Defending The Trinity (pt. 1) (RP1)

(Audio version; Music: "Praise The Father, Praise The Son" by: Chris Tomlin and "This I Believe (The Creed)" by: Hillsong)

Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of my favorite doctrines. However, for many years, I was afraid to fully embrace the doctrine because I didn't understand it. Perhaps you feel the same way. Of course, this is also one of the favorite doctrines that unbelievers love to attack because it is so difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain and defend. I'm hoping this series will equip you with a few tools to encourage you to embrace this beautiful revelation of God and be able to share that gift with others. There are many individuals who claim to be Christians along with various cults who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ yet reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Don’t be deceived! Rejection of the Trinity is a rejection of orthodox Christianity. Confessing Christians must accept the doctrine of the Trinity even if they don't fully understand it or don’t feel confident explaining it. There are many Christian doctrines that have multiple positions that are open for debate and disagreement. The doctrine of the Trinity is not one of those doctrines. Christians accept it, non-Christians do not. Stand your ground and keep digging for the truth...I'll bring a shovel to help!

The Problem

I will grant you that this doctrine is one of, if not, the most perplexing theological concepts advanced by any major theological system of beliefs. Although adherence to a certain set of beliefs is essential to the Christian’s inclusion within the Church, adherence is never a requisite that precludes questioning or the quest for understanding. Developing and understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is no different. However, reaching a complete and concrete “understanding” of the Trinity is precisely the problem. Specifically at issue and the primary focus of this lesson series is the apparent contradiction between the clear teaching that God is one while at the same time experiencing God’s revelation of Himself as three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, the apparent contradiction with God’s “three-in-oneness” is just that—an apparent contradiction. A true contradiction would state that God is one and not one at the same time or three and not three at the same time. This, however, is not the case. Instead, the difficulty with the Trinity, in addition to being mysterious, is largely rooted in the limitation of language and a misunderstanding of previously accepted terminology. Although we are still constrained by the limitations of language, a closer look at some of the terminology used to describe and define the Trinity might alleviate some of the confusion usually associated with this very crucial doctrine. First, however, it might be helpful to briefly review the events that necessitated the development of the doctrine and how the doctrine reached its current understanding.

Jesus and Jewish Monotheism

It is hard to argue that the Jewish faith is anything but fiercely monotheistic. This is imminently clear from the Old Testament biblical teaching known as the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deut. 6:4) Although we will take a closer look later at how the Old Testament intimated at the plurality of God, for the time being we will consider the crucial event that has created the tension between monotheism and the Trinity. The central figure that precipitated the need to develop this doctrine is Jesus. It is accepted within orthodox Christianity that Jesus is not only fully human but is simultaneously fully God. It is not the purpose of this writing to defend the deity of Christ specifically but to make that assumption generally in order to develop a clearer understanding and defense of the Trinity. It is with this assumption that the tension with monotheism begins. During the first four centuries of the Church, various attempts were made to try and explain how God is Father, Son and Spirit without falling into the polytheistic trap of claiming three gods. As a consequence, a number of hypotheses were advanced.

Modalistic Formulations

           

In order to maintain that God is only one person, the modalist makes the claim that God is one person that has revealed Himself to us in three different forms. “In the Old Testament God appeared as ‘Father.’ Throughout the Gospels, this same divine person appeared as ‘the Son’ as seen in the human life and ministry of Jesus. After Pentecost, this same person then revealed Himself as the ‘Spirit’ active in the church.”[1] Although at first glance this appears to be a nice, neat package that explains God’s revelation of Himself to us in three different ways, it fails to take into consideration the eternal relationship between Father, Son and Spirit alluded to by Jesus when He said, “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began (Jn 17:5).” Furthermore, the hypotheses falls flat at Jesus’ baptism when the Father speaks, the Son is baptized and the Spirit descends upon Him. In short, this event in the life of Jesus necessarily demonstrates that God cannot be one person manifest in three different ways at the same time.

Arianism

Receiving its name from Arius, a bishop of Alexandria, Arians taught that there was some time when Jesus and the Spirit did not exist. Instead, Arius insisted that both were created by God. Although he was willing to concede to a certain level of deity for both the Son and the Spirit, neither was equal to the Father. Arius depended heavily on biblical texts identifying Jesus as “only begotten” and “first-born over all creation” while at the same time neglecting the biblical text that demonstrate that there was never a time when Jesus did not exist (Jn 17:5). Ultimately, the church council convened in A.D. 325 at Nicea to address the issue of Jesus’ divinity once and for all and developed a formal church position that was used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.

Orthodox Formulation

           

Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, also known as “the Cappadocians,” may have been the most influential in the development of Trinitarian theology during the fourth century. They made the crucial distinction between “essence” (ousia) and “persons” (hypostaseis). “By ousia they meant one invisible, divine nature, and by hypostaseis they meant mode of being or personal center with independent existence and unique characteristics.”[2] God’s essence or ousia is undivided. In other words, all three persons are equally God. The differences in the persons or hypostaseis are functional or relational as opposed to essential. Consequently, the Father is the source of creation through the Son as the agent of creation through the power of the Spirit who consummates creation.

           

Now that we’ve identified the “The Problem” and established some very important historical context, stay tuned for Part 2 and the beginning of “The Defense.”

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (InterVarsity Press, Leicester, England, 1994) p. 242.

[2] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996) p. 256.