Harmonizing Simplicity and Trinity by Analogy

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

Introduction to the Principle of Relationality (formerly SSGO)

My theological presentation of God articulates His essence as fundamentally relational—a dynamic, eternal act of self-giving love. Rather than conceiving God’s essence as a static substance, I propose that His being is actively and eternally realized in relational self-donation. This divine reality is expressed fully and indivisibly through three irreducible relational modes—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each entirely manifesting the single divine essence. I originally termed this model the Self-Standing Givenness Ontology (SSGO), now developed and referred to as the Principle of Relationality.

This Principle harmonizes Divine Simplicity and the Trinity by demonstrating that God’s singular, undivided essence does not fracture or divide when expressed relationally. Instead, relationality is the essence itself—God’s very act of existence is His inherent relational self-gift, constituting His eternal self-ordering principle. Below is a comprehensive exploration of how my theology analogically portrays both God and humanity, carefully preserving divine transcendence and immanence as well as the essential creator-creature distinction.

The Principle of Relationality: Resolving the Trinity and Divine Simplicity

The Principle of Relationality offers a distinctly Trinitarian model of God’s existence: the divine essence is an eternal, irreducible act of self-giving relationality. God’s singular, undivided being is wholly actualized through three distinct but inseparable relational modes—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This relational structure harmonizes divine simplicity with genuine Trinitarian distinctions, showing that relationality does not divide God but constitutes His very unity.

Addressing the Issue of Identity and Simplicity

At the core of the apparent tension between divine simplicity and the Trinity lies a critical question of identity. When we say “the Father is God” and “the Son is God,” a simplistic logical approach might mistakenly conclude they are identical, erasing all genuine distinction. Classical Christian theology clarifies this misunderstanding: the Persons are not identical in a strictly logical or numerical sense. Rather, the Father, Son, and Spirit each fully possess the same divine essence through distinct relational identities—unbegottenness, begottenness, and procession—rather than as separate parts or properties.

This is why traditional standards of numerical identity and individuation used for creatures do not apply to God, who is infinite, simple, and non-composite. As explained elsewhere in my systematic presentation, each divine Person is “the complete expression of the one simple divine essence, distinguished solely by its unique relational mode of self-donation.”

The Principle’s Relational Resolution

Central to the Principle of Relationality is the insight that God’s very essence is an eternal act of self-giving love—an irreducible, self-standing relationality. Rather than thinking of divine essence as passively shared or subdivided among Persons, my approach sees it actively expressed in three personal modes: the Father as unbegotten source, the Son as eternally begotten, and the Spirit as eternally proceeding. Inspired by metaphysicians such as Jiri Benovsky and theologians like Jean-Luc Marion, I present these relational modes as metaphysical primitives—fundamental, irreducible “problem solvers”—that prevent modal collapse and sustain true relational distinction without compromising unity.

In this manner, each Person’s identity is defined entirely by its relational stance, not by separable parts or divisible essence, preserving divine unity alongside real differentiation.

The Analogical Model: Embrace versus Birth

To illustrate this nuanced understanding more clearly, an analogy is helpful. Pantheistic and panentheistic models often rely on a “birth” or “womb” analogy, implying creation directly emanates from God’s substance. Such an analogy, however, risks collapsing the essential creator-creature distinction by suggesting creation is, in some way, a direct extension of God’s own essence.

In contrast, the Principle of Relationality is more accurately captured by the analogy of a loving embrace. Imagine a profound, intimate embrace: each participant fully remains distinct, yet they are united through mutual love and self-giving. Similarly, God’s relational essence is an eternal embrace among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All reality—creation itself—is enveloped by this divine embrace, held securely in God’s relational self-giving without becoming an emanation of His substance. Thus, the embrace analogy preserves the vital distinction between creator and creation, while fully expressing the relational dynamic of divine simplicity.

Mystery within the Principle of Relationality

Although my approach provides clarity, it also fully acknowledges mystery as central to theological reflection. Theology is not a closed system or mathematical formula but a living encounter with the transcendent reality of God. Drawing from mystical and philosophical insights—from John Scotus Eriugena’s apophatic theology to Cyril O’Regan’s engagement with Jean-Luc Marion—I embrace mystery as a necessary and transformative dimension. Theology reveals but also conceals, inviting ongoing contemplation and spiritual growth rather than definitive closure.

Philosophical and Biblical Grounding

The Principle of Relationality is deeply anchored in both philosophical tradition and biblical revelation. Philosophically, it aligns with Augustine’s vision of the Trinity as relational communion—Father as Lover, Son as Beloved, Spirit as Love itself—and Aquinas’s insistence on divine simplicity as identical with God’s pure act of being.

Biblically, it is grounded in Scripture’s consistent portrayal of God’s essence as relational love and dynamic self-giving (koinonia, pleroma), themes I explore in depth on my site. This biblical witness is thoroughly Trinitarian, presenting God as both one and three through explicitly relational language, thereby affirming the Principle’s central claims.

Moreover, my model refutes unitarianism precisely by affirming that each Person fully possesses the divine essence through relational modes, not through shared or divided substance. These insights harmonize the classical heritage of the Church Fathers, medieval scholasticism, and contemporary metaphysical reflection.

Conclusion

The Principle of Relationality provides a coherent solution to the enduring theological paradox of reconciling divine simplicity and Trinitarian distinction. It asserts that God’s essence is eternally realized as a dynamic act of self-giving relationality, expressed through three distinct yet inseparable relational modes. Divine unity and relational diversity are thus two aspects of the same divine reality, rather than contradictory or incompatible ideas.

Analogically, while pantheistic approaches depict creation emerging from God’s own substance, the embrace analogy vividly illustrates the Principle of Relationality. All creation is lovingly held within the embrace of God’s relational essence, maintaining the crucial creator-creature distinction. This analogy underscores divine simplicity as active, relational fullness rather than abstract simplicity.

Thus, when the Bible says, “so God can be all in all,” my theological vision offers a deeply Catholic synthesis to this view analogically so that is intelligible (as what’s more intelligible than relation!?): an intellectually rigorous yet spiritually enriching. It invites readers into the eternal divine embrace, where the one undivided essence of God is dynamically and eternally unfolded in the tri-personal act of divine self-giving love. This, I believe, provides both intellectual satisfaction and profound spiritual inspiration, continually inviting us deeper into the mystery of the Trinity’s eternal embrace.

One final note. This analogy is superior to other non-catholic views because it allows for a proper (orthodox) Christology where our mother is the very womb and architype for what this analogy points to… if that makes sense? Mary’s womb literally and sacramentally carried Christ, embodying the profound mystery of creation’s ultimate purpose: to hold and bring forth divine life in perfect relational self-givenness. Thus, Mary stands as the quintessential icon of this analogy, grounding the relational structure in concrete, incarnational terms. This basically roots my view in a deep Catholicism and tradition and provides a space for theological coherence, spiritual depth, and explanatory power unmatched by other analogies.