The Trinity

Theologians argue amongst themselves if the relational or moral attributes of God have to be exercised in order to for God to have them. For example, “Does God need to bestow love upon someone in order to show that He has the attribute of love?” If the answer is yes, then another question arises, “How did God display or exercise His moral attributes before the creation of the world?” The answer comes from the doctrine of the Trinity. God exercised His moral attributes unto Himself. In other words, God was able to exercise love before the creation of the world because all three Persons of the Trinity were exercising love unto each other.

Upon starting our study of the doctrine of the Trinity, it must be admitted that the word “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Bible. However, the doctrine can be easily defended using the Bible. Many men have studied the relevant passages that will be discussed below and have come to the conclusion of what we call the doctrine of the Trinity. Doctrine was formed, not because it was explicitly state in Scripture, 1 but because it is the best synthesis of all the relevant texts. What we will see, as we study these texts, is the different Persons of the Godhead acting in creation and revealing Himself which allows us to have insights into an understanding of the Godhead. 

A complete and perfect understanding of the Trinity is impossible. The doctrine of the Trinity falls into the category of the incomprehensibility of God. God’s divine majesty and glorious being/essence is beyond the capabilities of man’s mind (Ps. 145:3). The fact that no one has ever come up with a perfect analogy to illustrate the workings of the Trinity demonstrates  the transcendence of God’s essence. Yet this does not mean that we should not make an effort to know the definition of the Trinity and the workings of the Persons in the Godhead. After all, God has given us glimpses of the Trinity in Scripture and we should make it our duty to know what we can to the best of our ability. Besides, if we misunderstand the Trinity, we end with disastrous and even heretical results.

Before discussing a definition of the Trinity, some terms need to be explained. The doctrine of the Trinity speaks of the Godhead on two different levels—Essence and Person. When concerning discussing the unity of the Godhead, the term “essence” is employed and refers to the being of God Himself. “Essence” and “substance” can be used interchangeably when discussing the Trinity; both have a similar range of meaning. One man explained that, 

Essence is from esse, to be, and denotes energetic being. Substance is from substare, and denotes the latent possibility of being.…The term essence describes God as a sum-total of infinite perfection; the term substance describes Him as the underlying ground of infinite activities. The first is, comparatively, and active word; the last, a passive. The first is, comparatively, a spiritual, the last a material term. We speak of material substance rather than of material essence.2

For the sake of clarity, I will try to consistently use the word “essence” when discussing the being of God. The second level of discussion concerns the Persons of the Trinity. The term “Person” is employed when discussing the individual and separate Persons of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word “subsistence” is also used in the same manner. Men have  struggled for centuries to come up with better labels for the individuals Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Calvin explained, “By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the divine essence—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence.”3 In short, I use “Person” to refer to either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit simply because a better term is lacking. One must take careful note! While substance may be used alongside essence and person may be used alongside subsistence, substance refers to something different than subsistence and essence refers to something different than person. 

Now that some terms have been explained we can finally move onto a definition of the Trinity. “There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.”4 Athanasius (ca. 296–373), the bishop of Alexandria, stated, 

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence]. For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is: such is the Son: and such is the Holy Spirit.…For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord: So we are forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.5

The Trinity can be summed up in three statements: 1) there is only one God; 2) God is three Persons; and 3) each Person of the Godhead is fully God. According to the Bible, none of these statement contradicts each other. 

A. There Is Only One God

The Scriptures are abundantly clear on this: there is only one God and God is one. The famed Shema of the Jewish faith, makes it clear that God is one (Deut. 6:4–5; cf. NASB: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”). Jesus recites these verses when He was questioned about the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29–30). After seeing Pharaoh’s army drowned in the Red Sea, Moses sang of God’s power asking the rhetorical question “Who is like you among the gods, O LORD?” (Exod. 15:11 NASB). The obvious answer is no one is like the LORD. Isaiah was told of how there is no other God (Isa. 44:6–8; 45:5–6, 21–22; cf. 1 Kings 8:60). Paul confirmed this as well in his writings (Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4–6; 1 Tim. 2:5). James mentions that there is only one God as well (James 2:19). 

The obvious conclusion of all these Scripture passages is that God is undivided. He is one in His essence or in His being. Therefore, the attributes that we just finished studying can be applied to all three Persons because They are all of the same essence or substance. 

B. God Is Three Persons

Even though God is one in His essence, there are three Persons within the Godhead. We see this from when each Person of the Trinity is mentioned. The Persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The first and second Persons of the Trinity are respectively called Father and Son because of how they relate to each other; the names are illustrative (John 1:14, 18; 5:17–26; 14:12–13). “The first person is the Father of the second in a metaphysical sense. This is the original fatherhood of God, of which all earthly fatherhood is a faint reflection.”6 The third Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is designated with words that are similar to “breath” or “to breathe.” Therefore the name is illustrative of the invisible work that is done by God because breath cannot be seen (John 3:5–8). 

There are multiple passages for when all three of the Persons are mentioned. The first passage is the baptism of Jesus Christ (Luke 3:21–22). This passage is extremely important because not only is each Person mentioned, each Person is acting in creation.7 Another passage when all three Persons are mentioned is at the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). At times Paul wrote while bearing the Trinity in mind (2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4–6); as well as Peter (1 Pet. 1:2), and Jude (Jude 20–21).

1. Each Person Is Separate

While there is unity in God’s essence there is a distinction between the three Persons. Perhaps Jesus explained it best when He claimed that, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). Jesus claimed that He is God and yet at the same time distinct in Person. Both the Father and the Son have and share the entire essence of God and are the separate Persons, otherwise Jesus would not be able to say “I and my Father.” We see the Father and the Son as separate Persons throughout Scripture (John 1:1–2, 9–18; John 17:24; 1 John 2:1; Heb. 7:25). Therefore, it must be said that the Father is not the Son. It is also true that the Holy Spirit is not the Father (John 14:26; Rom. 8:26–27), and that the Son is not the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7). 

2. How Each Person Relates

Another set of distinctions that must be discussed is how each of the Persons relate to creation and to each other. The relation of each Person to creation is known as the economic functions of the Trinity or the opera ad extra (i.e. work outside). The relation of each Person to each other is known as the ontological relation or the opera ad intra (i.e. works within). 

a. Economic Relation

When I am using the word “economics,” I am mean it in the sense of “the ordering of activities” (e.g. home economics), rather than the financial state of the country. 

While there are numerous ways in which each Person uniquely relates to creation, there are two examples in particular that I want to focus on: creation and salvation. In each of these examples, each person has a distinct role but all three Persons are still working together in perfect unity towards the same goal. This is due to the set order that is observed in the Trinity. We will see that, “All things are out of the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit”8 (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). 

The first example we see of all three Persons working on one task is in the creation of the world. God the Father spoke the world into existence (Gen. 1:3–5). Yet the world was created through the Son (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). We also see that the Holy Spirit was working in a unique way as well (Gen. 1:2; cf. Ps. 33:6, where “breath” could be translated “Spirit”). In the completion of creation, God was able to look on His creation and call it “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

The second example we see all three Persons woking on one task is in salvation. The Father planned redemption, elected certain persons for salvation according to His will and sent the Son (John 3:16; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:9–10). The Son suffered death on the cross and redeemed all that the Father had given unto Him (John 6:37–40; Rom. 3:25). The Holy Spirit regenerates (John 3:5–8; Tit. 3:5), seals (Eph. 1:13; 4:30), and sanctifies (Rom. 8:13–14; 15:16; 1 Pet. 1:2).

As we examine how each of the Persons relate to the created world, we should notice that there is an order between the Persons. This is often discussed in terms of subordination yet this subordination is limited to how the Persons relate to creation or their role, not their degrees of dignity. We see that Jesus Christ, God the Son, is subordinate to the Father as according to the Father’s will (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38). Christ will be Ruler over all things but will even subject Himself to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28). We also see that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son (John 14:26; 15:26).

b. Ontological Relation

Upon an examination of how the Persons relate in their work in creation, we can begin to understand how they relate to each other. There is an order that is seen between the Persons but this does not mean that the Son is any less God than the Father or that the Holy Spirit is any less God than the Son. They are still co-equal. Berkhof explains,

It need hardly be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation. The Father is neither begotten by, nor proceeds from any other person; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from all eternity. Generation and procession take place within the Divine Being, and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but no subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned. This ontological Trinity and its inherent order is the metaphysical basis of the economical Trinity.9

We state that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and the Son (John 15:26) because we lack better terms to describe how the Persons relate to each other, so we borrow the words that are used by the Bible. 

The term “eternally begotten” comes from the “only begotten” passages (see above). The words “only begotten” comes from the Greek μονογενής (monogenēs). For the longest time, many thought monogenēs was a combination of μόνος (monos) meaning “only” and γεννάω (gevvaō) meaning “to cause something to come into existence, primarily through procreation,”10 thus leading to the translation “only begotten,” almost in the sense of an only child (cf. Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). This leads some to think that the Son had a beginning, which we know to not be true (John 8:58; 17:5). However, monogenēs is really a combination of μόνος (monos) meaning “only” and γενός (genos) meaning “class or kind.”11 Therefore monogenēs really means, “being the only one of its kind or class, i.e., unique (in kind).”12 Therefore we should not think of the Son as One who was begotten by the Father but that the Father sent His unique One to earth. The author of Hebrews uses monogenēs to describe Isaac. The passage only makes sense when we realize that monogenēs does not mean “only begotten,” for Isaac was not Abraham’s only son, but the author means to say that Isaac is unique, in that, Isaac was the child that received the blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant (Heb. 11:17–18). Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215) uses the same meaning of the word as well in his letter to believers in Rome and Corinth, “There is a bird that is named the phoenix. This bird, the only one [monogenēs] of its species.”13 Therefore, when monogenēs is said of Jesus, “monogenēs is used to mark out Jesus uniquely above all earthly and heavenly beings; in its use the present soteriological meaning is more strongly stressed than that of origin.”14

Stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (John 15:26) is known as the filioque clause and caused quite a stir in Chuch history. The filioque clause supposedly led to a split between western Christianity (eventually becoming the Roman Catholic church) and eastern Christianity (which eventually became the various branches of the eastern orthodox churches) in A.D. 1054.

The word filioque is a Latin term that means “and from the Son.” It was not included in the Nicene Creed in either the first version of A.D. 325 or the second version of A.D. 381. Those vision simply state that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” But in A.D. 589, at a regional church council in Toledo (in what is now Spain), the “and the Son” as added, so the that the creed then said that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).” In the light of John 15:26 and 16:7, where Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit in to the world, it seems there could be no objection to such a statement if it referred to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son at a point in time (particularly at Pentecost). But this was a statement about the nature of the Trinity, and the phrase was understood to speak of the eternal relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son, something Scripture never explicitly discusses. The form of the Nicene Creed that had this additional phrase gradually gained in general use and received an official endorsement in A.D. 1017. The entire controversy was complicated by ecclesiastical politics and struggles for power, and this apparently very insignificant doctrinal point was the main doctrinal issue in the split between eastern and western Christianity in A.D. 1054. (The underlying political issue, however, was the relation of the Eastern church to the authority of the Pope.) The doctrinal controversy and the split between the two branches of Christianity have not been resolved to this day.15

I would have to agree that the argument was over something non-consequential. John 15:26 and 16:7 only talk of a singular act that took place in a single point in time and not about how the Holy Spirit relates to the Son and the Father in all of eternity. At best these verses only tell us of the economic subordination seen in the Trinity. 

C. Each Person Is God

Having now discussed that the essence of God is one, and that God is three Persons, we must now discuss how each of the three persons are God. Something that must be stressed is that each Person of the Trinity is fully God. Scripture never shows any degrees of dignity between the Persons of the Trinity. One Person is not more divine than another; each is equally God.

The Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit will be discussed more extensively when such concerns become the main topic in future lessons. For now, these matters are briefly written with enough sufficiency to demonstrate the point on hand—each Person is God. 

1. Father

There should be no debate with the fact that the Father is God. Yet, for the sake of argument, some proofs are provided. When Jesus prays, He prays to God the Father (John 17:1). The Father is labeled as God (John 6:27; Gal. 1:1; Phil. 2:11). 

2. Son

The testimony of the apostles make the Deity of Christ very clear (Col. 1:15; 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3, 8, 10). The Gospel of John says much of the Deity of Christ (1:1–4, 14; 5:17–18; 8:58; 14:8–9; 20:25–31). The synoptics speak of Christ’s Deity as well (Matt. 1:23; 9:2–6; 14:33). One could even go to the Old Testament (Ps. 110:1; Isa. 9:6; Zech. 12:10). 

3. Holy Spirit

Now that the Father and the Son are seen as God, the passage where all three Persons listed should help to understand that they are all treated equally, and therefore the Holy Spirit is fully God (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2). In the episode with Ananias and Sapphira, Peter uses the terms “Holy Ghost” and “God” interchangeably (Acts 5:3–4). 

Because it is understood that the Holy Spirit is God, it should be also understood that the Holy Spirit is a Person and not a force. Even though πνευμα (pneuma) is neuter, New Testament authors use a masculine pronoun when referring to the Holy Spirit (John 16:14; Eph. 1:14). “The characteristics of a person are ascribed to Him, such as intelligence (John 14:26; 15:26; Rom. 8:16), will (Acts 16:7; 1 Cor. 12:11), and affections (Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30). Moreover, He performs acts proper to personality.…What does all these things cannot be a mere power or influence, but must be a person.”16 If certain passages were interpreted as the Holy Spirit being a power, they would be a tautology. All you have to do to see the absurdity is substitute the word “power” for Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35; 4:14; Acts 10:38; Rom. 15:13). 

D. The Three Persons Have Always Been the Same

The doctrine of the Trinity was progressively revealed in Scripture. The Old Testament did not display marks of the Trinity like the New Testament. This is because the incarnation of Christ caused a lot more information to be revealed concerning the Trinity than had been previously necessary. If a person does not very closely, one could get the impression that the Persons of the Trinity did not exist until the incarnation of Jesus Christ, or that God was expressing Himself in  differing ways in differing dispensations. However, God does not change (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; James 1:17); this includes His essence and each of the individual Persons. God has always existed as one God. God has always existed in three Persons. Each Person has always been God.

1. Eternity Past

Eternity past, or before creation, is rarely spoken of in Scripture. Yet there are a couple of verses that do stand out and help to demonstrate that the Trinity has always existed. Jesus talks of possessing a glory alongside the Father “before the world was” (John 17:5). Then, within the same prayer, Jesus talks about a relationship that He had “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). We can also assume that John 1:1 is talking the relationship between the Word (i.e. Christ) and God before the world is created because it does not talk creation until verse 3. 

A popular misunderstanding of Christ’s pre-existence comes from the word “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15–18 causing some to think that Christ was created by God before the world was created. However, the context of the surrounding verses demands otherwise. Verses 16 and 17 make it clear that Jesus Christ is a being that is without beginning, for how could a created being create?  And the word “firstborn” is repeated in verse 18 as well, that is, “firstborn from the dead.” “Firstborn” is πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos) which is “pertaining to having special status associated with a firstborn.”17 Paul is emphasizing the rights and privileges that a privileged position brings, not an order of generation. In this case, Paul is talking about Christ authority as head over the Church, “that he might have the preeminence.”

2. Old Testament

One does not have to look to far in the Old Testament to see hints of the Trinity. Within the creation account we see a plurality of Persons that are sharing in a singular essence (Gen. 1:26). Multiple Persons are seen in the plural pronoun “us” and yet all of these Persons are possessing the ability to create, which only comes from an uncreated Being. Also, these Persons are in agreement as what man should be—“in our image.” The plural personal pronouns are seen in multiple places in the Old Testament (Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8). 

A significant passage that shows more than one Person in the Godhead is Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said unto my Lord (נְאֻם יְהוָה ׀ לַֽאדֹנִי, n^euʾm y^ehwāh la-ʾdōnî).” The Pharisees did not understand this verse when Jesus asked them about it (Matt. 22:41–46). The reason why David calls his son “Lord (אָדוֹן, ʾādôn)” is because He is God. Yet this only makes sense if we bear in mind the separate Persons of the Trinity. If we think of Psalm 110:1 within the scope of the Trinity, we should see it as, “God the Father said unto God the Son.”

The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father as well. In Isaiah 63:10, the people “rebelled and vexed (i.e. grieved) his holy Spirit.” The verse does not say that they rebelled against God, but against His Holy Spirit, which marks the Spirit as separate from the Father. 

In Isaiah 48:16, we see all three Persons: “And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirt” (NASB). The Person speaking is the “Servant of the Lord,” which is Jesus Christ (cf. Isa 42:1). Therefore, we see God the Father sending the Son, along with the Holy Spirit. 

There are also multiple times in the Old Testament when one of the Persons of the Trinity is seen. The first example of this are the passages that mention the Angel of the LORD (Gen. 16:13; Exod. 3:2–6; 23:20–22; Num. 22:35, 38; Judg. 2:1–2; 6:11, 14). The Angel appears to have characteristics that should only be applied to a Person of Deity and is yet still considered a separate Person from God the Father, especially since no one has seen God (Exod. 33:20; John 1:18). The second example are passages that mention the Holy Spirit working as separate Person (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 51:11).

3. New Testament

As one comes to the Gospels, we encounter the incarnation—God dwelling in flesh amongst men. The doctrine of incarnation demands some more explanation concerning the essence and character of God. Therefore, it makes sense that the New Testament reveals more concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. The multiple passages that mention all three Persons of the Trinity easily show that all three Persons existed during the time of Christ (Matt. 3:16–17; 28:19), and for the Church (2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4–6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20–21).

4. Eternity Future

In the future, all three Persons will still exist as they are now. This can be seen in the passages that discuss actions or transaction that will happen between the Persons of the Trinity. In John 5:21–30, Jesus explains that authority for judgment was given by God as well the power of the resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, God puts all things under Christ and then Christ puts Himself under the Father. Hebrews 1:8 mentions that Jesus Christ will sit on David’s throne forever (something only the second Person can do, cf. 2 Sam 7:12–13). Lastly, we see both God and the Lamb (i.e. Jesus Christ) as two separate Persons existing alongside the redeemed (Rev. 21:9–10; 22:1). 

E. History of Errors Concerning the Trinity

While it may not be absolutely necessary, it certainly helpful to know of some of the errors people have made concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. At the very least, we can learn from their mistakes so we do not unwittingly follow their example by becoming confused or having a poor knowledge of the doctrine. All of the following errors fail to acknowledge one of the three main points concerns the Trinity: there is one God; God is three Persons; and each Person is God.

1. Monarchianism

Monarchianism stresses the unity of the Godhead and denied the separation between the Persons (think mono, or one; and monarch, i.e. king). Monarchianism fails to recognize each Person of the Godhead working alongside the other Persons towards a unified goal as was seen in the economic relation of the Trinity to creation, or the opera ad extra. Monarchianism comes in two forms: Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism) and Modalism (or Sabellianism).

a. Adoptionism

Adoptionism tried to tried to maintain the unity of God by denying the deity of Jesus Christ. “Jesus was viewed as a mere man who was endowed with the Holy Spirit. this view was first put forward by in Rome about 190 by Theodotus of Byzantium and continued by his successor, Artemon (also called Theodotus), who tried to argue that this teaching was the heir of the apostolic tradition.”18 Adoptionism, therefore, also denied the eternal existence of Jesus Christ (cf. John 17:5). The false doctrine received the label “Adoptionism” because proponents claimed that Jesus was “adopted” by God and called him His “Son” at the time of Jesus’ baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus. 

b. Modalism

Modalism, or Sabellianism (so named after the teacher, Sabellius), attempted to maintain the unity of God and even affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ. However, Modalism stated that the Son is the Father, and the Holy Spirit—there is only one person. God is only expressing Himself in different “modes.” Bavinck explains,

The precursors of Sabellianism in the second and third centuries A.D. were Noetus, Praxeas, Epigonus, and Cleomenes, who taught that in Christ, the Father himself had been born and had suffered and died; that the “Father” and the “Son” were names for the same person in different relations, name before and during his incarnation, both for the same person as such as well as in this historical manifestation; or also that the divine nature in Christ was the Father and the human nature, the flesh, the Son. Now, in the third century this monarchianism, patripassianism,19 or modalism was promulgated and further developed by Sabellius. The Father, Son, and Spirit are the same God; they are three names for one and the same being. Calling this being “Huiopator,”20 he applied the name to its three successive energies or stages. God consisted first of all in the person (prosopon), the appearance or mode of the Father, namely, as Creator and Lawgiver; next, in the prosopon of the Son as Redeemer, from the time of his incarnation to the moment of his ascension, and finally in the prsosopon of the Holy Spirit as the Vivifier.21

Of course, numerous problems arise with this idea, especially the heresy of patripassianism requiring that the Father suffer the punishment of sin rather than the Son (cf. Matt. 27:46; Rom. 3:24–26; the doctrine of propitiation requires three parties be involved, 1) the guilty, 2) One whose wrath is satisfied against the guilty, and 3) and the One who is the propitiation). Modalism is easily refuted when we see more than one Person active in a singular event (e.g. Jesus’ baptism, the Transfiguration). 

2. Subordinationism

Subordinationism confuses the nature of Christ in relation to the Father by saying that the Son is subordinate to the Father. “Subordinationism held that the Son was eternal and divine, but still not equal to the Father in being or attributes.…The early church father Origen (c. 185–c. 254) advocated a form of subordinationism by holding that the Son was inferior to the Father in being, and that the Son eternally derives his being from the Father.”22 There is a difference between economic subordination and ontological subordination—Christ did what the Father willed but Christ was not any less God than the Father is God. 

3. Arianism

“The term ‘Arianism’ is derived from Arius, a presbyter (elder) of Alexandria whose views were condemned at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, and who died in A.D. 336.”23 Arius’ main tenet about Christ was, “there was when he was not.” Arius taught there was a time when Jesus did not exist but was instead created from nothing by God the Father before the creation of the world. His ideas were influenced by Origen’s idea of subordinationism, and a misunderstanding of the μονογενής (monogenēs, John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and the πρωτότοκος  (prōtotokos, Col. 1:15, 18) passages. Arius’ explanation was that, “God was immutable, unique, unknowable, only one. Therefore Arians felt no substance of God could in any way be communicated or shared with any other being.”24 The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity agrees that the divine substance cannot be shared with another being. Jesus and the Father are different Persons not different beings (John 10:30). 

The catchword that eventually defeated Arianism that came from the Council of Nicea was ὁμοουσιαν (homoousian), meaning the Son was of the same substance as the Father. Arians agreed that Jesus was God but claimed that Christ was of a similar substance of the Father (i.e. ὁμοιουσιαν, homoiousian). The difference in the Greek words is only one letter. When the church fathers began to distinguish between Substance and Person more clearly, the Council of Constantinople in 381 was able to reaffirm the orthodox position—Christ is eternal.

4. Tritheism

Tritheism is a simple misunderstanding that there are three gods rather than three Persons within the Godhead. No orthodox Christian group has ever claimed Tritheism though some new Christians may hold to this in their functional understanding of the Trinity. On occasion, Muslims accuse Christians of believing in Tritheism due to their misunderstanding of the Trinity.

___________________

1. 1 John 5:7 in the KJV and NKJV is not a trustworthy reference for defending the Three-in-One doctrine of the Trinity. A quick comparison to other translations will show that, “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJV), is missing from other translations. This is because the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus which is based upon the Greek NT assembled by Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1466–1536). However, Erasmus did not have this phrase (i.e. Johannine comma) in the first two editions of his NT because he was following his Greek MSS and only found the phrase in the Latin Vulgate. A man named Diego López Zúñiga found a Greek MS, Codex Montfortianus, containing the phrase and forced Erasmus to put the phrase into the next edition of his Greek NT. However, “the manuscript is highly suspect, in that it most probably was created in the house of the Grey Friars, whose provincial, Henry Standish, was an old enemy of Erasmus” (James White, The King James Controversy [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995], 61). However, no harm is done to the doctrine of the Trinity by either the inclusion or the exclusion of the Johannine comma. 

2. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (New York, 1891–4), 1:271; qtd. in Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 2:87. 

3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.6. 

4. B. B. Warfield, “Trinity,” in ISBE (1915), 5:3012; qtd. in Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 61. 

5. Athanasius, “The Athanasian Creed,” lines 3–7, 19–20; qtd. in Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 253, see also 1170–1. 

6. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2:91. 

7. The Scriptures do not state that it was the Father that was speaking from heaven but the voice did refer to Jesus as “his Son” indicating that the Father was speaking. 

8. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2:89. 

9. Ibid. 

10. BDAG, 193. 

11. “μονογενής,” BDAG, 658; “γένος,” BDAG, 194–5.

12. BDAG, 658. 

13. 1 Clement 25:2. Clement was using the folklore of the phoenix to illustrate the resurrection in Christ. 

14. Karl-Heinz Bartels, “μόνος,” in NIDNTT, 2:725; cf. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 243–4, 1233–4.

15. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 246.

16. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2:96. 

17. BDAG, 894.2. 

18. Craig A. Blaising, “Monarchianism,” in EDT, 727. 

19. Literally, Father-suffering, from their belief that the Father suffered on the cross.

20. Greek, literally, Son-Father.

21. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1936–62), 2:290; qtd. in John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 475–6. 

22. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 244–5.

23. Ibid, 243. 

24. Victor L. Walter, “Arianism,” in EDT, 74.