Ask my family, friends, or students and they will tell you that as a historic Christian I am truly captivated with the triune nature of God. Historic Christianity affirms God’s triunity: one God in three persons. God is one divine “What” (essence or being) and three personal “Whos” (persons or subsistences).
One reason for this preoccupation is that I view the Trinity as one of historic Christianity’s most distinctive truths and one of the faith’s deepest revealed mysteries. Moreover, I’m convinced that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16) precisely because God is a Trinity. The plurality of persons within the one divine being of God means that God is analogous to a loving human family.
Here is the Trinity doctrine in six biblically based statements:
| There is only one God | Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 1 Timothy 1:17 |
| The person of the Father is God | John 6:27; Ephesians 4:6; Colossians 1:2–3 |
| The person of the Son is God | John 8:48; 10:30; Philippians 2:6 |
| The person of the Holy Spirit is God | Genesis 1:2; John 14:26; Acts 5:3–4 |
| The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct and simultaneously distinguishable persons | Matthew 28:19; Luke 3:22; 2 Corinthians 13:14 |
| The three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are frequently listed together in a triadic pattern of unity and equality | John 15:26; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18 |
St. Augustine of Hippo articulated the idea that the Trinity makes God perfect in love within God’s nature itself. Consider Anglican theologian Gerald Bray’s commentary on and summary of St. Augustine’s reasoning:
“God cannot be love unless there is something for him to love. But if that something were not part of himself, he would not be perfect. The Bible does not teach us that God needed the creation in order to have something to love, because if that were true, he could not be fully himself without it. So Augustine reasoned that God must be love inside himself. To his mind, the Father is the one who loves, the Son is the one who is loved (the ‘beloved Son’ revealed in the baptism of Jesus), and the Holy Spirit is the love that flows between them and binds them together.”1
The Trinity is critical for Christians to appreciate because it allows God to “be love” within himself and, therefore, not in need of finding love outside (in his creation). Therefore, the triune God is unsurpassably loving. This distinguishing quality, combined with his other infinite attributes, makes God, as St. Anselm put it, the greatest conceivable being.2
This idea came out in an online discussion I had with a Muslim apologist (I’ll call him M), several months ago. Our interaction included a respectful debate about whether Allah is perfect within himself regarding love (one of Allah’s 99 names in the Qur’an is “the loving”). Here I present our exchange (paraphrased) starting from where I ask M to address some questions.
A Muslim-Christian Online Exchange about Allah and Love
Me: M, let me ask you some questions if you don’t mind. I’ll number them for your convenience: (1) Is Allah a single, solitary God (one person)? (2) If so, is Allah also a God of love? (3) If true, then who did Allah love in eternity before he created angels and human beings? (4) Since Allah had no one to love in eternity was he lonely? (5) Or does Allah need to create in order to fulfill himself? (6) If so, how can Allah be loving and sovereign? In other words, perfect in himself?
M: Here are my answers.
(1) Yes: Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allah—One ˹and Indivisible (Al-Ikhlas, 2).
(2) Yes: He is the Most Merciful of the merciful (Yusuf, 64).
(3) I don’t know.
(4) Yes: He is the First and the Last (Al-Hadid, 3).
(5) No: Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺ (Al-Ikhlas, 2).
(6) I don’t know.
I apologize for this very brief series of answers. It is challenging for me to answer philosophical inquiries, but in Islam we are instructed to act according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and this was my knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah. And it is narrated on the authority of Omar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet of Allah (prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Contemplate on the signs of Allah but do not think about Allah (Himself)”
Me: According to the Qur’an, Allah is both loving (Arabic: “self-giving or sacrificial”) and sovereign (an independent ruler). Yet Allah can’t be a loving God from all eternity because before he created he had no one to whom he could give his love (a single divine person all alone). Love must be given. Moreover, if Allah did create (angels and humans) in order to get love then he is in need and can’t be considered an independent ruler. Logically, it appears that Allah is either loveless or needy. Thus the claims of the Qur’an seem to stand in logical contradiction with regard to Allah. As a defender of the truth of Islam, can you resolve this logical tension?
M: I don’t quite understand this point. Love must be given? If someone does not give love, does that mean he does not have this particular attribute at all?
Me: How can Allah be a God of love when he is all alone in eternity with no one to share his love? No one to give his love to? Love must be given and shared freely. Love requires a relationship with another person (friendship, family, caring). Was he lonely? Was he needy? Did Allah then create out of a desperate desire to love and be loved? If so, how can Allah be called in the Qur’an “the loving”? How can Allah be an independent ruler? How can Allah be perfect when he has to find love outside himself? These seem like reasonable questions. If you don’t know the answers then maybe you can ask your imam. Does Islamic theology have an answer to this logical challenge?
M: Yes, right. Thank you for your questions. I am looking for answers to these inquiries but according to my research, either there is no true religion at all, or if there is, Islam is correct—based on a series of arguments and reasons.
Me: As a human being, my heart cries out for truth, goodness, and love. How about you? As a Muslim, does Allah give you truth, goodness, and love? Do you love Allah and does Allah love you?
M: So, let me ask and try to get answers for you. As long as I’m responding to your questions, maybe you can view this website that explains and defends the Islamic religion: Many Prophets One Message.
Me: M, I have studied Islam and I respect Muslim people. I will continue to read about your religion. I’m glad you are looking for answers to my questions.
M: Yes, my friend. So give me time to find answers to your inquiries. As Jesus (peace be upon him) said, I say, “Peace be with you” (John 20:21).
Me: As-salamu alaykum.
In the next article, I’ll continue the discussion by sharing how M’s imam answered my questions and how our interaction continued from there.
Reflections: Your Turn
How important is the Trinity to understanding how God can be love within himself?
Resources
- For a similar discussion I had with a Jehovah’s Witness, see “How the Trinity Shows God’s Love.”
- For further study about the Trinity, see “My Three Favorite Books on the Trinity.”
- For a further comparison of Islam and Christianity, see my two books God among Sages (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2017), 159–88; and A World of Difference (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), chapter 15.
- For an introduction to Islam by a Muslim scholar, see Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization by Seyyed Hossein Nasr (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).
Endnotes
1. Gerald Bray, “8 Things We Can Learn from Augustine,” Crossway (website), posted November 16, 2015.
2. See my discussion of St. Anselm’s ontological argument (greatest conceivable being) in Kenneth Richard Samples, Classic Christian Thinkers (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019), 82–83.
Reflections 
What you’re engaging in is called an exercise in futility.
Hetty:
“An exercise in futility”?
Here’s the WordPress note I received today about the response to this article:
“Your stats are booming! Reflections is getting lots of traffic.
Your blog, Reflections, appears to be getting more traffic than usual! 47 hourly views – 6 hourly views on average
A spike in your stats”
It seems this article topic is getting a lot of attention.
Ken Samples
I wasn’t referring to your blog. What I mean is debating about Allah, and if/who he loves, is futile.
Hetty:
You don’t seem to understand that this topic of who Allah loves is getting a lot of attention even among Muslims. The Lord may use this topic to open the hearts of Muslims to the Gospel.
Moreover, go back and read my article again because a God who is not loving can’t be a maximally perfect being.
The Trinity alone (Father, Son, Spirit) is analogous to a loving family.
If I recall, you’re Catholic. Show this article to your priest and see if he thinks the topic is futile.
Sincerely,
Ken Samples
It won’t open anyone’s hearts, they’re just as invested in showing you the absurdity of the Trinity. Obviously a god that doesn’t love isn’t perfect. If you have the energy to debate, then God bless you. As for me, I’m defeated, I gave up debating. And the only thing that opens their eyes is when you show them the real Muhammad. Proselytizing gets you nowhere.
Hetty:
I’m a scholar and a teacher of the world’s religions. So I’ve been talking to people of other religions for my entire adult life.
Talking about whether God is love makes a real difference.
If you’re defeated you should consider my article below.
Now back to talking about the Triune God of love.
Ken Samples
https://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/stoke-the-faith-flame-overcoming-spiritual-weariness/
@ Hetty Eliot: Your remarks are equivalent to an Islāmic apologist version of saying
Mᵜāz Kalīm:
Greetings again.
In my previous response to you I explained why I think Allah is not a maximally perfect being (he lacks genuine love in eternity and is forced to create in order to fulfill himself).
You say sharing love reflects limitation and fallibility, but love is not genuine love unless it is shared. True love requires multiple persons to exchange love (give and receive). I doubt you would say that loving your family reflects limitation and fallibility. Rather sharing love only enriches people.
Did Allah reflect limitation and fallibility when he created? Or because of his radical oneness was he forced to create in order to get love?
God is love (1 John 4:8, 16).
Ken Samples
I guess I’ve sufficiently replied to your queries over there in the thread below Ms Carolyn Hutcherson, concisely.
So I guess there’s no rational point in repeating my points here.
So here’s just a not-so-off-topic suggestion: I see you’ve published a article on your official-web about the “relationship between Judaism and Christianity”. However, I have not found any similar article over there about Islām. Why not try publishing an article denoting the ‘relationship between Christianity and Islam’, as well.
Mᵜāz Kalīm
I have multiple posted articles comparing Islam with Christianity even my discussion with an Imam as well as the book I posted below.
Here’s one of my articles on Islam and Christianity.
So long, Sir.
Ken Samples
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/how-does-islam-differ-from-christianity
Yep.
I see that now.
Thanks for your self-citation.
But based on what we’re taught about detecting “media bias” in higher-education: The headline sounds markedly adversarial from the get-go.
And the article is relatively shorter than the “relationship between Judaism and Christianity”. However, I do understand properly that’s because the latter is published in conversational-format, just like this blog-post, whereas “How does Islām differ from Christianity?” is a pointed matter-of-factly explainer about what demarcates the Top 2 of this one-&-only Planet’s belief-systems from each other and just, stops there.(
To wit, no deeper Philosophical enquiry by comparing all of the religious-texts with each other. For instance, comparing lessons imparted in miscellaneous volumes of Ahadīths with miscellaneous volumes of Gospels.)
But to be clear: That sounds about right, though. Since your latest comparison with historic Judaism is just as inquisitive.
After all, as they say: Something is better than no-thing.
Ta-ta!
And May the Lord grant you blissful life for your charitable endeavours[ ahead].
Mᵜāz Kalīm
I have generously allowed your very long posts to be made on my page. But this is my last response to you. I will not
post any more of your messages.
To be candid I don’t understand where you are coming from.
You are obviously familiar with Islam but you will not reveal your true beliefs. Frankly it makes me wonder why you are not more candid and forthright.
You say you don’t want to debate and yet you keep coming back with very long posts.
Moreover you demean and then apologize and then you again question my scholarship.
With all due respect, your long posts strike me as scattered and don’t really make careful points. You use a lot of words but still apparently can’t answer who Allah loved in eternity. And that is the very topic of my article in which you decided to initially comment.
I’ve written multiple books and almost 1,000 journal, magazine, and blog articles. I’m an advocate of historic Christianity but I work hard at being respectful and fair-minded in my writing.
To correct your impressions. Both of my articles on Judaism and Islam are about the same number of words. In fact, Muslims have thanked me for the article’s fairness and clarity. I’ve compared and contrasted the Qur’an with the Bible in my book God among Sages.
The book below has a chapter devoted to Islam.
Now I’ve got to get back to my book writing.
So long.
Ken Samples
Thanx for pushing me to get into your work,
I do appreciate that you would take the time to pursue me on this.
However, I don’t really understand your desire for my articulation on your work.
What I’m hearing/reading is that you resent me replying with Tweets that may or may not have any direct correlation to your initial Tweet.
In answer to this;
I see Twitter as a 10second grab to a greater depth of message. As such I have been piggybacking on the Tweets of the better known Tweeters and sharing Tweets that I feel God is giving me to challenge, inspire, comfort and uplift those who would be reading the initial Tweets. In most cases my Tweets do correspond or directly reply to the initial Tweets but many times I just put down my daily Tweet and piggyback on the Tweet as a catalyst for thought, controversy perhaps an alternative insight but with no real thought to take it to the next level.
However this is the second time you have asked me whether I have read your Tweet in depth and I get the impression that you are not overly happy with my piggybacking off your Tweets.
If this is a fair assumption on my interpretation of your responses to my Tweets then I truly am sorry that you feel I am infringing on the rights of your Tweet and therefore I will not do that again without first reading what you are truly trying to say in the fulness of your Tweet
I don’t know if this is satisfactory for you or not, but I would like to keep our relationship ongoing but more importantly on a civil level.
Please keep me informed on how you’re thinking or feeling on this issue and I look forward to continuing with our interaction
Cheers D
David:
Greetings in Jesus’s name.
I’m sure you mean well but I personally think it is inappropriate for you to make comments on a Tweet you haven’t read and don’t intend to read even if you’re using it as a piggyback attempt at evangelism or encouragement to other Christians.
It is like responding to a headline of an article in the newspaper but not taking the time to read the article.
Quoting Scripture passages without knowing the specific context of the issue seems less than fully responsible. Passages of Scripture are not magic that just works without context and careful application.
If I know you’ve actually taken the time to read my article on Christianity and Islam and engage with it then I’ll respond back. But if you’re not going to take the time to read them then I ask you to respectfully not piggyback on my articles.
I’ve got to go now and get back to writing my apologetics articles.
Sincerely in Christ.
Ken Samples
Senior Scholar Reasons to Believe
Thank you very much for posting this conversation, and thank you also for elucidating the doctrine of the Trinity so concisely.
Personally, I don’t necessarily disagree with your Augustinian reasoning that the Lord would have to be a Unity, i.e., One in essence and Three in subsistence. Although, for the sake of argument, may I ask, 1) if the reason that God is able to love before all creation is because He is eternally a Trinity (or Unity of Three Persons) and therefore has Persons Whom He loves before creation, then is God not also beyond, or outside of, all space and time? 2) If God is beyond space and time, then wouldn’t He be able to love His creation even before creating it?
Also, regarding St. Augustine, I was wondering why, in his book On The Trinity, he adamantly rejects the notion of the Holy Spirit being described as female or feminine. I agree with his subsequent reasoning that the Holy Spirit should not be thought of in this way because it would then imply that Jesus the Son was the product of the union between God the Father and the Holy Spirit (instead of sharing One essence); but if we’re going to appeal to a consistent logic, then the obvious question follows: how can the Father have a Son without a Mother?
To clarify, I’m not asking these questions to refute claims made by either yourself or the great Bishop of Hippo; I’m asking out of faith, seeking understanding.
Thank you again for your insights. I look forward to reading more of your writings.
Hello, Carolyn.
An eternal unitarian God (who is independent of time and space) wouldn’t be maximally perfect in himself because he has no one to love so he would be desperate to create just to fulfill himself. Even if God could love the idea of a creation before actually creating he would still not know the experience of giving and receiving love. But unlike all unitarian Gods, the Trinity is an eternal loving community that is perfectly loving in itself and only creates to share their love.
The Triune God is pure spirit with no sex (neither male nor female). All of our language about God is analogous (like and unlike). So the terms Father and Son reflect analogously what we mean by these terms and much more. And since they are analogous there is no need to be literal and postulate the need for a mother.
To that point: Why in heaven’s name a tripartite God who doesn’t need to love something else and yet thinks of creating one & many others just to “share the love”?
In that, doesn’t it reflect limitations in His worldview and fallibility of His cognition?
And while that’s the crux of on-topic reply. Other objections such as semantics on referring to the Supreme Being are (ahem! )omnipresent, for starters.
Mᵜāz Kalīm:
Greetings.
I don’t know if you are a Muslim but here’s a response to your remarks.
In Christian theology God is thought to be a maximally perfect being. That is God is unsurpassing in power, presence, knowledge, wisdom, justice, holiness, goodness, and love. This means that God can not be limited in his being for God does not need anything outside himself to fulfill himself.
With regard to love, the Triune God of historic Christianity enjoys unity and diversity (one God in three persons). The Trinity (tri-unity) is loving because God is analogous to a human family (three persons exchanging [giving and receiving] love for all eternity). So with the Triune God, love is grounded in God’s being and personhood and thus God does not need to create in order to fulfill himself.
With unitarian Gods (one being and one person) like Islam’s Allah, this God cannot be maximally perfect because he can’t ground love within himself and must created to find fulfillment. A God who must create to find fulfillment is by definition limited and imperfect.
The Qur’an says the Allah is sovereign and loving, but if he is alone in eternity with no one to give love and to receive love from and must create to achieve it he is not loving in eternity and he is not sovereign if he needs to create to find fulfillment.
I have asked Muslim apologists and Imams who Allah loved in eternity, but either they said they didn’t know or they said Allah had a latent attribute of love that wasn’t activated until he created angels and human beings. But if that is the case then again Allah appears to be less than maximally perfect.
I think it makes perfect sense that a God who is perfect in love like the Trinity would share that love with others. Human families do that all the time. Moreover, I don’t see how creating others to share divine love is in any way limited or fallible.
The Bible say “God is love.” Historic Christianity says God is love because he is a Trinity (having both unity and diversity).
So I respectfully ask you: Who did Allah (“the loving”) love in eternity before he created angels and human beings? Was he alone and loveless in eternity and was he needy in having to create?
Peace to you, friend.
Ken Samples
Well..
Greetings to you, as well!
Without needing to confirm/deny that whether I’m an adherent of some denomination of Islām be it by affiliation or practice: I do need to clarify that my reply was not from a mythological/religious/theological standpoint. In that, I didn’t intend to indulge in some “debate” with you based on that. And let it be clear without having to label myself, I don’t think highly of evangelism that’s spread through “comparative religion” by any evangelist of world-religions. So hope my intent is made clear.
And in any case, in the Human Civilisation made to rely on credentialism as an “absolute authority”( of sorts) and assuming innate good-faith in you, I’m not an Islāmic scholar so my insight won’t be accepted as authoritative as that of a “Muslim apologist” you were in dialogue with, anyways.
But to not keep you in a lurch( assuming that’s what you genuinely desire): I would nevertheless answer you matter-of-fact.
A) It depends on which denomination of Islām you consult.
B) Your repeated citing of Christian scripture denotes a Supreme Being with anthropomorphic attributes, that is not the prevailing thesis of Islām[ based on secular censuses of demographics across this one-&-only Planet]. As I glimpsed by my point about “semantics” here: Number of Islāmic [tel]evangelists protest the translation of proper-noun “ﷲ” in any variant of International English or other languages as the ‘Christonormative’ translation, “God”. For masses, they simplify that “God” has a feminine equivalent “Goddess” but the explanation behind it germinates the notion that Islāmic Higher Power has humanoid features as attributes of His existence, in that He can identify as male or female or the rest. To wit, it is ditto to Unitarian Christianity and prevalent view in Judaism than your theology which attributes anthropomorphic features to justify the Trinity of the Almighty who’s nevertheless, the singular( simplified: very same) existence.(
Also do note that “animals have no souls”[ i.e. they’re irrelevant in the exegesis of Creationism] is a notion that traces its origins to Pauline Christianity.) That’s why the trope “Old Man in the Sky” is also irrelevant to either of Islām or Judaism. Because they don’t see the Higher Power as their “deity”, a-gain a domain of semantics since that term can challenge the one-ness of Divinity.
C) And that’s why, the prevailing view across Islāmic denominations is that one can’t actually parse/translate the concept of divine “love” as it is understood across the Human Civilization. In other words, it’s “confidential wisdom”. However, in Sufism( and likewise with Jewish mysticism): There’s a theology of Divine Love which is compatible with the [Christian ]Trinitarianism.
Mᵜāz Kalīm:
Greetings again.
You don’t have to identify your religious position if you don’t want to. I just like to know whom I am discoursing with.
Just a few brief points in response:
1. I have taught college courses in world religions and comparative religions over a span of thirty years. I’m presently teaching as an adjunct professor at Biola University (Los Angeles, CA, USA). Nevertheless I still consider myself a student of the world’s religions rather than an expert. But I endeavor to be careful and respectful of other people’s religious views. I call it practicing the Golden Rule of Apologetics.
2. I’m also an author, coauthor, and contributor of 13 books on Christian theology, philosophy, and world religions. See my book below where I compare and contrast Jesus with Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, and Muhammad. I am an apologist and evangelist of historic Christianity (apparently the kind you don’t like) but in my engagements I remain a sincere and hopefully humble seeker of truth.
3. To describe Christian theology proper as the use of anthropomorphic categories is I think mistake. Classical Christian theology is largely apophatic theology (negative: defining what God is not). Though biblically speaking God has revealed himself to human being who bear the imago Dei and thus can understand things about God even though they are not fully comprehensible to the finite mind. The great Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas viewed all language about God as being analogical in nature.
4. I know something about Sufiism and Jewish mysticism. But God’s love within a trinitarian sense its not mysticism which tends toward the impersonal.
5. With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve provided an answer to the dilemma within Islamic theology. Allah is a unitarian God who has no one to love in eternity and is forced to create to fulfill himself. But the Muslim apologists and the Imam I discoursed with didn’t have an adequate answer either. I wonder if there is an adequate Islamic rejoinder.
I will not take any more of your time as I’ve got book writing deadlines to meet.
So we’ll close our discussion here.
Thanks for your comments and best regards.
Ken Samples
Senior Scholar
Reasons to Believe
Kenneth,
How would you respond, if he replied, Jesus said to “love your neighbor as yourself.” That would seem to imply that one could simply love (agapao) themselves, which would then allow them to agapao others.
Just a thought.
Kenny:
I don’t see how your thought gets at the issue of my article.
Single, solitary Gods are all alone in eternity with no one to love. So they create in order to fulfill themselves. Thus they can’t ground love in themselves. So they are not maximally perfect beings.
On the other hand, the one God in three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) encompass an eternal community of love and therefore constitute a maximally perfect being.
Ken Samples
It would seem, that like us, a solitary God could simply love himself through all eternity, and then decide to create others to share in that love. Creation of humans need not be from a necessity to fulfill himself. Similar to Jesus saying to love our neighbors “as we love ourselves.”
Although I believe in the Triune God, I just don’t see how it is necessary in order for God to be loving.
Kenny:
Thanks for your comments. They will help me as I work on a book on this subject.
Unfortunately your thought experiment doesn’t work for Allah. When the Qur’an calls Allah “the loving” (one of his 99 names) the Arabic term means “an altruistic, sacrificial love” not a self love that is then transferred to the creature.
So in your proposal Allah in eternity isn’t truly loving because he is alone and can’t truly give and receive love (true love is never just one way).
Moreover, Allah is supposed to be a sovereign ruler who needs nothing from the creation. Yet as a single, solitary God the only way to genuinely GIVE AND RECEIVE love (reciprocal) is to find it in a creature.
So the Qur’an has a tension between its two revealed ideas that Allah is loving and is a soverieign ruler.
I also think your definition of love misses the mark when you say you can love yourself and then simply shift love to another. True love (agape) is given and received freely from one person to another person.
Self love, though a part of reality, isn’t sacrificial or altruistic and is therefore a lesser kind of love. For example, self love calls one to preserve and protect oneself. But altruistic love may call you to sacrifice your life on behalf of another. So when Jesus tells us to love our neighbor he really means that we must be transformed by grace to move from the easier love of self to the really challenging love of another.
Further your example (a person loving themselves and then loving another) compares yourself to God which isn’t acceptable because God (unlike human creatures) is supposed to be a maximally perfect being. Otherwise God isn’t worthy of one’s worship.
May I say humbly that I respectfully think your appreciation for the Trinity might significantly increase if you can appreciate the point being made in my article.
Scripture says God IS love (1 John 4:8, 16), not just has love. Therefore God must have perfect love within himself (which by necessity involves multiple persons).
So God is love because God is a Trinity.
Got to go now and talk to more people about God’s unsurpassable love.
Faith, Hope, and Love.
Ken Samples
Thank you Ken,
When Jesus used “agape,” about your neighbor and self, it confused me, because I had always associated that word with the way God loves.