[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You may have already read this material but, I would like you to read it again against the backdrop of what we have already discussed. I think this a critical point that is mush overlooked and not understanding this point is one of the reasons that people are unable to grasp the concept of the Triadic Unity.
Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known definition as an example. [/FONT]“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]unified essence of God are three separate and distinct [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]persons of deity who are one God, each member having [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]his part in the creation and redemption of man[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]” (unknown source).
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from a number of different sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the triadic unity it[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]does present three immediate problems.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels that [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]God. It is impossible to reduce God to a linguistic formula. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]within [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]used this word in relationship to God does not seem to fit the profile of God[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]characteristics and relations of a thing.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns this definition to the triadic unity. “[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]God is one ‘[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]being[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]being[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]’; an undivided essence[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif].”
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The use of the term God in scripture does not seem to describe a single [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]being [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word God itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]who [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]he is, but [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]what [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]he is. Who he is, is Jehovah. What he is should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three hypostatic distinctions. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
God has never given us anything by which we could formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristic that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. The extended properties of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
The ‘essence’ of God do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute some type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member. [/FONT]
[/FONT]