A Comprehensive Trinitarian Theology: Uniting Divine Simplicity and Relational Ontology

Introduction

The Holy Trinity, a central doctrine in Christian theology, has captivated theologians throughout history. In this paper, I propose a model of the Trinity within the framework of Catholic Analytic Theology, departing from previous traditional metaphysical contexts and consistently utilizing a relational approach for contemporary relevance. Drawing inspiration from Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Eriugena, Aquinas, and Maximus the Confessor, this paper will unfold a properly analytic theological formula for the triune and simple God: (3)PA[DivAP, DivIO]=[Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis]. This formal model aims to illuminate the relational nature of the triune God while upholding the principle of Divine Simplicity in a conceptually precise way to theological data.

Unpacking the Left Side of the Formula: (3)PA[DivAP, DivIO] – The Trinity in Terms of Immanence

The left side of the equation, (3)PA[DivAP, DivIO], represents the relational ontology of the Trinitarian Persons – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the “3”). Let’s break down what each symbol means. It’s actually quite simple.

Pure Agency and Divine Actualized Potential

Pure Agency (PA): the unadulterated action and relational capability of each Person of the Trinity, fully expressing, embodying, and representing the divine essence in its transcendent and immanent dimensions, free from temporal, spatial, or sensory constraints. (When this paper uses high level theological language around pure, infinity, beyond, and transcendent like language about God, one can think of it as not merely a prepositional form, but as more of a logical space that is a gap or a glut. That is, there is a kind difference, kind of like how the cultures of ants and humans are much different so one can use that kind of language for human culture in a sense. This will be key for theological sources especially in future papers when we focus on the bible, because the language is wrought with allegory like language and prepositional language that entails this reference by way of gap and glut of content.)

The concept of Pure Agency (PA) finds resonance in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus, who emphasized the active and relational nature of the divine Persons. Gregory highlighted the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as dynamic agents engaged in mutual love and relationship. For example, in his Fifth Theological Oration, he writes: “The Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son, not by any temporal or local division, but by His force and power, beholding the beauty of the image in the mirror of the Mind.” This understanding aligns with the notion of Pure Agency, emphasizing the active participation of each Person in the divine life.

Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP): This term indicates the state where all qualities and capacities inherent to the divine essence are actualized in each Person of the Trinity, demonstrating the perfection of the divine essence in each Person. It emphasizes the actuality of all that is divinely possible without implying change or potentiality.

Augustine, in his exploration of the Trinity, emphasized the distinct yet equal nature of the divine Persons. He acknowledged the full actualization of divine attributes within each Person, affirming their unique roles in the economy of salvation. For instance, Augustine writes in The Trinity: “The Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, but they are all one being, one substance, one God.” This understanding reflects the concept of Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP), where the qualities and capacities of the divine essence are fully realized in each Person.

Divine Infinite Openness and the Immanence of the Trinity

Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO): This term captures the boundless, limitless nature of the divine essence as embodied in each Person of the Trinity. It represents the infinite possibilities inherent in the divine essence, open to and actualized by each Person, emphasizing the expansive and dynamic nature of God’s being.

Eriugena as Scaffold for DivIO

Eriugena contemplated the immanence of God within creation, viewing the divine as both transcendent and immanent. His Divine Infinite Openness like concept finds expression in his understanding of God’s infinite presence and interaction with the world. For example, Eriugena writes in Periphyseon: “All things that are in any way known, are known by God; and whatever is not known by Him does not exist” (book 1, section 444). Eriugena’s perspective emphasizes the immanent presence of God and the boundless nature of divine interaction.

The philosophy of Eriugena in the Periphyseon is aligned with many contemplations on the immanence of God within creation, viewing the divine as both transcendent and immanent. Eriugena’s conception of the act of creation is as a kind of self-manifestation wherein the hidden transcendent God creates himself by manifesting himself in divine outpourings or theophanies. He asserts that God’s transcendent otherness above creatures allows creatures to be within God and yet other than God. He stresses both the divine transcendence above and immanence in creation. The immanence of God in the world is at the same time the immanence of creatures within God. Eriugena writes in Periphyseon, as quoted by the encyclopedia cited below…”…that God and the creature should not be understood as two things distinct from one another, but as one and the same. For both the creature, by subsisting, is in God; and God, by manifesting himself, in a marvelous and ineffable manner creates himself in the creature…”​¹​.

I put the quoted material from the Encyclopedia in Italics vs. Eriugena’s words in quotes. Citation for the philosophy of Eriugena and within his Periphyseon quote is as follows: Moran, D., & Guiu, A. (2019). “John Scottus Eriugena.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)​¹​.

Maximus as Scaffold for DivIO

Maximus the Confessor’s writings provide insights into the immanence of the Trinity and the dynamic presence of the divine within creation. He emphasized the unity-in-diversity within the Trinitarian Persons and their mutual indwelling. Maximus writes in On The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ writes: “In becoming incarnate the Logos of God instructs us in theologia, since he shows in himself the Father and the Holy Spirit.”¹ This understanding aligns with the concept of Divine Infinite Openness, emphasizing the continuous interaction of the Trinity within the immanent reality.

Quote comes from footnote 26 in: Confessor, St. Maximus the, and Paul M. Blowers. On the cosmic mystery of jesus christ. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003.¹

Immanence in our model here is similar to these two greats thoughts, but precisely refers to the broader concept in Christian theology, that typically refers to the pervasive presence throughout creation of God, balanced with His transcendence or independence from it. The term “Immanentia Omnis” latin for all immanence is the signifier for the equivalent and means the roughly the same just with the interval conceptual emphasis (God’s intimate and all-encompassing presence within the created universe). DivIO is a conceptually equivalent term to Immanentia omnis just it’s in more personalistic terms. 

Synthesis

The synthesis of insights from Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Eriugena, Maximus the Confessor, and Aquinas enriches our understanding of (3)PA[DivAP, DivIO] as a framework for comprehending the Trinity in terms of immanence. Through their writings, we see concrete examples that highlight the relational dynamics, unity-in-diversity, and active involvement of the divine Persons within creation.

By embracing the concept of Pure Agency (PA), Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP), and Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO), we gain a deeper appreciation of the Trinity’s immanent presence and its impact on our understanding of the divine mystery. The examples from Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Eriugena, Maximus the Confessor, and Aquinas emphasize the active participation of the divine Persons, the actualization of divine attributes, and the infinite presence and interaction of the Trinity within creation. Together, they provide a comprehensive framework for comprehending the immanence of the Trinity and its significance in our faith journey.

Unpacking the Right Side of the Formula: [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis] – The Trinity in Terms of the Interval

The right side of the equation, [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis], represents the dynamic reality of divine transcendence and immanence within the Trinitarian framework. By drawing from the teachings of Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Eriugena, Maximus the Confessor, and Aquinas, we can examine concrete examples that illuminate the significance of (3)PA[DivAP, DivIO] as a theological framework. This part of the paper will explore their works, demonstrating how they contribute to our understanding of the Trinity in terms of the interval represented by [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis].

Immanentia Omnis: Embracing God’s All-Encompassing Immanence

Immanence: In Christian theology, immanence refers to God’s pervasive presence throughout creation, balanced with His transcendence or independence from it. The term “Immanentia Omnis” or Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO) has been proposed to encapsulate this concept, signifying God’s intimate and all-encompassing presence within the created universe.

Immanentia Omnis, than, is a proposed Latin term (“All Immanence”) representing the scope of divine immanence, referring to the three Persons of the Trinity, is to counterpart what Actus Purus does for expressing transcendence but in immanent terms. As an interval, it is the conceptual device that can be characterized as the full scope of Immanence. The state in which, In God, all presence is proximate and all proximity pervades. This represents the constant interaction with creation, with God operating within the bounds of the universe while simultaneously transcending them.

Gregory of Nazianzus, in his writings, emphasized the immanent presence of God. He spoke of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as actively involved in creation and intimately connected with the world. Gregory writes in his Second Theological Oration (2nd oration in the Vladamir Press book but also Oration 28 in other sources): “How, again, can justice be done to the scriptural fact that God pervades and fills the universe (“‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ says the Lord,”36 and, “The spirit of the Lord fills the world”37) if part of it limits him and part of it is limited by him?” Gregory’s understanding of the immanence of the Trinity aligns with the concept of Immanentia Omnis, emphasizing the pervasive presence of God throughout creation.

Eriugena contemplated the immanence of God within creation, viewing the divine as both transcendent and immanent. His understanding of God’s infinite presence and interaction with the world resonates with the concept of Immanentia Omnis. Eriugena writes in Periphyseon: “All things that are in any way known, are known by God; and whatever is not known by Him does not exist.” This perspective underscores the immanent presence of God and the boundless nature of divine interaction within the created universe.

Maximus the Confessor also provides insights into the immanence of the Trinity and the dynamic presence of the divine within creation. His emphasis on the unity-in-diversity within the Trinitarian Persons and their mutual indwelling aligns with the concept of Immanentia Omnis. Maximus writes in Mystagogia: “The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, not as contained by either, but as co-penetrating each other, both naturally and hypostatically.” This understanding emphasizes the continuous interaction of the Trinity within the immanent reality.

Actus Purus: God’s Complete Actualization and Perfection

In Thomistic theology, “actus purus” is a term that he used to describe God in his own unique act of existence. Aquinas never actually says those words (that this writer could find) but he did adopt Aristotle’s metaphysical principles of act and potency to articulate the nature of God. Aquinas argued that God is pure act (actus) without any potentiality (potentia), meaning that God is fully actualized, having no unrealized potentials or unfulfilled capacities. This is why God is often referred to as Actus Purus in later Thomistic and scholastic thought, but Aquinas himself did not use this specific term.

In Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, specifically in Part 1, Question 3, Article 1, he puts forth an argument suggesting that God cannot be corporeal. He lists numerous reasons supporting this view, a critical one being the idea that God embodies “actus purus”, or pure act, devoid of any potentiality. Aquinas asserts, “Given that God cannot contain any potentiality and every physical form is inherently potential due to its infinitely divisible nature, it is implausible for God to be a physical body.”

Just to emphasize the point, while the term “actus purus” may not explicitly appear in Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, the concept it represents permeates his work. Within the realm of scholastic philosophy, “actus purus” represents God’s absolute perfection, emphasizing that God is concurrently everything He could possibly be, infinitely existing and infinitely flawless. This concept springs from the principle that God’s characteristics or actions are fundamentally indistinguishable from His essence, and His essence, in turn, necessitates His existence.

Moreover, Aquinas explores this principle in the context of potentiality and actuality. According to him, anything that requires completion through another entity is considered potential towards that other. This potentiality becoming reality is referred to as actuality. He perceives the cosmos as a sequence of entities arranged in a hierarchy of potentiality and actuality, all of which were created and are surmounted by God, the embodiment of Pure Act.

In his discussion of God’s simplicity, Aquinas further elaborates that God can be construed as the act of all acts, the epitome of all perfections and the most flawless Being. This divine entity encompasses all possible determinations, precluding any further addition, representing the ultimate real perfection.

Similarly, Augustine contributes to our understanding of Actus Purus through his contemplation of God’s perfection and unchanging nature. He writes in The Trinity: “In You, nothing changes, nor can there be a trace of imperfection.” Augustine’s exploration of God’s immutability aligns with the concept of Actus Purus, emphasizing God’s complete actualization and perfection without any potentiality or change.

Transcendence here, for the interval model, means the “Full Scope” of God’s transcendence. In theological terms, transcendence refers to the aspect of God’s nature that is wholly independent of, and beyond, the material universe and all known physical laws. This concept is embodied in the doctrine of Actus Purus, or Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP), emphasizing God’s complete actualization, denoting His perfection, autonomy, and self-sufficiency. In God, all that transcends is actual and all actuality transcends. Each Person of the Trinity represents this unity of transcendence and immanence, actualizing all divine potentials in an infinitely open manner within the immanent reality of creation, while maintaining divine self-sufficiency and perfection.

The Interval: Harmonizing Divine Simplicity and Trinity

The interval represented by [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis] harmonizes the concepts of Divine Simplicity and the Trinity. It encompasses the full scope of divine transcendence and immanence within a unified interval, representing the dynamic and relational understanding of the divine nature. This conceptual device allows us to grasp the simultaneous operation of God within the bounds of the universe while transcending them. It captures the relational dynamics, unity-in-diversity, and perpetual interaction of the Trinitarian Persons within creation.

Maximus the Confessor, as an important figure in the development of Christian theology, certainly contributes to this conversation. Maximus’s concept of “theosis” or divinization, for instance, represents a particular interaction between divine and human realms. This belief holds that humans can participate in the divine life, thereby embodying Immanentia Omnis.

However, it’s important to remember that Maximus, like many early church fathers, did not develop his theology in the language of Actus Purus and Immanentia Omnis. These concepts have been refined over centuries of theological discussion. Maximus, in his own context, was dealing with Christological controversies and was especially concerned with the union of divine and human natures in Christ. His thoughts on this union certainly resonate with later understandings of God’s immanence and transcendence, even if he did not express them in the same terms.  

A quote from Maximus’s “Ambigua” is often used to summarize his perspective: “God always was and always is and always will be… and always is to be. But what is is uncreated and imperishable, for it is complete, and completely full. It did not lack anything so as to have it filled. Hence, it is always complete.”

Here, Maximus suggests God’s complete actualization and omnipresence, hinting at the ideas of Actus Purus and Immanentia Omnis. The language is different, but there are certainly overlaps with the later philosophical and theological developments you’re discussing. In general, Maximus’s theology provides a fascinating perspective on the dynamic interplay between divine immanence and transcendence. 

The apparent contradiction between the Trinity and Divine Simplicity arises from the seeming incompatibility between the idea of God being One (Divine Simplicity) and the idea of God being Three (Trinity). 

Divine Simplicity suggests that God is not composed of parts and is absolutely unified in essence, meaning there’s no distinction within God’s nature. On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God exists in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If these Persons are distinct from each other, then it seems that God’s essence is divided among them, which contradicts Divine Simplicity.

Now, given the terms and definitions provided throughout this paper let’s reformulate an argument to demonstrate the power of this side of the model, because it really does sold the apparent contradiction between Simplicity and Trinity….

Premise 1: God is simple, meaning God is not composed of parts and is absolutely unified in essence (Divine Simplicity).

Premise 2: God exists in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each fully embodying the divine essence (Trinity).

Premise 3: These three Persons embody Pure Agency (PA), which is the unadulterated action and relational capability of each Person of the Trinity, fully expressing, embodying, and representing the divine essence in its transcendent and immanent dimensions, free from temporal, spatial, or sensory constraints.

Premise 4: Each Person of the Trinity actualizes all divine potentials (Divine Actualized Potential, DivAP) in an infinitely open manner (Divine Infinite Openness, DivIO), representing the full scope of divine immanence (Immanentia Omnis, IO).

Premise 5: Interval T = [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis] represents the dynamic, relational understanding of the divine nature within the framework of the Trinity. It comprises the domains of Actus Purus and Immanentia Omnis, marking the full spectrum of the divine reality. This “Interval” bridges the realms of transcendence and immanence.

Premise 6: Transcendence (Full Scope) embodies God’s nature that is wholly independent of, and beyond, the material universe and all known physical laws. Each Person of the Trinity actualizes all divine potentials (DivAP) within the immanent reality of creation while maintaining divine self-sufficiency and perfection.

Premise 7: Each Person of the Trinity participates in an ongoing relational conversation (a relational ontology), intimately interpenetrating one another in a perichoretic dance of mutual indwelling. This interaction isn’t bound by temporal, spatial, or sensory constraints, reflecting the infinite openness of their being.

Conclusion: Therefore, God can be understood as absolutely simple in essence, while simultaneously existing in three distinct Persons. Each Person fully embodies, actualizes, and represents the divine essence in both its transcendent and immanent dimensions. This allows for a conception of God that is both simple and triune, harmonizing the doctrines of Divine Simplicity and the Trinity. The distinction between the Persons is relational rather than substantial, which means the divine essence remains unified even though it is expressed in three relational ways.

The key to this argument is the recognition that the distinction between the Persons of the Trinity is a relational distinction rather than a distinction of essence or substance. This allows us to maintain the absolute simplicity of God’s essence while also acknowledging the relational diversity of the Persons of the Trinity. Thus, it reconciles the apparent contradiction between Divine Simplicity and the Trinity.

For a more elaborate contextualization of this argument one can supplement it with an identity theory which I’ve developed on my website here if one wants to follow up and go deeper: https://robertdryer.com/god-is-immanentia-omnis-divine-confluent-identity-theory-dcit-for-solving-the-simplicity-trinity-problem/

Synthesis and Conclusion

The insights of Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Eriugena, Maximus the Confessor, and Aquinas enrich our understanding of the Trinity and are our scaffolding to the terms of the interval expressed by [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis]. Through their works, we recognize the immanent presence of God within creation, the complete actualization and perfection of God, and the harmonization of divine simplicity and relational dynamics within the Trinitarian framework. This comprehensive theological framework deepens our understanding of the Trinity, inviting us to explore the profound mysteries of God’s immanence and transcendence.