6

A common argument for the Trinity (or at least the eternity of The Son) is that God is love,

For if there be a being without beginning, existing before all things, was He loving when there was nothing to be loved? If through that unthinkable eternity He is lonely, what is the meaning of saying He is love?

G.K. Chesterton - The Everlasting Man - Part 2 - Chapter 4

and thus there must have been an object that could be loved by him throughout all eternity. The Trinity's idea of fellowship within unity seems an attempt to deal with this issue.

If Jesus the Son of God had a beginning, then it follows that before the existence of the Son, God being solitary, would have no object towards which to express his love. Without having anything to love, it seems God could not rightly be called “love” or possess love from all eternity.

How do non-trinitarian Christian denominations (mainly those who believe in One God the Father) respond to such an argument?

Peter Turner
  • 34,505
  • 19
  • 118
  • 289
למה זה תשאל לשמי
  • 1,200
  • 5
  • 12
  • 1
    As Jimmy Kimmel said, “Don't forget to get into a stupid argument in the comments section.” – למה זה תשאל לשמי Feb 08 '19 at 02:20
  • 1
    One form of trinitarianism is Binitarianism which is the same as trinitarianism without the Holy Spirit. That is, TWO co-equal and co-eternal beings composing God. Antitrinitarianism comes in several forms. Should we specify which form? –  Feb 08 '19 at 03:05
  • "If Jesus the Son of God had a beginning" in time? "before Abraham was made, I AM." (John 8:58). – Geremia Feb 08 '19 at 03:47
  • "One form of trinitarianism is Binitarianism" Nope. That's as impossible as 'One form of square-type shape is a triangle.' You can't substitute 'three persons' for 'two persons' and still have a triad—trinity. – Sola Gratia Feb 08 '19 at 23:48
  • You say a common argument for the eternity of the Son "is that God is love, and thus there must have been an object that could be loved by him throughout all eternity." I've been a Christian (of the Protestant persuasion) for almost 23 years and have never heard of any such argument. I'm not doubting what you say, but would you please direct me to some source where this is explained? I'm really curious about this and would like to learn more. Thanks. – Lesley Feb 10 '19 at 17:30
  • @Lesley If you search “Trinity God is love” in youtube or a search engine, you should get a number of hits. Also many debates and refutations by Muslim speakers. I've also heard this argument put forth by Tim Keller and John Piper. – למה זה תשאל לשמי Feb 10 '19 at 23:30
  • @Lesley See the final paragraph here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-no-christianity-without-it/ – למה זה תשאל לשמי Feb 10 '19 at 23:31
  • 1
    Thanks for the link. I’ve learned something new today, so it was worth getting out of bed! I understand that Tim Keller and John Piper are part of The Gospel Coalition and support the ‘New Calvinism’. I can see why Muslims struggle with the concept of the Trinity, but that’s mainly because they only perceive Jesus as a man and deny he pre-existed in heaven before he was born. – Lesley Feb 13 '19 at 10:37
  • 1
    I am a Trinitarian and concur with the last sentence in the article you gave a link to: “But with a biblical understanding of the Trinity we can say that God did not create in order to be loved, but rather, created out of the overflow of the perfect love that had always existed among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who ever live in perfect and mutual relationship and delight.” Found this article about the Gospel Coalition and New Calvinism: https://www.gotquestions.org/new-calvinism.html – Lesley Feb 13 '19 at 10:38

1 Answers1

2

The problem with this argument is that it's not based on Scripture. It's based on the unsupported assertion that "there must have been an object that could be loved by him throughout all eternity."

Jehovah's Witnesses are non-trinitarian, but they don't reason on things that the Bible doesn't comment on, such as the details of what God did before the beginning of creation. They do agree, however, that God is love (1 John 4:8) and that his identity and personality does not change. (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6; Isaiah 43:10; 46:4)

  • So how do JWs explain what it means for God to be loving with nothing else? How would God be different if he wasn't loving before the universe is created? – curiousdannii Feb 08 '19 at 04:27
  • 1
    The problem with this objection is that agape love is fundamentally "other" centered. God cannot be "love" (1 John 4:8, 16) if there is no one else. That is fairly basic stuff! –  Feb 08 '19 at 09:50
  • Therefore, the argument about agape love is absolutely Scripture based as love is the most basic and fundamental, quintessentially Christian concept we have!! –  Feb 08 '19 at 09:53
  • 1
    @curiousdannii As I said, the Bible doesn't comment on what God did before creation. The Bible does teach that he has always had the quality of love, and one way he expresses that love is through his creation, but the Bible doesn't say how God expressed love before creation. It may be that he expressed love by means of his thoughts for what he would create in the future. –  Feb 08 '19 at 14:09
  • 1
    That is not true. The Father chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blemish before Him, in love” (Eph. 1:4). God chose us in love before the foundation of the world (before creation). How is this explained then? – pehkay Feb 09 '19 at 01:59
  • @pehkay See this paragraph. It's reasoned that the "world" being referred to here is the world of sinful mankind, not Earth. –  Feb 09 '19 at 02:22
  • That is pretty sketchy as it presupposes fatalism is true which almost indefensible (the aspect of human responsibility) but I digress :). Kittlels and Silva both agreed that it refers pretemporality of the divine action, Joh 17:24 (love for the Son), 1Pe 1:20 (theelection of the Son), Eph 1:4 (the election of believers). – pehkay Feb 09 '19 at 04:38
  • @pehkay Hmm, perhaps there's a misunderstanding, because JWs don't believe fatalism is true. That's why it says "as a group" in the first sentence. See the end of the previous paragraph. –  Feb 09 '19 at 04:44
  • @4castle Maybe I didn't read properly. But the reason states that it cannot be eternity past because "[it] was not referring to a time before God created the earth or mankind. That would violate the fundamental principle of justice. How could Adam and Eve be held accountable for their actions if God had predetermined that they would fail even before they were created?" . – pehkay Feb 09 '19 at 04:53
  • The rational that God must DO something to be validated is very humanistic. A car is a car whether it is moving or not. God IS love whether He is loving or not according to simplistic terms arbitrarily put forward. From the vantage of human wisdom, we have no idea about God except as He reveals through His word and son. – steveowen Nov 09 '22 at 03:43