According to the Doctrine of the Trinity, is God split up?

Question

As the question goes: is God split up?

I have this theory, and hopefully, I'm not alone in this, that God the Father was one, before He split Himself into three, meaning that the trinity must be wrong and that God is one, Jesus is one, and that The holy spirit is one, but, that God was one, before the beginning, and that He split Himself into Jesus and The holy spirit as well.

I am myself thinking that this is true, but I'm also afraid I may be wrong.

Anyways, I'm looking into it! And I would be glad if anyone could point out to me for instance church fathers or others with the same mind set.

Answer 1

The theory asked about by the O.P. is not unique! It has been held since very early times after Christ established his Church. Although some of those called 'the Church Fathers' used philosophical arguments to counter it, the foundation of their attacks is seen in the entire Bible. One answer has detailed scriptures about the unchanging, one God of Christianity.

The trinity doctrine deals with 'triuetheism' - belief in one God as three distinct personalities, but that none of the three were ever created. They all existed in unity in the Godhead from eternity, with clear roles and functions, and (in time) the Word became flesh and dwelt among humanity (John 1:1-36). A way of summarising this deepest of all doctrines is that:

Three Persons share divine nature. The Father and the Son share the one, divine nature, with absolute unity of the Spirit in their nature.

This rules out either the Word (the Son) or the Spirit having a starting-point in time. Were that so, then they would amount to two 'lesser gods', inferior to the one God who gave rise to their distinct being, and that would give three deities: the Big God, and two lesser gods. The entire Bible is utterly opposed to such a notion, which is quite pagan. For example, Hinduism has a triad called Trimurti, a representation of 'One God in three forms'. It has sometimes - though wrongly - been described as 'a Hindu trinity.' But a triad is not a trinity. Encyclopedia of World Faiths, P. 193, Bishop & Darton, 1987

It really is not 'the Church Fathers' you need to consult on this, but to study what the Bible itself says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Philosophy is also not what needs to be taken into account (as some of the early 'Church Fathers' did). Suggestion - start reading the gospel account of John, chapter 1 verse 1, and keep going - prayerfully.

EDIT: As stated in my answer to a related question about the Trinity (link below), the doctrine uses the word ‘subsists’ and not ‘consists’ when speaking of the three 'persons'. Being uncreated, there is no starting point in time for they subsist in this one Being of God, undivided by time, or in time. The analogy of an apple being divided into three certainly means the three pieces are of the same kind, even though they have now been divided and are separate. Further, time has to come into that analogy, for there was a time when the apple was intact, as one apple. Then came a time when the apple was divided into parts. But the Trinity doctrine does not allow for that due to using the word ‘subsists’ and avoiding the word ‘consists’.

With subsistence - you cannot divide it or take anything away if that which subsists is to continue to exist. To subsist is to exist, to continue to exist, to remain in being. God does not consist of more than one 'thing' because all three 'persons' in the Godhead are equally this one Being of God. They do not consist of anything different to the nature of God. The only triune Being HAS to have all of his nature intact to exist as that triune Being.

This is why the Trinity doctrine does not allow for any idea of God being divided into ‘parts’, like a pie. See this link for more: Are the 3 Persons of the Trinity dependent on each other?

Answer 2

You are asking to be pointed towards church fathers that believe a similar mindset as your line of reasoning. This is... unlikely.

I'm eastern Orthodox, so I totally get your request for a reference to church fathers. :)

However, the doctrine of the Trinity was declared in 381 in the Nicene-Constaninopolitan Creed. This is when the Trinity that was understand today was officially confirmed.

Keep in mind that the old Church generally did not make declarations unless something wrong was happening. Usually someone was teaching a heresy. This puts any ancient source (church fathers) in a dubious position as it would likely have to be one of the heretics and not a church father.

Another thing to consider here is that... We cannot rationalize our minds to God.

Let us look to some of the church fathers and then the Scriptures themselves.

Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but turn to their maxims, because from them you will learn discipline and how to serve the great. (Wisdom of Sirach 8:8)

(Orthodox) Christians believe in God the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods, but one God in three Hypostases, in three personal beings. What mathematics and logic consider an absurdity constitutes the cornerstone of our faith, namely that 1=3 and 3=1. Christians participate in the trinitarian Godhead not through logic but through repentance, that is, through a complete change and renewal of the mind, heart and feelings (the Greek word for 'repentance' - metanoia - literally means 'change of mind'). To touch upon the mystery of the Holy Trinity is impossible unless the mind changes from a rational way of thinking and becomes illumined by divine grace. (Diocese of Sourozh, Russian Orthodox)

God is unoriginate, unending, eternal, constant, uncreated, unchanging, unalterable, simple, incomplex, bodiless, invisible, intangible, indescribable, without bounds, inaccessible to the mind, uncontainable, incomprehensible, good, righteous, that Creator of all creatures, the almighty Pantocrator --(St. John Damascene, "Chrysorrhoas" 700ish AD).

Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason (Hieromartyr Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189] Pre-Nicene Council).

“No one can rightly express him wholly. For on account of his greatness he is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form” (St. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 5:12 [A.D. 208]) Pre-Nicene Council.

“God, however, being without parts, is Father of the Son without division and without being acted upon. For neither is there an effluence from that which is incorporeal, nor is there anything flowering into him from without, as in the case of men. Being simple in nature, he is Father of one only Son” (St. Athanasius (the Great) of Alexandria, Letter on the Council of Nicaea 11 [A.D. 350]).

“God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine, filling up everything, never himself confused with anything, penetrating everything, never himself being penetrated, everywhere complete, and present at the same time in heaven, on earth, and in the farthest reaches of the sea, incomprehensible to the sight” (St. Ambrose of Milan, The Faith 1:16:106 [A.D. 379]).

---

At this point I could continue to list more and more Church fathers that firmly support the fact that God is unchanging. But let's go back even further...

“But you [God] remain the same, and your years will never end” (Psalm 102:27).

“Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89).

“The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

“I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6).

“’I am the Alpha and the Omega—the beginning and the end,’ says the Lord God. ‘I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come—the Almighty One.’” Revelation 1:8

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17)

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

---

God did not "split up", because God is unchanging.

There are no church fathers that agree with you, there are heretics who might. (Arians or Gnostics perhaps)

Peace be with you.

Answer 3

It has been a while since I've read through the early church fathers, but the closest thing that comes to mind is what Justin Martyr writes in his Dialogue with Trypho (chapter 128). He describes how Jesus - a second, lesser God - came from God Almighty. However, like fire from fire, Jesus was formed without taking away from the Father. So kinda the opposite of what you are proposing - but it could give you a start in your research on the matter.

And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the angels.

But it is proved that there are angels who always exist, and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

So for Justin Martyr, the 2nd century Apologist, Jesus was begotten from the Father - of the same substance. However, though he is to be counted as numerically distinct from the Father, yet his being begotten of the Father's own substance did not in turn reduce or divide the Father. Like fire from fire, he is of the same nature / substance as the Father, but a distinct lesser blaze.

I don't agree with Justin's views myself - and indeed, they obviously aren't what ultimately become orthodoxy (not that I'm orthodox). Rather, the OT gives us a lot of precedence for one who is not God Almighty to be referred to as God. Like the angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3) or Moses (Exodus 7). Following the biblical precedence, there is no conflict with Jesus being addressed as God in places without him literally being God Almighty. Rather, as with the various angels and men who have been referred to as God prior to him, he is referred to as God on account of being his (perfect) representative and agent - sent to carry out God's will.

Answer 4

What you propose is similar to the views of Marcellus. To signify the rejection of his views as heretical, the church in 381 AD added to the Apostle’s Creed the phrase “and his kingdom will have no end”. These words are found in the Bible and were spoken by an angel to the Virgin Mary.

Here is a quote from Bishop Timothy Whitaker. It is from https://juicyecumenism.com/2020/02/21/bishop-timothy-whitaker-kingdom-will-no-end/#:~:text=The%20church%20in%20the%20fourth,kingdom%20will%20have%20no%20end.

The Council of Nicaea rejected as heresy the theology of Arius, the Alexandrian presbyter, that the Son was a creature of God the Father. If Arius were right, then the church was committing idolatry in worshiping Jesus Christ. When the Eastern creeds began to include the teaching, and his kingdom will have no end, they were rejecting the Sabellian heresy of another and more recent teacher, Marcellus of Ancyra.

Marcellus had been a member of the Council of Nicaea who strongly supported the inclusion of the hoomousion and who was a friend of the great champion of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius of Alexandria. According to Marcellus, the Word of God did not become the Son until the incarnation and therefore the name of “Son,” like the names of “Christ” and “image,” were properly applicable to him during the incarnate state of the Word. Sonship in the deity would disappear when the purposes for which the Word became incarnate had been finally accomplished. Jesus Christ the incarnate Son was indeed promoted, as it were, to divine status, but Marcellus thought the Son would ultimately be absorbed into God’s Being as the divine energy of God, the Word (Logos) of God.

Marcellus denied that the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, would have no end. The idea that Christ’s kingdom would be everlasting makes no sense if there were no further role for the incarnation of the Word as the “Son” or the “Christ” when the purposes of the incarnation are consummated. The story of Marcellus is just another illustration of the perennial fact that the scriptures are subject to plausible interpretations that do not fit the doctrine of the church when interpreters are guided by presuppositions that differ from those of the church.

Answer 5

My answer goes like this:

if there is any claim to the theory that God is one, and also three, how can this add up, logically?

Is this not the case intead: that God was one, and that He, before the beginning was one, but, that through His love and mercy, He split Himself into three, and made Jesus come alive around year 1, and that He has the grand scheme all figured out and all planned out?

And is this not logical?

Why must God be one in three? Why can He not be three coming from one?

I am still working this out in my mind, so, be aware of faults and errors, as there may be many. I am sorry for the possible wrongs in this philosophy, but every wrong will suddenly turn correctly, you'll see. I may be bold (hidden "pun" intended), but I know, for a fact, that I too have gotten the Holy Spirit, that is now guiding me.