Does "God Is Love" Prove He's Triune?

This is a very interesting and and at least on the surface it seems to be a pretty strong argument.

But as we look at it carefully, I think we see some fundamental flaws. And my first point would be simply this. Uh it's a philosophical argument, not a scriptural argument. Nowhere does the Bible actually make this argument. So we as apostolics, as one as Pentecostals, we base our teaching on the word of God. We go to the Bible. And for us, what the Bible says trumps any kind of philosophical reasoning. And so we we read Deuteronomy 6:4 here. O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And we read all those statements uh through Isaiah, for example, God said Yahweh. He said, "I am alone by myself.

No one beside me. No one like me. I'm the first. I'm the last." These aren't merely terms of union. These are terms of identity, singularity, numerical oneness. And then when we try to apply the doctrine of the trinity, thinking of Jesus as one of three persons, but actually Colossians 2:9, in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So whatever God is is fully revealed in Jesus Christ. If God is a trinity, the trinity has to be in Jesus Christ. And in fact, the preceding verse Colossians 2:8 says, "Beware lest anyone spoil you or rob you u through philosophy and vain deceit." So it all after the traditions of men after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.

So it gives us a warning when you start getting off into philosophical and traditional arguments, you can get away from the truth that's found in Christ. So ultimately, I find this actually limits um our understanding of God and Christ. But but okay, so with that in mind, let's look at it on its own terms. So it if it's going to be a philosophical argument, does it really hold up philosophically? Well, here's the problem. It subjects God to time. So if you just look at what Lewis said, whom I highly respect, but he said, okay, so um you know, before the creation of humans, then if there's just God, well then God has to be two persons in order to love.

But wait a minute, that's kind of assuming God is subject to time before and after. But God is eternal. He transcends time. He's above and beyond time. So the Bible says God is love. That's his eternal nature. It's not subject to time. And Romans 4 says God can call those things which are not as though they are. So in in God's plan, you know, first Peter 1, the lamb was slain slain from the foundation of the world. Uh John 1 uh in the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God. Um and we we don't believe that's a second person, but we believe God in his um his transcendence yet God is uttering himself or revealing himself and pre-shadowing uh that in uh John 1:14, the word was made flesh.

So what we're saying is from the very beginning inherent in God's nature was this concept that he would reveal himself that he would create humans that he would redeem humans that he would love humans. So just because in time as we know it we're created at a certain point does that mean God couldn't be couldn't be love until that point? Well, if God is eternal and if God knew everything from the beginning and if God planned everything from the beginning, then can we say no, God wasn't loving until we were created? Does that mean God wasn't redemptive until Jesus died? No. From the very beginning, God is loving.

From the very beginning, God is well, if he didn't have any body to redeem, could he re be redemptive in eternity past? Well, yes, because God is eternal. And even if you think about any attribute of God. So would we say God is holy? Yes. Would we say that's his eternal characteristic? Holy. Yes. But the root of holiness is separation, transcendent, above, perfect, pure, sinless. Well, if there's nothing else in the universe, there's no sin, there's no devil, there's no evil, there's no uh planet earth, there's no universe, what is he transcendent above? What is he perfect in relationship to? So we couldn't say anything about God if if we have to push it back in time.

God is omnipotent. Well, if there's nothing but God, what is he all powerful? God is omnisient. What what is there to know? God is omnipresent. If there's no universe, what does it mean to say he's present somewhere? So I guess what I'm saying is not only love but every other attribute or quality of God. We can only think in terms of relatedness to us because we can't even imagine eternity. We can't even imagine before uh we existed or the universe existed. So to somehow say God couldn't be love because we can't imagine it. It's like saying well God couldn't be holy before we came along.

God couldn't be a redeemer before we came along. God could not be uh omniresent before he created a universe to be present in. Well, all of that I think is facious reasoning because God couldn't be anything if I if you have to say there had to be something in existence for him to relate to. So I think it's much easier to say God is eternally love if you say what are the objects of his love since he's not bound to time. We can say God eternally loved us. What's wrong with saying that? God God is not bound by time. If we say, "Well, God couldn't have loved us because we couldn't exist.

Didn't exist yet." Well, then you're saying God is bound by time. Are you really willing to say that? Uh, and then, you know, it it um it also we we have the next thing I would argue um if having a second person is necessary to establish love, then within the Godhead, you have a subject and an object. someone who's who loves and someone who who is loved that seemed to divide the godhead. So if you're saying they're these three persons are different enough that they could be subject and objects in what sense do you have God is one? God is one personal being. So you're either saying God is divided up into subjects and objects or if you're saying no no no God is one then you're saying God loves himself.

Well how is that different from oneness? Okay. Um next think of the quality of love. Wouldn't you say that by definition love is a choice freely chosen? So if I create a robot and and have that robot programmed to say I love you. I love you. Is that love? No. So, if God created us as robots with no freedom of will, would we say we love him? No. Love has to be freely chosen. Well, there's the implication it could not be chosen. So, if in eternity there's a trinity of persons who love each other, here's my question. Do they have to love each other? If so, love is not really love.

And that wouldn't be a role model for us. You know, the the the trinitarians use this as an example to say, well, since God is a loving community of persons, we need to be a loving community of persons. But if God had to love if the father had to love the son, had no choice. That was built in his nature. Well, that's not a that doesn't help me love my brother because I would just say, "Well, God, if you programmed me to love my brother, I will. I had no choice. So, okay, it doesn't matter. I don't even have to worry about it. I'm going to love you no matter what.

I can treat you however I want because somehow it'll all work out. I'll be predestined to love you. So if love is is not chosen then is it really love? So the father had to love the son. He didn't have a choice. But then if you say well in theoretic theory there's a choice then they're not one God. You you can't have it both ways. If if love is forced it's not love is love is chosen. Even if in principle you can conceive of that. Now you have subject and object so different. These two persons are two different gods. I don't I don't think you can have it both ways.

Either you have love that's not really love because it's programmed. It's inherent. It's required or you have love that is freely chosen which means the different people who love are actually different gods. It seems like and then finally if you say well the trinity is necessary for God to be love. Well, all the people of the Old Testament didn't know that. The Psalmist talk about God's steadfast love, unfailing love, but obviously they they didn't know about the Trinity, so they didn't really know what they're talking about. So, their their whole argument, their whole line of reasoning was false. Well, obviously, I reject that conclusion. I would say this, we can speak the same way of God's unfailing love without having necessary recourse to the Trinity.

And here's what I would simply say in 1 John 4 uh when it says God is love, John 4:8, it explains what that means. Verse 10, here in is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us. So when the Bible defines what does it mean to say God is love. It doesn't say here in his love, there are three eternal members of the Trinity all loved each other. It says here in his love, why do you say God is love? Because not that we love God, but God loved us. So that seemed to go back to my explanation is since God is eternal, whatever characteristics you have has are eternal.

So he's eternally holy. He's eternally loving. He's eternally omnipotent. Whether or not there's anything to compare it to. But if you want to try to say what was the object of love, you have to go back what the Bible says. It says he loved us. And since God doesn't he inhabits eternity, he's not bound by time. His love for us is not limited by time. Now you do see where God loves the son. The son loves the father. But that is Jesus as a true human in his earthly life submitting to the father, praying to the father, saying I can't do anything but what you empower me to do.

That's not a good example of two eternal persons uh co-equal. But that is a a perfect example for us of how humans should submit to God and love God and how God loves that chosen person. So you don't really have any good examples of three members of the trinity loving each other in the way this philosophical construct Sign is. in But I would just go back to as I've already stated first John, God is love. How do we know that? He loved us. And thank God he did. Amen.