I’ve been thinking that a three-person God makes perfect sense. Even before new beings were created, fellowship and communion existed. God is love. Now because God is being itself, being-for-others* is integral to existence; it’s (part of) the eternal values. God’s creating others was simply an expression of his being, his being-for-others. It shows his love for us. If God only existed as one person (not multiple), then to create others would require a change in His will, His values, and so then no set of values would be eternal. But God is unchangeable and eternal, so this does not make sense! Also without eternal values there would be no eternal ethics (the moral law), so ethics would just be arbitrary. At one point these are God’s values, then they change. But if God already loves others before creating (and loving) others, then His values remain the same; they remain eternal.
But why three persons instead of just two? If God were only two persons, then before creation, He would love an other, but He would not love others. Three is the minimum to be able to love and to love others, although there can be more, as is the case given creation. That’s my theory. Does it make any sense?
Also, if you recall the movie Into the Wild, towards the end he writes,
HAPPINESS ONLY REAL WHEN SHARED
With that short phrase perhaps that individual, before his death, uncovered a great spiritual piece of wisdom. Perhaps it is metaphysically impossible for a person to be happy isolated. With the Trinity fellowship and love are eternal and free. Being-for-others is necessary for lasting joy and happiness.
Or am I reading too much into a movie line?
*I stole ‘being-for-others’ from Sartre. In my case it just means love, which is what the phrase sounds like. Love means being there for others.