|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Holy, holy,
holy, Lord God Almighty!
"Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;
Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty!
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!
Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
I. Introduction
Because the word “trinity” is in such common usage when it is used in the context of Christian theology the “three-in-oneness" of God is understood as being in view. A more accurate term should be the word “triunity" since it joins in one term both the idea of three-ness and the idea of oneness. Perhaps the difficulty in finding an adequate term to refer to the doctrine can serve to illustrate the difficulty the church has had in coming to an adequate statement of the doctrine itself.
There is no question that the Old Testament sets forth a clear and unequivocating monotheism both in its affirmation of the one true God and in its negation of the many gods of the heathen. This same monotheism is carried on in the New Testament despite the misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of some Jewish, Muslim and quasi-Christian theologians and philosophers. To be sure the concept of one divine being is given added explanation in the progress of revelation as it becomes apparent through the incarnation and the advent of the Holy Spirit that the one God exists in three persons. As Henry notes,
Already at Pentecost the apostles preached openly in trinitarian terms…. Peter speaks…. of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as coexisting persons…. At the same time apostolic preaching insists upon and unfalteringly declares throughout the Book of Acts the truth of divine monotheism. [1]
The early church accepted this kind of joining of three and one without challenge as is evident from such passages as Romans 15:30; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 3:14-21; 1 Peter 1:2. Because there was no formal statement of the doctrine in the New Testament, however, the church soon faced a variety of challenges in terms of how to give it accurate theological expression. Already by the fourth century, when the Nicene Council was convened (325 A.D.) the Sabellian and Arian errors plagued the church. The Nicene Creed which issued from that council expressed the same New Testament orthodoxy with the statement (as supplemented by the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.):
I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [filioque, and the Son, was added in 581 A.D.]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; I look for the resurrection from the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. [2]
The misnamed Athanasian Creed, probably formulated in the fifth or sixth century, continued to express the same view of the trinity with even greater detail. An assessment of this data will show that,
Against Sabellianism the several ecumenical creeds declare that the three personal distinctions are internal, necessary, and eternal and not simply modal; against Arianism and the followers of Origen they declare that the three persons are essentially divine, being identical in substance and equal in power and glory. At the same time the Councils state that the same numerically indivisible essence subsists in the three divine persons. [3]
"The trinitarian doctrine of the Reformers was that of the early Church and of the traditional creeds, that God was one in essence and three in person." [4] In the seventeenth century, continuing in the same line, the Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter two, paragraph three) states the same view, as do such other statements of faith as the Augsburg Confession and The New Hampshire Baptist Confession. Evangelicalism in the twentieth century likewise reflects the same belief and this is in direct line with the first century church.
Many attempts have been made to illustrate this truth which seems so elusive to human understanding. It has been argued that the godhead may be compared to the universe (one) which is made up of three distinct entities--space, matter, and time (three); or, that it is like moral actions (one) which involve motive, act and consequences (three); or, that it is like H2O (one) which may exist as ice, water, or steam (three): or, that it is like a person (one) who may be a spouse, a parent, and a school teacher (three) at one and the same time.
All of these illustrations and others as well, suffer from one or more problems, however. They are either impersonal, modalistic, or tri-theistic in their implications. Perhaps the best illustration (although it, too, as limitations) of the trinity is the analogy with the triple point of water.
The “triple point” is that point of particular temperature and pressure at which a substance (in this case water) coexists in all three states of matter (solid, liquid, and gas). At 32° Fahrenheit temperature and 4.62 mm Mg pressure H2O coexists as all three. “The triple point shows that one substance (God) can have three coexisting phases (persons) all having identical intrinsic characteristics." [5]
A. Definition
Many fine statements have been made throughout the history of the church on the doctrine of the triunity of God. The definition that is being suggested here is that of John Dick as found in his Lectures on Theology:
While there is only one divine nature there are three subsistences or persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost who possess not a similar but the same numerical essence and the distinction between them is not merely nominal but real." [6]
B. The Meaning of “Personality" as Used of the Members of the Godhead
In the earlier life of the Church there was much discussion and disagreement over the preferability of terms such as person, subsistence, substance, etc., to express the character and differences between the members of the Godhead. In this presentation the members of the Godhead are referred to as persons which presupposes the quality of personality. Personality in turn presupposes the power of self-consciousness and self-determination. A personality is a distinct individual existence to which belongs reason and free will. It embraces all those incommunicable attributes which eternally belong to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit separately and not to all in common. [7]
While the attributes of deity are held in common by each member of the Godhead, there are attributes of each individual person, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are peculiarly theirs and are held separately. [8] The distinct properties of each person are usually referred to as paternity; filiation, and procession, respectively while the attributes of deity are commonly shared by all (see Chapter 10). This is referred to as perichoresis or coinherence and describes the fact that there is undivided identity of nature in the three persons of the Godhead.
C. The Origin and Character of the Doctrine
Since the doctrine of the trinity is unique in all the world it does not come from the thinking of men but exclusively by revelation from God. It is therefore biblical in its character. The key biblical text would be Matthew 28:19 where we read of the "… name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
While some have denied its significance there is very little evidence ever advanced to support the denial of the importance of the fact that “name” is singular in form and yet there are three persons enumerated as being referred to by that singular term. This same trinitarian baptismal formula "... became a part of very early tradition in the church—it is found in the Didache (7.1-4) and in Justin's Apology (1:61).” [9]
D. Errors to Avoid
Throughout the history of the church all error regarding the doctrine of the trinity has fallen under one of two categories. On the one hand there have been those, desirous of maintaining the distinctions in the Godhead, who have been guilty of tri-theism. This is basically a denial of the unity of the essence of God. On the other hand, and most frequently, error manifests itself in some form of modalism (for example Sabellianism; Unitarianism). The modalist, desiring to preserve the unity of the Godhead, denies the reality of the persons of the Godhead. He sees a trinity of revelation rather than of persons. The problems have arisen because men have tried to understand the trinity by analogy with themselves. "The difficulty with the doctrine issues from attempts to conceive divine personality within the limits of human personality…." [10 This, however, is a complete reversal of reality for, "Scripture declares not that God properly or actually exists in man's image, but that man was specially made in God's image." [11]
Most modern attempts to re-state the doctrine have been more modalistic than orthodox. Even Barth, whose desire was to make an orthodox statement about the trinity and to avoid a modalistic view that associated the three-ness with dimensions of God's activity rather than with actual modes of existence [12] comes perilously close to modalism. As Fortman notes, for Barth "... the root of the doctrine of the trinity is the statement that God reveals himself as the Lord, for on analysis this yields the Revealer, the act of Revelation, and the state of Revelation, and these distinctions correspond to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Scripture." [13]
In process theology since God is mutable and for all practical purposes impersonal any talk of a personal Godhead is almost meaningless. Two current sectarian manifestations of modalistic thinking in the form of Christomonism are the "Jesus Only" movement within Pentecostalism [14] and the Local Church sect headed by Witness Lee. [15]
II. Defense of the Doctrine
The following material is a summary of that presented by Lewis Sperry Chafer. [16]
1) The divine attributes are eternal. None are derived or acquired for this would make God dependent and imperfect at some point.
2) The divine attributes are eternally active. This is especially to be noted regarding the communicable attributes.
3) The attributes require both agent and object. Their eternal exercise implies this since they require reciprocal relationships which cannot exist within absolute unity. They cannot be related to creation which is not eternal, is finite and therefore is not satisfying to infinite demands. God depends on nothing outside Himself.
4) God is self-sufficient. Thus there is within God that which corresponds to agent and object. This requires a plurality in the God-head.
5) The agent and object are persons. That is, the plurality cannot relate to divine essence since God is declared by Scriptures to be one in essence. It cannot be merely offices or modes of manifestation for this does not meet the demands of agent and object. There must be plurality of personality and these must be co-equal.
6) Plurality in God is a trinity. If all forms of personal activity are to be experienced there must be conjoint activity as well as individual activity.
B. Defense from Revelation
While the preceding material is helpful in demonstrating that the doctrine of the trinity is not unreasonable, the ultimate source of authority for the doctrine lies in the holy scriptures.
1. Scriptural Proof of the Doctrine
a) The Old Testament
This doctrine was not fully revealed in the 0ld Testament but certain preliminary indications are found there. One commonly used support for the doctrine of the trinity in the Old Testament is the use of the plural noun Elohim (see for example Deut. 6:4). It dubious that this is a legitimate support.
In the first place ‘elohim is also used as a generic term to refer to the gods of the heathen as well as to the God of reality.
Secondly, when used of the true God it is best to understand the plural form as a plural of majesty rather than a numerical plural. G. A. F. Knight has disputed this point. [17] He holds that such a view is anachronistic since there is no biblical evidence for such usage. Ronald J. Williams has pointed out, however, that in 2 Kings 22:20 we do have an example of this (he calls it the "plural of respect") where King Josiah's grave is referred to in the plural but properly translated in the singular. [18] Thus, he was not buried in graves but in a "royal grave."
Thirdly, the most one could gain from a numerical plural would be "gods" not "trinity," and polytheism is totally repugnant to biblical Judaism. “Walter Eichrodt [19] believes that in using the plural of majesty (‘elohim) the writer of Genesis intended to preserve his cosmology from any trace of polytheistic thought and at the same time to represent the Creator God as the absolute ruler….” [20]
A fourth reason why Elohim is a tenuous support for the doctrine is that at most it would point to plurality with no indication as to whether that involves two, three or more; and it in no way indicates that the plurality of persons rather than essences.
Finally, in the progress of revelation it is only with the incarnation of the eternal Son of God and the advent of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament that the doctrine becomes meaningful in specific terms. "To insist on plurality in ELOHIM, and then to expound this in terms of a plurality of persons but not of essence, reflects a retroactive theologizing that nullifies God's progressive self-disclosure of the inmost secret of his Being." [21]
The suggestion of plurality, by way of anticipation only, is found in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) but not in the term Elohim. It is rather to be found in the use of echad, translated “one” and is well illustrated in Genesis 2:24 where husband and wife, who are two persons, are viewed as one flesh. In contrast to yachid which means “absolute one,” this word means “united one”. [22]
Another indication of plurality in the Godhead in the Old Testament is seen in passages where God speaks in plural number, that is where there is a plural noun and a singular verb (Gen. 1:26; 11:7; Isa. 6:8). Some may suggest that these are plurals of majesty and therefore not pertinent here. Erickson has anticipated this objection as follows:
What is significant, however, from the standpoint of logical analysis is the shift from singular to plural in the first and third of these examples. Genesis 1:26 actually says, “Then God said (singular), 'Let us make (plural) man in Our (plural] image.’” The Scripture writer does not use a plural (of majesty) verb with 'elohim, but God is quoted as using a plural verb with reference to himself. Similarly, Isaiah 6:8 reads: "Whom shall I send [singular], and who will go for us [plural]?” [23]
There are a number of passages where the Angel of the LORD is called God and yet is distinguished from God in the same passage (Gen. 16:7-13; cf. 18:1-21; Zech. 3:1-2). Gerhardus Vos, in dealing with this Old Testament phenomenon, points out that the only reasonable explanation is to"... assume that back of the twofold representation there lies a real manifoldness of the inner life of the Deity." [24]
While allowing that this may well be an anticipation of the trinity as viewed from our vantage point he is careful to note that trinitarian teaching was not the intent of the original revelation. [25]
Also to be noted are certain messianic passages such as Psalm 5:6-7 (cf. Hebrews 1:8-9); Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1 (cf. Luke 4:16-21) where Messiah is identif1ed, in light of New Testament revelation, with Jesus of Nazareth and as God. In Psalm 33:4, 6 and Proverbs 8:12-31 there is a personification of the word and the wisdom of God, respectively.
Finally, there are references to the Spirit of God or the Spirit of the LORD showing personal deity distinct within the Godhead (see for example Gen. 1:2; Exod. 31:2-4; Zech, 4:6; Isa. 63:10-11; Ps. 51:11).
b) The New Testament
The evidence in the New Testament is much more specific. Direct scripture references where all three persons are mentioned together in equality include such passages as Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 Peter 1:2. The works and persons of Christ and of the Holy Spirit bear witness to their deity (see Chapter 13 and 14 for elaboration).
One of the strongest and most concentrated testimonies to the doctrine of God’s triunity, however, is found in the instruction given by Christ to the disciples as recorded in the Upper Room and the comments made thereon by John. The interrelation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is seen repeatedly in such passages as John 13:1, 31 14:6-11, 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:13-15; 17:1-26.
Whereas in the 0ld Testament Yahweh is seen as redeemer, in the New Testament Jesus Christ is seen in this role (Matt. 1:21). In the Old Testament Yahweh dwells among Israel and in the hearts of those who fear him, while in the New Testament the Holy Spirit dwells in the believer (Rom. 8:9, 11).
2. Theological Statement of the Doctrine
There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; James 2:19; John 10:30; Isa. 45:5-6; 46:9). This truth is openly endorsed by our Lord as he quotes the Shema in Mark 12:29-30. The term “essence” refers to God’s essential being or nature. It “…describes God as a sum total of infinite perfection….” [26]
In this one being there are three persons or three individual subsistences—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are to be viewed as personal self-distinctions in the divine essence or substance. Thus It may be said that there is an "I," a "you," and a “he” with personal relationships to one another (Matt. 3:16-17).
The whole undivided essence of God belongs to each of the three persons. Thus there is no subordination regarding the essential being of any person although, as will be seen below, there is an economical or administrative subordination. We use the term "person" "on the ground that each person of the Trinity is a center of self-consciousness and self-determination--but deny that three separate and independent individuals are intended...." [27] Properly reference is not made to the personality of God but rather personality in God as Father, as Son and as Holy Spirit.
The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the Divine Being are marked by a definite order. On the one hand we may refer to the ontological trinity. When speaking of first, second, and third persons reference is made to a logical order only, not to priority of time or dignity. This refers to an order of relationship within the Godhead (opera ad intra) which recognizes that the Father being the first person is neither begotten by nor proceeds from another. The Son being the second person is eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit being the third person eternally proceeds from both Father and Son.
Again, the Godhead may be considered as the economic trinity. This indicates the second reason for order in the trinity and relates to the administration of God’s eternal purpose. This relates more to the extra-Godhead relations and works (opera ad extra). It is an acknowledgement of the fact that the scriptures represent all things as being out of (ek) the Father, through (dia) the Son and in the Holy Spirit. The Father authors, is the source of, all things. The Son brings them to pass and is the agent of their being effected. The Holy Spirit makes them known and applies them.
Further, in the economy of God, while all the works of God are the works of the three persons jointly some are related more particularly to one person than to another. For example creation is related primarily to the Father, redemption primarily to the Son, and sanctification primarily to the Holy Spirit.
The three persons of the Godhead are to be distinguished by personal properties. These do not involve attributes of essence which are common to all. Rather it refers to properties which are not true of the three persons jointly. These are incommunicable among the Godhead or true of one person only. Generation (paternity) is true of the Father only; filiation belongs to the Son only; and procession is ascribed to the Holy Spirit only.
Finally, the doctrine of the trinity is inscrutable. It is a mystery both in the biblical sense of something once hidden and now revealed, and in the sense of something which may be apprehended but not comprehended by man. “Those aspects of God which we will never fully comprehend should be regarded as mysteries that go beyond reason rather than as paradoxes which conflict with reason.” [28] Ultimately, all we can do is make statements which are in keeping with the biblical revelation and see to it that unbiblical errors are avoided.
References:
| 1 | C. F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, V, 168-69 |
| 2 | Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, II, 58 |
| 3 | Henry, op. cit., V, 205 |
| 4 | Edmund Fortman, The Triune God, p. 268 |
| 5 | Noted by Michael J. Bozack, former student in the Department of Physics at Michigan State University and at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary |
| 6 | John Dick, Lectures on Theology, cited by Ralph Wardlaw, Theology, II, 6 |
| 7 | See A. A. Hodge, Outlines in Theology, pp. 165-166 |
| 8 | To avoid confusion it may be helpful to follow Erickson's suggestion and call the distinctive characteristics of the individual members of the Godhead properties Christian Theology, I, 265 |
| 9 | Erickson, op. cit., I, 329 |
| 10 | Henry, Op. cit., p. 167 |
| 11 | Ibid. |
| 12 | See Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 35 |
| 13 | Fortman, The Triune God, p. 270 |
| 14 | See John Hiller, Is God A Trinity? |
| 15 | See Witness Lee, The Economy of God, pp. 44-48 |
| 16 | Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume I, pp. 289-297. |
| 17 | See A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity |
| 18 | Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, pp. 6-7 |
| 19 | Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 187 |
| 20 | Erickson, op. cit., p. 328 |
| 21 | Henry, op. cit., II, 191 |
| 22 | See Lorraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, pp. 104-105 |
| 23 | Erickson, op. cit., p. 329 |
| 24 | Gerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 86 |
| 25 | Ibid., p. 87. Also see the discussion in Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, V, 31 ff |
| 26 | W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, I, p. 271 |
| 27 | Henry, op. cit., V, 174 |
| 28 | Erickson, op. cit., p. 338 |
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
052107
