This blog-post is a little different than past blog-posts in that I will be breaking down my own argument for the doctrine of the Trinity in Judeo-Christianity that goes by the name of “The Lovely Trinity Argument.” I recently published this argument online and figured that because it’s a little confusing, I would break it down. So that anyone who reads it knows what it truly means and the reasoning behind my argument. Shout out to my friend Kevin King for helping me fine-tune my argument to make it as airtight as possible. But before I break down my argument, let me first introduce you to the argument as either a refresher for those who have read it or for those who have never read it before:
The Lovely Trinity Argument
By Christopher Cribari
- Before Creation, there was God (✝).
- God was alone and nothing existed, except for God before Creation.
- Therefore, God is the objective standard for all things pertaining to morality and the like, including love because He is all that existed.
- Thus, God is love (✝), love is God*, and God is all-loving.
- Love is an action expressed towards an object.
- Love is actively expressed from person to person.
- But if God is love, love is God, and God is all-loving, who would God love?
- A Unitarian God cannot love Himself because He is one person.
- Thus, God would need to be 2 or more than 2 persons to actively express love, in order for God to be love, for love to be God, and for God to be all-loving.
- Therefore, God is one being (✝), but multiple persons.
- But in order for love to be expressed for others to see, there has to be a third party or person.
- Thus, a Binitarian God cannot love another person without a third party or person to validate that love.
- Therefore, God is one being, but three persons (✝).
- Hence, the doctrine of the Trinity is true because it validates that God is love, love is God, and God is all-loving, while at the same time affirming that God is triune.
- For God is a Trinitarian God: one being, but three persons.
* = C.S. Lewis penned “love is God” in his work, Mere Christianity, in chapter 4 of book 4 entitled “Good Infection.”
✝= Biblical References
- Premise 1) Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:10
- Premise 4) 1 John 4:8, 16
- Premise 10) Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Timothy 2:5a
- Premise 13) 2 Corinthians 13:14
Now that the argument has been presented it it’s entirety, let me break down premise-by-premise what the pineapple I am actually arguing and the reasoning behind my argument:
Premise 1) “Before Creation, there was God (✝).”
So starting us off, I start with the assumption that those who are hearing this argument are most likely theists, such as a Muslim or something of the like. I do not recommend that a Christian uses this argument with an Atheist for the simple fact that belief in God has not been established first. The reasoning goes as follows: Atheist -> Theist -> Christian. I personally believe that if one was to use the Teleological Argument or the Kalam-Cosmological Argument first or some argument for the existence of God, then follow with this argument, the logic will make a lot more sense for whoever you’re talking too. Remember, as a Christian, apologetics is supposed to clear up confusion, not cause it. This first premise is also supported by Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 1:10.
Premise 2) “God was alone and nothing existed, except for God before Creation.”
With this point, I wanted to reaffirm that the only thing that existed before Creation was God, while at the same time show how God was completely alone during this point before He created everything. I’m really just setting the stage for the argument I’m about to begin by setting up logical parameters for myself and others reading this argument.
Premise 3) “Therefore, God is the objective standard for all things pertaining to morality and the like, including love because He is all that existed.”
First off, since God is God, He is the objective standard that one measures everything up against because it’s His very nature that He is objectively perfect. For instance, like when someone measures how logical or moral some decision in life is using God’s character as the standard to measure against would be a good way to look at it. But for the argument at hand, I am running with morality. And from morality, the attribute of His that is love.
Premise 4) “Thus, God is love (✝), love is God*, and God is all-loving.”
For one, the footnote above reaffirms that “God is love,” which is a simple concept to learn and is strictly biblical (i.e. read 1 John 4:8-16). The second claim that “love is God” is a concept inceptioned by C.S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, where he argued a simpler and shorter argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, that concludes that “love is God.” He explains it better than I can and I’m just going to forward you to his work, which shows his reasoning. Lastly, “God is all-loving” is a theological term used very prolifically to describe God, which basically means that He loves all free creatures, even though all free creatures don’t love Him back. Unconditional love is another way to look at it.
Premise 5) “Love is an action expressed towards an object.”
This is just a simple way of describing how love is expressed. It’s purely logical.
Premise 6) “Love is actively expressed from person to person.”
Again, this is merely another logical observation based off of the logic of premise 5 and is solely here to establish the curve, as I would call it regarding my argument, which is presented in premise 7. In basketball terms, this is the assist for the slam dunk.
Premise 7) “But if God is love, love is God, and God is all-loving, who would God love?”
BOOM! Here’s “the turn” as a magician would say and is the most critical aspect of the argument because all 6 premises previously mentioned lead up to this point and all 8 premises following this premise attempt to answer this vital question. The argument resides on this central question and is actually what I asked myself 2 or so years ago when the original concept for the argument began to take shape.
Premise 8) “A Unitarian God cannot love Himself because He is one person.”
For those who are unaware, a Unitarian God is a God that is one being and one person like Allah from Islam. This is meant to start eliminating every possibility that does not make logical sense regarding the central question and in so doing, removes the notion of a Unitarian God because it would be lunacy to do otherwise.
Premise 9) “Thus, God would need to be 2 or more than 2 persons to actively express love, in order for God to be love, for love to be God, and for God to be all-loving.”
Once the Unitarian idea of God has been thrown out, there is only one other option: a God whose nature is 2 or more persons, while at the same time is one being or nature.
Premise 10) “Therefore, God is one being (✝), but multiple persons.”
Now is a great time to reaffirm what truth has been revealed from logical reasoning and understanding on the nature of God based off of the 9 previous premises that are precursors to this conclusion in premise 10. This conclusion is again supported with Biblical sources like Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Timothy 2:5a, for instance.
Premise 11) “But in order for love to be expressed for others to see, there has to be a third party or person.”
Alas, through reasoning we come to our next logical hurdle: the expression of love to a third party. The way I like to imagine this hurdle is that in most parts of the world the 3 most important people at a wedding are the bride, the groom, and the minister presiding over the wedding. 2 persons are displaying their love in the presence of a minister presiding over that love, while at the same time the minister is displaying love for the 2 by presiding over the ceremony. Not to say that 2 persons in God’s nature are married, but that that love is as intimate, if not more so, than marriage between the multiple persons of God’s nature. Until I can figure out a better analogy, this one fits best with the theme of love too. It’s the best analogy I have, so I’m rolling with it like a snowglobe down a hill. Moving on!
Premise 12) “Thus, a Binitarian God cannot love another person without a third party or person to validate that love.”
Next, is the logical elimination of the Binitarian view of God, which in fact some groups in Theism hold onto, but has no actual footing. An example of this notion of the nature of God is that some believe that from the Christian worldview, God is 2 persons (the Father & the Son), whereas the Holy Spirit is nothing more than an inanimate force, which is Biblical heresy.
Premise 13) “Therefore, God is one being, but three persons (✝).”
Finally, we have come to the most logical conclusion concerning the nature of God. That He is 1 being, but 3 persons. The strongest form of Theism that holds to this particular view is Christianity and their doctrine of the Trinity. Some might conjecture with “Why not 4 persons?” and to that I would say that the 4th person in that nature of God is irrelevant. They literally have no use and throw off the unity found in a God of 1 being, but 3 persons. Actually, based off of this reasoning, any number besides 3 throws off the logic behind this argument and loses its solid footing. 2 Corinthians 13:14 asserts this notion of God.
Premise 14) “Hence, the doctrine of the Trinity is true because it validates that God is love, love is God, and God is all-loving, while at the same time affirming that God is triune.”
Once again, we want to reaffirm the logical truth we have unveiled in order to support the argument and make it as solid as possible. This conclusion not only satisfies the initial question found in premise 7, which is “who would God love?” but also affirms the logical reasoning behind the number of persons which is 3 persons.
Premise 15) “For God is a Trinitarian God: one being, but three persons.”
Lastly, after mulling over this brain grinder, we come to the final most absolute conclusion of the argument. The moment we have all been waiting for, which is “what is the nature of a God of love?” This is the nature of a God of love because of 14 premises that assert this essential truth, we have come to that essential truth about our great God.
Well that’s all for now regarding an explanation to my argument entitled “The Lovely Trinity Argument” and I will not be posting again until I finish my commentary on the life of Gideon, which is my next blog series on here. With that, Godspeed and Jesus bless!