Is this quote on the Trinity accurate?

[chuckd]

The two key words here are "essence" and "persons." When you read "essence," think "Godness." All three persons of the Trinity share the same "Godness." One is not more God than another. None is more essentially divine than the rest. When you read "persons," think "a particular individual distinct from the others." Theologians use these terms because they are trying to find a way to express the relationship of three beings who are equally and uniquely God, but not three Gods. That's why we get this obscure language of essence and persons. We want to be true to the biblical witness that there is an indivisibility and unity of God, even tough Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can all be rightly called God. The persons are not three Gods; rather, they dwell in communion with each other as they subsist in the divine nature without being compounded or confused.

-Kevin DeYoung, The Good News We Almost Forgot, Lord's Day 8

I would expect him to say the relationship of three persons, not beings.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I would expect him to say the relationship of three persons, not beings.

The quote seems OK, except for the "beings" quote you mentioned.

 

[John The Baptist]

The two key words here are "essence" and "persons." When you read "essence," think "Godness." All three persons of the Trinity share the same "Godness." One is not more God than another. None is more essentially divine than the rest. When you read "persons," think "a particular individual distinct from the others." Theologians use these terms because they are trying to find a way to express the relationship of three beings who are equally and uniquely God, but not three Gods. That's why we get this obscure language of essence and persons. We want to be true to the biblical witness that there is an indivisibility and unity of God, even tough Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can all be rightly called God. The persons are not three Gods; rather, they dwell in communion with each other as they subsist in the divine nature without being compounded or confused.

-Kevin DeYoung, The Good News We Almost Forgot, Lord's Day 8

I would expect him to say the relationship of three persons, not beings.

Maybe a typo?

 

[paranymph]

I think he's trying to avoid using the word "persons" because he's trying to explain what a Trinitarian person is. But "beings" is not the way to go.

 

[pgwolv]

I think he's trying to avoid using the word "persons" because he's trying to explain what a Trinitarian person is. But "beings" is not the way to go.

Would "individuals" be better?

 

[Jack K]

My first though is: What editor missed that? Someone should have caught his slip-up and suggested he pick a better word than beings, for which he probably would have been grateful.

In the next paragraph, he suggests the wording three beings is unorthodox: "Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects all forms of tritheism, which teach that the three members of the Godhead are, to quote a leading Mormon apologist, "three distinct Beings, three separate Gods."

Writing about the Trinity is hard. Since words have a range of meaning, you have to define how you are using them. Then you have to stick with those few, carefully-defined words, which is hard for a good writer who naturally uses a lively variety of words. It's easy to slip up and sound like a heretic even when you aren't.

 

[The Calvinistic Methodist]

And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being.

I find the Athanasian creed helpful in sorting these things out!

 

[jwright82]

And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being.

I find the Athanasian creed helpful in sorting these things out!

Amen! I think all trinitarian thought should start with that creed.

 

[paranymph]

Would "individuals" be better?

That's a pretty vague term. How about "subsistences" (2LCF 2.3).

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Yeah the "three beings" thing is definitely a slip-up. I agree subsistences would be the better term to use there. KDY is generally solid, but as others have noted, writing about the Trinity is tough!

 

[Alive in Christ]

Yikes, that is as bad a slip up as one could ever make. Does he know the Shema?

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

He uses the phrase "one essence and three persons" in his book "Daily Doctrine."

 

[chuckd]

Yes, I don't think he meant it the way it reads. As mentioned above, he explains what tritheism is a paragraph later and rejects it. I think I may reach out to him to make an edit for future publications.

I'm going through this book with my 10 year old daughter. It's been very help bringing up topics that she doesn't necessarily learn in her school or Sunday morning worship/sunday school. It's interesting discussing some things that I've taken for granted for years, but she hears it for the first time.

I posted on another thread on the Trinity, but this letter has been instrumental in my understanding of the Trinity. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xxxix.html

It really came in handy discussing this week's chapter of DeYoung's book. I said, "Man went to the moon. What do I mean by the word 'man'? A man stepped on the moon. Now what do I mean by the word 'man'? The first instance makes you think of what is common to all humans - what makes a human a human? The second instance makes you think of a specific person. What distinguishes that person from all others?"

It took some further discussion, but I think it stuck.

 

[RamistThomist]

Would "individuals" be better?

The problem with individuals is that it reduces the Trinity to a group of people with no real principle of unity.