God is Immanentia Omnis: The Theological Harmony of Divine Simplicity and Trinity
In my prior work (posted yesterday), I proposed a unique conceptual framework to reconcile the doctrines of Divine Simplicity and the Trinity, symbolized as T = [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis]. This model was grounded within a relational ontology and relational identity theory.
The reconciliation was born from a deep emphasis on God’s immanence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A broad spectrum of each Person’s divinity provided a basis for an identity claim where the Trinity and Divine Simplicity could harmoniously coexist. This was due to the unique context and conditions of the Persons’ existence, and a remodeling of identity which allowed for these terms to be articulated as such.
However, as this reconciliation was framed within a technically precise philosophical construct, the exposition, while rigorous, appeared austere and somewhat obscure. It demanded a certain familiarity with both philosophy and theological history, which might have limited its accessibility.
I initiated this exploration into modeling God with an extensive glossary of terms, revisiting them consistently throughout our discourse. Whether it was conjecturing about the extent to which personhood could be stretched as a concept, matching the traditional understanding of Persons in the Trinity, or presenting a new model of God within a relational ontology, or framing this model within a technically precise identity theory context. I have examined this model (T = [AP, IO]) from multiple angles and have successfully utilized this glossary a few times. As we transition from the technical philosophical underpinnings of this problem, particularly the nuances of identity, I will continue to rely on these terms.
They can be found at this location: https://robertdryer.com/god-is-immanentia-omnis-defining-terms/
We now aim to reshape our understanding of the analogical interval as a theological clarification of the Trinity, harmoniously coexisting with the concept of Divine Simplicity, in a less rigorous manner to make the model more accessible. I’m uncertain how many different angles I’ll need to cover with this model of God to present the case for it, but I appreciate your perseverance if you’ve been following my papers on the subject.
Simplicity Talk and Trinity Talk-together-in the Tradition is Often Normative
In my previous paper, I mentioned Gregory of Nyssa and his catechetical discourse, where he proposed a concept of God that navigated between ancient Greek polytheism and ancient Jewish monotheism. In that brief discussion, I portrayed the saint as encouraging his readers to adopt a golden mean-like concept of the God we serve and are baptized into through the Trinity doctrine. However, after revisiting those texts, I must revise my recollection of his teachings on the subject in his catechism. It seems he was more apologetic and focused on proper piety or an ethical view of God in light of the revelation we have in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit from the Father.
I’ve included key quotes from the text, it is basically encouraging you to read it for yourself and gain an understanding of his apologetic mission of presenting the hope we have derived from Mother Church.
I was close in my reading, but Gregory’s emphasis is different than I recall. But even here, over 1600 years ago, the Saint advocates a Trinity doctrine as proper piety and expression, not merely a rational case for God in comparison to other world views. Interestingly, there are parts of his explanation of the Trinity where he situates the doctrine in a relational context.
My model of God shouldn’t be surprising as being in consonance with St. Gregory of Nyssa, the Church Doctors, and classic Catholic dogma. After all, the concept of God I’m modeling through the interval convention and analogy is just classical theism. The novel move is that I have situated it within a relational ontology, but other than that, it’s quite in line with tradition. Half the formula presupposes the historical work done on the Actus Purus doctrine for example. A model of God, even if novel, that leans on classical Christian theism, has a plethora of resources to draw upon. If one is lacking in this tradition, they may not fully grasp the strength of my claims as much of the conceptual work has been done over several centuries from countless angles.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental tenet of Christianity, affirming the unity of God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity asserts that God is without parts, not composed of anything other than Himself. The reconciliation between these two concepts, as presented in this body of work (Classical theism), is a reflection of centuries of theological thought and philosophical exploration.
Indeed, it’s vital to remember that my endeavor is not creating an entirely new doctrine, but rather presenting a unique perspective on existing theological concepts. By building on the foundations laid by theological luminaries such as Gregory of Nyssa, this work seeks to provide a fresh lens through which to explore these intricate and profound doctrines.
However, I am aware that this approach might be demanding and might seem obscure, especially for those unfamiliar with philosophy and theological history. For that reason, I am committed to providing comprehensive definitions and explanations throughout this discourse. As we delve deeper into this complex subject matter, it will be important to frequently revisit and refresh our understanding of these foundational terms and concepts.
In the end, the aim of this endeavor is to deepen our understanding and appreciation of the profound mystery of God as revealed in Christian tradition. I appreciate your patience and engagement as we navigate these intricate theological landscapes together. I do not yet know the full range of perspectives I will need to explore to adequately present my model and case, but I look forward to the continued journey, grateful for your companionship along the way. Pray that I represents the God in Christ by the spirit towards the father, with a proper piety as Gregory of Nyssa would say Saint Gregory pray for us sinners!
A less controversial character and actual doctor of the Church is another Gregory, of Nazianzus, who is helpful here. He writes on the trinity in both immanence and simplicity terms in the same chapter of Oration 23. In an I immanent frame he writes,
“We, however, are a different sort. We concur and agree regarding the Godhead in no less a fashion than the Godhead is in internal agreement with itself, if it is not presumptuous to say this; and we have become one lip and one language, but in an opposite way from those who once built the tower. They were unanimous in their pursuit of an evil end, whereas our efforts toward harmony have as their object every highest good, the exalting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with one heart and one voice that it may be said of us, and not only said, but also believed, that God is really “among us,” who unites those who unite him and exalts those who exalt him.“ Oration, 23:4.
And in a vein of divine simplicity Gregory of Nazianzus writes, “…a nature that is in internal agreement with itself, is ever the same, ever perfect, without quality or quantity, independent of time, uncreated, incomprehensible, never self-deficient, nor ever so to be, lives and life, lights and light, goods and good, glories and glory, true and the truth, and the “Spirit of truth,” holies and holiness itself; each one God, if contemplated separately, because the mind can divide the indivisible; the three God, if contemplated collectively, because their activity and nature are the same; which neither rejected anything in the past as superfluous to itself nor asserted superiority over any other thing for there has been none; nor shall leave anything to survive it or will assert superiority over anything in the future, for there will be none such; nor admits to its presence anything of equal honor since no created or servile thing, nothing which participates or is circumscribed can attain to its nature, which is both uncreated and sovereign, participated in and infinite. For some things are remote from it in every respect; others come close to it with varying success and will continue to do so, and this not by nature, but as a result of participation, and precisely when, by serving the Trinity properly, they rise above servitude, unless in fact freedom and dominion consist of this very thing, attaining a proper knowledge of sovereignty and refusing to confound things that are distinct because of a poverty of intellect.” Oration 23:11.
Immanentia Omnis derived from Participation?: Creed, Confession, Prayer
The theological task of harmonizing and placing divine simplicity with Trinity is so that we can do justice to the faith we have received in Christ. We want to confess this God is with us actually. Unbeknownst to the Gregorys the math is actually quite simple to do and I am surprise. No one has done it before. The expression of the trinity has an analogical interval really is as simple as saying the trinity means the scope of transcendence expressed through a proper doctrine like say act is pure us is in fact, not complete unless it is paired as a singular in trouble with the scope of eminence, we find in the name of the father son in spirit. This full scope of eminence just needs a proper conceptualization and confession, like we have with expressions of divine simplicity. But the fact is the reason a tidy doctrine of eminence has never been developed, quite as popular as say, the doctrine of Actus Purus it’s because of the eminent language of the father son in spirit is baked into the face as early as baptismal confessions began to be practice in the early church. In fact, I’ve read that the apostles creed was used as a baptismal formula somewhere around Rome as early as the 200s, and that’s not to mention that our Lord himself gives the divine name, a proper singularity in the baptismal confession and language he gave. Arguably his baptismal formula is a semantic consequence that is there is meaning and saying the father, son and Holy Spirit share a singular name, since it is a semantics and entails meaning it is an eminent frame. It should not be controversial to say that the The full scope of the divine persons eminence.
The theological task of harmonizing and reconciling divine simplicity with the Trinity seems important to the task of faith we have received in Christ in some sense, which I why I’ve spent so many words developing the interval model of God here on my website. I think most Christians, at least I speak for myself as one, aspire to genuinely affirm that God is indeed with us. Surprisingly, the calculation is quite straightforward, and it’s astonishing that no one has previously done the math.
The Trinity’s expression, which also possesses an analogical interval congruent with divine simplicity, should be a common theological theme. However, it seems it often isn’t. In my view, stating that the Trinity embodies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a unified, active, ongoing agency isn’t wholly expressed unless accompanied by the recognition of the exalted, simple, transcendent nature we find in the names of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This subject, more often than not, is presented as a mystery and paradox, which shouldn’t necessarily be the case.
To adequately understand and articulate this exalted divine nature in succinct immanent terms, one should formulate an appropriate conceptualization and confession, akin to how we handle expressions of divine simplicity. Concepts such as absolute divine simplicity, the Actus Purus doctrine, and “ipsum esse subsistens” are readily available in theological discourse, requiring little explanation for the initiated. But why hasn’t a concise doctrine of immanence gained equivalent popularity?
One possible explanation might be that the exalted language of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has been ingrained in our faith since the early Church practiced baptismal confessions. Indeed, we confess during every Mass that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that the Spirit is the giver of life. Elements of the Apostles’ Creed, traced back to the earliest Christian teachings, are now ubiquitous despite their precise form and widespread use having developed over time. Its origins and early usage aren’t definitively documented, but evidence suggests it started being developed as early as the 200s.
Despite the Apostle’s Creed’s history being in a bit ambiguity, its language is immanent, and Christians regularly confess it during Church participation and prayer. Importantly, our Lord Himself provides the divine name, establishing a singular identity within the baptismal confession. Christ’s baptismal formula carries a “semantic consequence” according to the philosophy of language, suggesting that there is significant meaning in saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a singular name. Since this entails meaning, we can argue that an immanent framework emerges.
It should not be controversial to state that the full scope of divine persons embodies immanence, just as we find various categories around divine simplicity. Whether we’re naming God, confessing the Person’s nature, or praying to and in their name, the scope of the Divine Person’s is the fullest extent of immanent expression about God. This divine triad embodies all immanence if you will.
To encapsulate the scope of immanence we orthodox Christians confess, participate in, and practice as the immanence of the divine triad of Persons, I propose succinctly naming their scope of immanence “Immanentia Omnis.” If Latin offers phrases like Actus Purus and “Deus ipsum esse subsistens,” it only seems fair that it should also have a phrase to express the full scope of the Trinity’s immanence.
Revisiting Terms for building the Model of God at Hand
Now, let us revisit some terms I’ve developed along this trajectory of thought.
- Immanentia Omnis (IO): A proposed Latin term representing the scope of divine immanence, referring to the three Persons of the Trinity. As an interval it is the conceptual device that can be characterized as the full scope of Immanence. This is also the primary concept this present paper is trying to present-theologically-.
2. Hypostasis: A term used in Trinitarian theology to denote the individual reality or personal subsistence of each of the three Persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
3. Interval: A concept used to bridge the domains of transcendence and immanence, holding distinct yet related aspects of the divine nature together in a single, dynamic essence.
4. Persons (in Trinitarian theology): The three distinct realities—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the one God of Christian belief. In the context of the convention T = [AP, IO], the Persons are seen as pure agencies (DivAP*DivIO), each fully actualizing all divine potentials (DivAP) in an infinitely open manner (DivIO). This allows them to present, represent, and manifest the immanent reality of the transcendent qualities they embody. They each fully express the divine nature’s transcendent aspects within their unique relational identities, not bound by temporal, spatial, or sensory constraints.
5. Pure Agency (PA): This term refers to the unadulterated action and relational capability of each Person of the Trinity. It is characterized by the divine Persons’ ability to fully express, embody, and represent the divine essence in its transcendent and immanent dimensions, without any temporal, spatial, or sensory constraints.
6. Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP): This term denotes the state in which all inherent qualities, capacities, and potentials of the divine essence are fully actualized in a present ongoing way in each Person of the Trinity. It speaks to the completeness and perfection of divine essence in each Person, emphasizing the actuality of all that is divinely possible present and active as their agency.
7. Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO): This term signifies the unbounded, limitless nature of the divine essence as embodied in each Person of the Trinity. It captures the infinite possibilities inherent in the divine essence, all of which are open and accessible to each Person, thereby emphasizing the dynamic and expansive nature of God’s being. Just as we are open to the world because we’re made in the image of the Son, so the persons are open in a sense too.
T=[AP, IO] and the Bible
In the realm of biblical hermeneutics, our Trinitarian model of God provides an essential interpretive framework that allows for a more coherent reading of the Bible. By focusing on God as a triune agency and manifestion, we emphasize the divine interconnectedness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This paradigm illuminates not only the text’s theological dimensions but also its narrative and symbolic dimensions, allowing us to view the entirety of biblical revelation within the context of a harmonious Trinitarian discourse.
In this model there is, most of all, a Trinitarian hermeneutic offered its potential adherents, so that the scriptures’ diverse passages can be read through a lens that captures the dynamic interplay of God’s transcendent and immanent actions (Actus Purus and Immanentia Omnis), the divine simplicity and plurality (DivAP and DivIO), and the unique agency of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This approach avoids flattening the biblical narrative into a monolithic portrayal of God. Instead, it enables us to appreciate the richness and variegated nature of the biblical revelation of the triune God, and the distinct ways in which each Person of the Trinity is portrayed in the text.
Recall our explanation of Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP) and Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO); and now consider, for instance, the portrayal of the divine action in creation, redemption, and sanctification. In the creation narrative of Genesis, the agency of the Father is highlighted as the source of all creation, spoken into being through the Word, the Logos, and animated by the Spirit. This reflects the model’s dynamic expression of the Father’s agency (AoF), emphasizing his distinctive role as the Creator.
In the New Testament, the salvific work of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word represents the Son’s distinct agency (AoS), embodying God’s redeeming love for humanity. The Holy Spirit, as described in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters, operates as the Sanctifier (AoHS), breathing life into the Church and guiding its mission.
These diverse manifestations of divine action are not seen as contradictory or confusing within the Trinitarian model; instead, they are celebrated as the unique expressions of the triune God’s single divine essence. This perspective allows us to appreciate the diversity of divine action within the unity of God’s being, offering a robust and nuanced understanding of the biblical narrative.
Thus, our Trinitarian model provides a rich hermeneutical framework, capable of harmonizing apparent contradictions and highlighting the unity in diversity that marks the Bible’s portrayal of God. Through its lens, we can embrace the complexity and depth of the divine mystery revealed in scripture, inspiring a richer faith and deeper understanding.
T=[AP, IO] and Nicene Confession
The Nicene Creed confessed at Church every service states:
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Nicene Creed, as a foundational statement of Christian belief, encapsulates the mystery of the Trinity in a compact, liturgical form. It asserts the unity of God, the distinctiveness of the three Persons, and the redemptive work of the Son, all of which align perfectly with the Trinitarian model T=[AP, IO].
Let’s consider the Creed, section by section, within the framework of the T=[AP, IO] model:
1. “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” – This aligns with the concept of Actus Purus (AP), which symbolizes God’s absolute actuality and His transcendence as the creator of all reality. The designation of God as “the Father, the Almighty” suggests the unique relational identity and role of the Father (AoF) within the Trinity.
2. “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” – This portion addresses the Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP) and the Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO) of the Son. As the “only Son of God,” Christ’s unique relational identity (AoS) is confirmed, while His divine essence is affirmed in the statements “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.” The Son is one in being (consubstantial) with the Father, fully embodying the divine essence while also remaining open and receptive to the Father and the Spirit.
3. “Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” – This articulates the unique role of the Son in the work of creation and salvation, an expression of his unique divine agency (AoS). The Holy Spirit’s role in the Incarnation reflects the Spirit’s unique divine agency (AoHS) as well.
4. “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” – This section of the Creed details the Son’s earthly ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension, all part of his unique divine agency (AoS) in the divine plan of redemption.
5. “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.” – This speaks to the Holy Spirit’s unique relational identity (AoHS) as the giver of life and the one who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit’s role in inspiration and prophecy underscores his unique divine agency within the Trinity.
6. “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.” – The final portion of the Creed highlights the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church (AoHS), the sacrament of baptism (which traditionally is administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, hence involving their respective agencies AoF, AoS, AoHS), and the hope of resurrection and eternal life (a reflection of the eschatological dimension of the divine plan actualized by all three Persons of the Trinity).
So, the Nicene Creed, interpreted within the T=[AP, IO] Trinitarian model, becomes a rich tapestry of theological assertions that not only aligns with this model, but also reveals the dynamic unity and diversity within the Godhead.
Conclusion
This paper tried to theologically express the model of the Trinity i want to share and put forth into the world as a grace on my life. But if there is any movement in the way of the doctrine of God i hope the confession God is Immanentia Omnis finds its way. As I see it, this is the crucial step needed to place the interval together so that the doctrine of Divine Simplicity can be harmonized with the Trinity, with simplicity and brevity.
