Thanks for the response.

Your complaints would be better addressed to Karen Armstrong, as I was merely quoting what she said. I am obviously not as familiar with Aquinas as you are, and I was indeed surprised when I read that passage in her book. It's quite possible that she hasn't fully represented his views.

To put a different slant on some of your points. Is the second aspect of the Trinity a person, or is it the Logos, as John called it? Could it be something impersonal which assumed or adopted a human personality?

It's hard to give a full definition of what a personal God is, but I did explain what I was intending at the start of the article.

You'll probably disagree, but I think that most Christian ideas about the Trinity are faulty, so I don't disagree that that is what Aquinas and Augustine said.