For us as Unitarians, we need to know what the Trinity is better than most Trinitarians. When debating Trinitarians (and you can see my debates in my index and see this in real time for yourself), their number one strategy is to accuse you of being ignorant of the doctrine. They sit back as an armchair critic and listen to your argument, and no matter how good your points are, if you make one perceived mistake in their view, it is the only thing they can see. If you want to get through to them, you have to use their language and play by their rules. For most Trinitarians, they believe that this issue has been settled in history, so they don’t understand what questions we have that were never answered. They assume that some early church father must have written and answered this question at some point, so, why ask it here? Today, I want to give something of a “brief” explanation on what the Trinity is.
The Trinity
The Trinity is more of an umbrella term for a lot of theological positions and doctrines.
- Theology proper
- The Deity of Christ
- The Eternal generation of the Son
- Eternal Sonship doctrine
- The Spiration of the Spirit
- The divine processions
- The filioque
- Perichoresis/energies and synergies
- The Incarnation
- The hypostatic union, dual natures
- Divine timelessness
The Trinity it is the belief that there are 3 persons who all eternally share the divine nature. Namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, but all of them share the same nature. Whatever properties are true of the nature, must be true of the persons. So, if the nature of God is to be all knowing, all powerful, immortal, unchanging, then each of the persons must have these properties.
The Divine Processions
The Trinity begins with the Father. He is the head of the godhead. The Father himself is unbegotten and a se (meaning “from self,” aseity). He begets the Son from his own nature. Then, the Father spirates the Spirit, which proceeds from his essence. The Father does not beget two sons in the Trinity. There’s a difference between begetting and proceeding. Neither are created. This is said to occur outside of time, outside of creation. We often think of this as a progression in time. First, there was the Father, then at some later point in time, the Son came, and then the Spirit. This isn’t correct. In the Trinity, there is the claim that there was never a time when “the Son was not.” The Father, Son, and Spirit have always existed together at all times. This is the case of logical priority, not temporal priority. This is similar to your brain telling your heart to beat so that blood can flow back into your brain. It’s not necessarily something that happens in that order in time, all are happening at the same time. It’s in the order of priority. The Father’s generation of the Son and Spirit do not happen one at a time but timelessly. There is a question on whether the Spirit is generated from the Father alone, or the Father “and the Son” (which is what “filioque” means). This was a big factor in the split between the East and West, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Latin West said that the Spirit was from the Father and the Son, while the Greek East rejected this claim as being heretical. It makes the Son another who can generate divine persons. Today, there’s often talk of a “modified filioque,” which means that the Father generated the Spirit through the Son in some way, but not that the Son is the cause or origin of the Spirit.
This is the procession of the persons. The Father’s begetting of the Son, and his spiration of the Spirit. The Son is begotten while the Spirit proceeds. This happens eternally, not at a point in time. They are not creations of the Father, but they are generated from his essence. I sometimes use the crude analogy of a cell splitting. We don’t necessarily think that one cell is creating the other, but that the cell splits and both are distinct cells. Yet, they are both “cell.” The same kind of thing. The Trinity refers to the three persons of this essence.
Arius and 4th Century Development
Much of the debate about the nature of the Trinity developed during the Arian controversies. Arius, the infamous 4th century presbyter of the church in Alexandria, taught that “there was a time when the Son was not,” and, “the Father was not always a Father.” He argued that the Son was God’s Word and Wisdom, but that God did not always have his Word and Wisdom. God created the Son as the beginning of his ways, and the Son was not generated from the Father’s essence, but he had his own essence. Because of these claims, the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, cast out Arius. When this happened, many Christians were confused. Many saw nothing wrong with what Arius said, and others saw nothing wrong with what Alexander did. This sparked the biggest controversy in Christian history among Christians, which led to the Council and Creed of Nicaea in 325 AD, in which these beliefs began to be solidified and clarified as dogmatic and orthodoxy.
The points Arius raised became the subject of much talk among the Trinitarian church fathers. To say that the Son was not generated from the Father’s own essence is to say that the Son was created, and did not have the Father’s essence and therefore, didn’t have the Father’s qualities. The Son can’t fully know the Father. Also, this implies that the Father became a Father at a certain point in time. They saw this as the Father gaining a great making property, which would imply change in the Father to make him greater than what he once was. If having a Son makes the Father better, then he wasn’t always the best. He became “more perfect.” He gained a creative Word and his Wisdom. Thus, the Trinitarians objected to these views and argue for the eternal sonship. God was not someone who became a Father, but has always eternally been a Father. The Father was always eternally wise, he didn’t become wise at a point in time. Some Protestants today deny the eternal sonship doctrine, however, it is clearly stated in the early church fathers. Some argue that the Son became God’s Son only at incarnation. Prior to, he was God’s “word.”
Incarnation/Dual Nature Christology
The Incarnation doctrine relates to how the second person of the Trinity could become man. These controversies became more prevalent after those early Trinitarian controversies. During the 4th century, the main issue was on the 3 persons sharing the essence of God (“consubstantial” or homoousios). During the 5th century, much more concern was raised about what exactly it meant for the Son to be God and man. This had always been a subject of some discussion, but it came more to a head during this time, and the hypostatic union doctrine became orthodoxy in 451 at the ecumenical councils of Chalcedon.
When a Trinitarian says that “God became man,” often, we assume that he became something different entirely. When a pile of ingredients on the counter become a pie, then we no longer think of this as the ingredients anymore. They have completely changed. You can’t extract the egg or the grains of sugar from the pie anymore. This is not what the hypostatic union assumes. When Jesus incarnated, they believe that his divine nature and his human nature both came to be in one body.
Being vs Person, and the Hypostatic Union
In the Trinity, there is a difference between the two kinds of natures. Most Trinitarians will say “there’s a difference between being and person.” However, “being” is such a general term that can refer to many different things, it is often easier to define the three terms in the original Greek language, as used by Aristotle, the early church fathers, and the creeds. There are 3 terms we need to be familiar with.
Ousia = secondary nature Hypostasis = primary nature/individual Prosopon = person
A primary nature is the nature of the individual, while the secondary nature is of what “kind” of thing it is. For example, if I say: “this dog and that dog,” I am speaking of two individual things, but one nature. Two “hypostases,” but one “ousia.” The “secondary nature” is dog. Being a canine is what these dogs are. It is their ousia. When I say “this” dog and “that” dog, I’m speaking about the individual differences these dogs have. One is occupying a certain place in space and time, one is bigger, one is smaller, one is a Lab, one is a Poodle, one is cute and one is ugly. These are the “individual properties” of each dog. The things which make them unique. As we can see, there’s a slight difference between being “a person,” and those particular qualities which make you who you are, and those properties which make you what you are. You are a human being. The same kind of human being I am, Adam was, Enoch, Moses, Judas, Peter, and John were. Our shared nature (ousios) is “human.” In the Trinity, the ousios is “divine.” Having this divine nature. The hypostases are the Father, Son, and Spirit.
In the hypostatic union, there is a union of two ousia into one hypostasis. The two kinds of natures are “divine” and “human,” and they are united in one individual being. The hypostatic union is the union of two ousia in a hypostasis. It is very important to note what makes the hypostatic union different from other Christologies is that these two natures are not two persons in one body, and the two natures are not mixed or confused. When these two natures unite, they do not mix. You do not have a man that is half divine and half human. This would give you a new nature entirely. Something like a nephilim. You do not have a nature that’s lacking in human traits and lacking in divine traits and he’s half and half. You do not have a new nature that has all of the traits of God and man. You do not have two conscious persons in one body like a demonic possession. You do not have a human man lacking a human soul and replaced with a divine soul or Spirit. You have both natures fully in one man and neither nature is lacking, or mixed.
When Jesus goes throughout his ministry, the miracles he performs are said to be a result of his divine nature, while his passion, suffering, temptation, and death are all as a result of his human nature. He can do everything a human can do, and everything God can do. When Jesus is resurrected from the dead, he does not lose his human nature. He always possesses it. When he ascends back to heaven, it is as a human and divine.
Some Common Objections and Misconceptions About the Trinity
Often, Trinitarians will speak of “the Trinity” as God. But this isn’t exactly true. Strictly speaking, the only God is the Father, and the Son and Spirit are “God” by participation with the Father by sharing his energies and essence. Do not make a big deal about this point, as it generally results in a semantic distinction, and also, most Trinitarians are completely unaware of this.
Trinitarians have no problem with “God” being used solely of the Father. Often, Unitarians will post things that show God and Jesus are distinct. For example: “you believe in God, believe also in me” (John 14:2). A Trinitarian is not reading this as: “You believe in the Trinity, believe also in me.” As if Jesus is separating himself from the Trinitarian God. They read “God” as interchangeable with “the Father” in most cases. They believe the Father and Son are distinct, they do not believe that the Father and Son are distinct in nature.
Trinitarians believe in the difference between ontological and functional subordination. Ontological subordination is being subordinate in nature or in abilities. They believe the Trinity is co-equal in nature, abilities, actions, “powers.” They do not believe that the persons of the Trinity are equal in rank. The Father is the head of the Godhead. Irenaeus says that the Son and the Spirit are like God’s left and right hands. The head and the hands all work together as one unite, but the head tells the hands what to do. The Father is the head, and the Son submits to the Father, he is sent by the Father, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit, who submits to him. This does not make them weaker in nature, they all share the same nature. This is often similar to a boss and an employee. Both share the same nature, both can do the same things, but one has a higher role that the other. Or an older and younger sibling. One is in charge of the other, while both share the same nature. So when we get to the famous John 14:28 passage: “The Father is greater than I,” Trinitarians do not see anything more than Jesus submitting to the Father’s authority, while being equal in nature, or, they believe that Jesus is speaking from his human nature, admitting that the Father’s divine nature is greater than his own human nature.
Being caused by the Father, and having their originations from the Father, do not make the Son and the Spirit any less “God” than the Father does. Eunomius, a 4th century semiarian, argued that the Son and Spirit cannot have the exact same nature as the Father, because the Father generates divine persons and they do not. The Father has aseity while they lack it. The response to this has to do with those different kind of natures we’ve spoken of above. There are certain things that the Father does which are particular to his individual essence, while there are other things that the whole Trinity share in by the general essence they all possess. For example, the Son Incarnated. While the act of his becoming incarnate was a joint act of the Trinity (the Father sends, the Spirit begets, the Son is sent), only the Son gained a human nature and became incarnate. This is something that is particular to the individual nature of the Son. The Spirit indwells and performs certain miracles in believers. This is a special property of the Spirit only. The Father’s individual property is to cause divine persons (which is why the filioque controversy was such a problem, by giving this property also to the Son). Does being caused mean that the Son and Spirit cannot have the divine nature? How do we know the divine nature is a hypostatic property of the Father and not part of the divine nature? To be a se, from self, is antithetical to being ab alio, from another. For the Father to not be from anyone else, it presupposes that someone else must be around. Someone else must exist. Otherwise the claim is meaningless. Aseity is a property of the Father only if something else besides him exists. So it is moved into the category of a hypostatic property, not a general property of the essence the Trinity shares.
The question of monotheism comes up a lot in the Trinity, especially in this kind of social triniatrian model that we see in the early church fathers and the eastern world, that we’ve outlined above. One way in which this was termed is: “if three men all share a human nature, and they are not called One Man, but three men, then then why aren’t the three persons of the Trinity, all sharing the nature of God called three gods?” When we use the word “man” we are equivocating. We can use this word to refer to a human being or to the human nature common to every man. When we say “Peter, James, and John are three men,” we don’t look and see three different human natures. We see one nature that they all share. We see three instances of that human nature. Three individuals. But one nature. The same with the Trinity. Three persons of one nature. Three instances, three individuals, but one shared nature. However, this isn’t how it was traditionally answered. “God” isn’t the divine nature in the Trinity. “God” is the Father. The Son and Spirit participate in being God when they share in the energies of God. When God performs his actions, he never acts alone. He acts with his Son and Spirit. This is why they are not considered to be three creators, but one creator. You don’t have the Father making the sky, the Son making the land, and the Spirit making the waters. All of them make everything. It is one act of Creation. Each do not do separate acts, all do one act jointly. This is perichoresis and. the indwelling of the persons together and in each other without separation. These three act together in such unison it can be almost impossible to tell them apart. Without differences, two things are not two different things, they are just one. This is the indescernability of identicals. If two things are identical in every manner, then they are just the same thing. If I tell you about Bob and my dad, both are the same age, work the same job, have the same wife, same kids, and live in the same house, without any differences you realize that “Bob” and “my dad” are the same thing. Not two different things. The way in which we know that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not the same thing is by their differences in their hypostatic properties and by their originations. They are different in their individuality, not in their actions, as they all act together. In his ministry, when Jesus acted in his human nature, the Trinity was not acting together. When he acted in his divine nature, he was acting as the whole Trinity. Everyone acted together in the same acts.
Why is the Trinity 3 and not 2 or 4? Many arguments have been made for this, but one of the most common is the love argument. God is love, and to be love, he must have someone to love. So God must have eternally had another besides himself. That which is eternal is necessary. This may get us 2 but how does it get us 3? Why not have 10 things and love them all? This is because of the different kinds of love. There are 3 kinds of love. Self love, reciprocal love, and shared love. That is the love of self, to love neighbour. The love of another, as a man loves his wife. And the love that two share for another, like parents have with their child. This gets us 3, because more persons to love would not result in a new kind of love. 3 is that number. If God is simple, then we should exact that he be the fewest possible, and, if the argument from love is valid, 3 is the smallest number of persons God would need to be maximally loving.
There’s much question regarding “when” the Trinity first came to be believed. Generally, the latest time period that people will push the Trinity is in the 4th Century. Many believe it was a progressive revelation that the Church had to essentially explain and understand. Catholic and Orthodox will sometimes push it to this late. The 4th century is the earliest you see the orthodox versions of the Trinity being fully expressed and communicated. Prior to this time, we only see it in shadows, bits and parts. The list of doctrines at the outset of this post, usually are not completely explained until the 4th century. This doesn’t mean that certain aspects of this weren’t believed prior to the 4th century, for example, the deity of Christ. Some will argue that it arose sometime in the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries, as expressed by the early Church fathers. Tertullian, Theophilus, and Athenagoras are the earliest representatives we have of using the term “Trinity,” all writing in this time period. Theophilus states that the Trinity is “God, his word and his wisdom,” which may be argued is not orthodox Trinitarianism, however, Athenagoras being the earliest of these, notes that it is God, his Son and his Spirit. Some argue that this is the belief of the 1st century apostles themselves, and is explicitly written in the Bible. They believe the revelation of the Trinity came either directly from Jesus Christ himself, or, they understood Jesus as God in his ministry, and understood the Holy Spirit as God in the outpouring at Pentecost (Acts 2). Thus, the Bible writers themselves understood all of the doctrine in the list at the outset of this post, and they wrote about it in the NT. Yet, some will push the Trinity back even further into Judaism, either in the OT period, or in the second temple period. This comes as an elaboration on the “Two Powers” theory, written about by many Jewish scholars including Dr. Benjamin Sommers, Dr. Daniel Boyarin, Dr. Alan Segal, but most prominently known by Dr. Michael Heiser. They see this two Yahweh’s theory as being a stepping stone into the Trinity, which is speculated to have developed sometime before Jesus, however, an exact day is never usually specified. Regardless of when they think the doctrine fully developed, Trinitarians usually believe that there are bits and pieces which may lead to the trinitarian doctrine across the Bible. It is something hidden within the Bible which was later revealed.
Closing
If you are going to debate against the Trinity, you have to know what it is that you are debating against and denying. Trinitarianism is the basic default for Christians, and so, most Christians profess belief in it whether they understand it or not. It seems to be “basically right” to them. When we announce that the doctrine is wrong, we must be able to provide a reason for why that is. We must know what it is that we are arguing against and why it’s wrong. This post should serve as a beginning place. Before you rush out into the world of Trinitarians, start here. I will be far more gracious and fair about whether an objection stands up to them or not. You can’t burn a strawman. You will only convince people if you are arguing against a steelman, the best version of the argument possible. Trinitarianism has the positive claim. They are arguing that a doctrine (or list of doctrines) is true. They must prove why it is true. You will find that most Trinitarians don’t know their own doctrine. If you send this to a bunch of Trinitarians, many will tell you it’s wrong. If I reword and repost it as if I were a Trinitarian, they would agree with it. I’ve done similar experiments in the past and its very predictable. They hinge on you being wrong about what they believe. So you need to know what they believe better than anyone. I hope you’ve found this helpful.