Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 2, page 480:
(quote) TRINITY. Fundamental Conception. - This conception of the Trinity is systematically developed by theologians, Greek, Latin and Protestant...The doctrine, then, is primarily religious and if we define God - as in practice religion does - as ‘That which has an absolute claim upon our obedience’ or as ‘the Supreme Object of our reverence,’ the paradoxical element in the doctrine is at least diminished...Is there, then any insuperable difficulty in the notion of a threefold personal embodiment of the one Divine Will and Character, an embodiment so complete in each case that contact with the Divine Person is contact with God:...This ultimate unity of subordination to a single principle is not necessarily identical with the unity which comes from being included within the mind of a single Divine Being. Nor is it obviously identical with the theologian’s ‘numerical unity of substance.’
The Unity, then, of the Object of our supreme reverence and trust is not plainly inconsistent with the existence of personal distinctions (in the modern sense of the word) within the Godhead. It was probably an afterthought to regard the doctrine of the Trinity as providing a more satisfactory conception of ‘personality in God’ than could grow up under a ‘uninpersonal’ theology. Yet Trinitarianism has some points of superiority over a theory which may compel us to conceive God as waking up at the Creation from ‘an eternity of idleness.’ ...It has been similarly argued that in conceiving the ‘not-self with which God contrasts Himself’ as ‘wholly internal to His essence’ while the unity (the Holy Spirit) ‘within which the relation of the two falls is not, as in us, a dark mystery at the back of our life but something which ‘proceeds from both’ we have ‘the best notion that we can frame of Being at its highest.’ Such an argument lead not merely to a plurality but to a trinity of Divine persons, and supports the Western doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. (End of Britannica quote).
Wow! What intellectual enlightenment! What an exposition of deep mysteries! What profound theological insight! WHAT A CROCK. . .!!!
I am here to tell you that the above theologian’s rendition of the trinity is nothing but a hodgepodge of unintelligible, dubious, theological, intellectual gobbledygook!! Don’t ever feel inferior or put down by the intellectual vanity of writers like this, who haven’t a clue as to what they are talking about.
I will give someone hundreds of dollars if they can explain to me the above phrase, "wholly internal to His essence." Such intellectual phraseology is wholly meaningless. It is gross nonsense. I guarantee you that the author of this Britannica article could never explain that phrase, "wholly internal to His essence" in anything resembling coherent English. Nor could he explain a dozen other similar phrases and statements in his article regarding the trinity.
Notice what Paul instructs those who would teach God’s Word:
"For if a trumpet, also, should be giving a dubious sound, who will be preparing for battle? THUS, YOU ALSO, if you should not be giving an INTELLIGIBLE expression through the language, HOW WILL IT BE KNOWN WHAT IS BEING SPOKEN?"
Does this verse need any comment? Do any of my readers think for one moment that the theologians responsible for this Britannica article on the trinity follow Paul’s instructions seriously?