence and immanence for God and the creator‑creature distinction for humanity. This essay also integrates the full treatment of SSGO with direct quotes and text‑fragment links from said systematic work hosted on robertdryer.com, offering a comprehensive, well‑supported exploration of how Divine Simplicity and the Trinity are harmoniously unified in the dynamic act of divine self‑givenness, that is if anyone would like to follow those links and read more.

Self‑Standing Givenness Ontology: A Trinitarian Resolution of Divine Simplicity and Trinity

The SSGO offers a uniquely Trinitarian model in which God’s active existence is understood as an eternal, irreducible act of self‑giving relationality—so that His one, undivided essence is fully expressed in three distinct yet inseparable relational modes (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). In doing so, SSGO harmonizes Divine Simplicity with the Trinity by showing that God’s oneness is not compromised by relational distinction, but rather is constituted by it.

Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity—one God in three divine Persons—has long presented a profound paradox when held alongside the classical doctrine of Divine Simplicity, which insists that God is utterly one and without parts. How can an infinite, immutable God be both absolutely simple and yet exist as three distinct, relational Persons? The Self‑Standing Givenness Ontology (SSGO), as expounded on robertdryer.com, proposes a resolution by reconfiguring God’s very being as an act of dynamic, self‑giving relationality. Rather than viewing the divine essence as a static substance divided among different centers, SSGO contends that God’s existence is the continual, living act of self‑donation that is fully and equally realized in the relational modes of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As stated on the Defending Divine Simplicity page,

“The tension between divine simplicity and the tri‑personal nature of God is resolved when we understand that God’s one essence is expressed in an eternal, dynamic act of self‑givenness.”

This foundational insight sets the stage for a model that is both faithful to the tradition and enriched by modern metaphysical clarity.

The Issue of Identity and Simplicity

At the heart of the tension between Divine Simplicity and the Trinity lies a critical identity problem. If one asserts that “Father is God” and “Son is God,” a naive application of the transitivity of identity might lead one to conclude that the Father and Son are identical—thus erasing any real distinction. However, classical Christian theology clarifies that these declarations must be understood in light of divine simplicity, otherwise we introduce the wrong problem to the doctrine of God. For example, God is not a math problem, nor is he a logic problem. One should never use bad math, or reduce God to merely an object on a logical plane of one’s bias. When we say “the Father is God,” we mean that the Father fully possesses the one divine essence; likewise, “the Son is God” means that the Son fully shares that same essence. As explained on the What is SSGO and How Does It Defend Divine Simplicity? page,

“Each divine Person is the complete expression of the one simple divine essence, distinguished solely by its unique relational mode of self‑donation.”

Thus, the relational labels “Father” and “Son” denote different relational stances rather than separate parts. The distinctions between the Persons are not compositional; they arise from how the one divine essence is given in distinct relational modes. Consequently, the standard criteria for individuation in created beings—numerical identity, composition, and distinguishing properties—do not apply to the infinite, noncomposite Being that is God. https://robertdryer.com/defending-divine-simplicity/the-monarchy-of-the-father-and-divine-simplicity/

SSGO’s Relational Resolution

The central innovation of SSGO is its assertion that God’s very nature is an eternal act of self‑giving love—a dynamic relationality that is both irreducible and self‑standing. Instead of conceiving the divine essence as a static substance “shared” among three centers, SSGO envisions it as actively expressed in three personal ways. In this model, the Father is understood as the unbegotten source, the Son as the begotten mode, and the Spirit as the proceeding mode. As SSGO explains on the Modal Collapse & Classical Simplicity Revisited page,

“By adopting relational primitives, SSGO avoids modal collapse, ensuring that God’s unity is not compromised by the coexistence of three irreducible modes.”

These relational modes serve as fundamental primitives—the “problem‑solvers” in metaphysical terms—that account for how the one divine essence is fully present in each Person without being divided. Drawing on insights from metaphysicians like Jiri Benovsky, SSGO treats the relations of origin (begetting and procession) as primitive acts of self‑givenness. In this way, each Person’s identity is defined by its unique relational stance rather than by separable parts. This approach preserves both the unity of God’s essence and the genuine distinction among the Persons.

The Analogical Model: Embrace vs. Birth

To render these abstract ideas more accessible, we can use analogy. Many pantheistic or panentheistic models use the image of a womb—suggesting that creation emerges as a child from God’s substance; and, some more creative minds paradoxically present said womb to be God’s very own womb for himself too. However, this “birth” analogy risks collapsing the creator‑creature distinction by implying that creation is merely an emanation of God’s very matter, or is him in some sense. In contrast, SSGO is more aptly analogized by an embrace. As stated on The Monarchy of the Father and Divine Simplicity page,

“The classical language of the Father’s unbegottenness underscores that the divine relations are not parts of God, but the very means by which the simple essence is fully actualized.”

Imagine an embrace between distinct individuals: each person remains fully themselves, yet their mutual intimacy creates a unifying bond of love. SSGO envisions God’s self‑givenness as an eternal, triune embrace in which the Father, Son, and Spirit remain distinct relational expressions united by love. All of reality is held within this divine embrace—not as an emanation of God’s substance, but as a gracious invitation into the dynamic, relational life of the Triune God. This model preserves the vital creator‑creature distinction while affirming that all of creation exists within the field of divine self‑givenness.

The Role of Mystery in SSGO

While SSGO provides a robust analogical framework that harmonizes Divine Simplicity with the Trinity, it also acknowledges that mystery remains at the heart of all theological discourse or its deficient theology. In one sense, the mystery arises from what might be termed the “ontological mystery”—where the concept of “nothing” (as drawn from John Scotus Eriugena’s insights referenced in the glossary on robertdryer.com) underscores that God’s relational self‑givenness transcends all creaturely categories of being. In another sense, mystery is the space that invites the soul’s conversion—an existential mystery highlighted by thinkers like Cyril O’Regan (in dialogue with Jean‑Luc Marion) where mystery becomes the transformative pathway for the soul. Thus, SSGO does not claim to resolve every enigma but rather incorporates mystery as an essential dimension, reminding us that theology is not a finished mathematical system but a living, ongoing engagement with the divine that both reveals and conceals in equal measure.

Philosophical and Biblical Grounding

SSGO is deeply rooted in both philosophical tradition and biblical revelation. Theologically, it builds on Augustine’s vision of the Trinity as a communion of love—”Father as Lover, Son as Beloved, and Spirit as the bond of love”—and on Aquinas’ formulation of Divine Simplicity, which insists that God’s attributes are not separate properties but are identical with His one undivided essence. As noted on the Scriptural Testimony: κοινωνία (koinonia) and πλήρωμα (pleroma) page,

“Scripture reveals that God’s relational life—the koinonia and pleroma—is the foundation upon which the unity and distinctiveness of the Trinity are built.”

Furthermore, the article Why the Bible is Trinitarian reinforces that the biblical witness consistently presents God as both one and three, using relational language that SSGO interprets as the dynamic self‑givenness of the Triune God.

On the modern philosophical front, Rethinking Divine Simplicity: A Meta‑Metaphysical Reconfiguration observes:

“Modern metaphysical insights reconfigure the doctrine of Divine Simplicity by showing that relational self‑givenness is not an added feature but the very ground of God’s undivided nature.”

Finally, The Premier Case Against Unitarianism underscores:

“By affirming that each Person fully possesses the one divine essence through distinct relational modes, SSGO decisively refutes unitarian approaches that collapse the Trinity into a single, undifferentiated entity.”

Together, these scriptural and philosophical supports anchor SSGO in a tradition that spans from the early Church Fathers through Aquinas to modern metaphysical thought, affirming both the unity of God and the essential relational distinctions within the Trinity.

Conclusion

The Self‑Standing Givenness Ontology provides a robust and coherent resolution to one of theology’s most enduring puzzles: how to reconcile the absolute oneness of God with the reality of the Trinity. By asserting that God’s active existence is an eternal act of self‑giviveness—expressed in three irreducible relational modes—SSGO demonstrates that divine unity and relational diversity are not contradictory but are two facets of the same divine reality. God’s one, undivided essence is not diminished by the distinct relational stances of the Father, Son, and Spirit; rather, the very act of relational self‑gift is what fully actualizes the divine essence.

Analogously, while pantheistic models might portray reality as the “womb of God”—suggesting that creation is an emanation of divine substance—SSGO is better captured by the image of an embrace. In this embrace, all of reality is held within the dynamic, loving self‑gift of the Triune God, yet creation remains distinct from the divine essence, preserving the essential creator‑creature distinction.

In conclusion, SSGO attempts to offer you, my dear reader, a sublime vision of the Triune God that is both profoundly mysterious and intellectually rigorous. By asserting that God’s active existence is an eternal act of self‑givenness, fully actualized in three irreducible relational modes, SSGO harmonizes Divine Simplicity and the Trinity without dissolving the sacredness of the Catholic vision or its essential doctrines (such as the creator‑creature distinction), which are of paramount importance to me, and I hope, to you as well. I trust that it provides a compelling framework for understanding not only how a classical paradox can be reconciled but also how theology’s task is to enthrall us with both intellectual satisfaction and spiritual inspiration. May the analogy of God’s embrace-and your participation in that embrace-be seen as timeless, just as our God is eternal.

What is a good analogy than for how the harmony of Trinity and Simplicity are explained?

The harmony of Divine Simplicity and the Trinity is like a sublime embrace of God towards the beatific vision, in which the one undivided essence of God unfolds in three distinct-yet inseparable-modes of eternal donation of all that it means to be God.