1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
9. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
10. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
11. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.
Hi MHGinTN! It may have been naughty of me; but the only way I could make sense of the above quote was to insert the bracketed [no]. When I pray, I pray to the Father, in the name of the Son (Logos, the Word of the Father). From the two proceeds the Holy Spirit, which "moves" and is active in souls in this world. God is One; but still I believe that One is hierarchically trinitarian in form. If we can speak of God has having "form" or "movement" at all, and we really can't. :^). (Because such categories only have meaning within 4D spacetime constraints.)
'Tis a mystery that I prefer not to reduce to a "doctrinal statement." Any such doctrinal statement about the nature of God is practically guaranteed to be either wrong or completely unprovable. Plus the semantic quibbles sure to follow rarely get you anywhere. :^) For myself, I just like to KISS -- to "keep things simple [stupid]."
The only essential point to bear in mind is "God is love; and who lives in love lives in God and God in him."
Well, FWIW. Please people, don't jump all over me if you don't like my take on this: You're entitled to your own view of the matter, according to the way the Holy Spirit leads you -- which I honor and respect.
Thank you so much Marvin, for detailing Keynes' take on this for me (us).