The Doctrine of the Trinity: Its Historical Development and Departures

By Donald Tindera [1]

Why Be Interested In The History Of This Doctrine?

Without the doctrine of the Trinity there would be no Christianity—at least in nothing like the forms it has been most widely experienced over the centuries. And without the doctrine of the Trinity there would be no significant affirmation of the true and full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, except by denying certain other equally revealed truths, such as that there is only one God, or that Jesus is to be distinguished from the Father. But in our own time this doctrine—together with its corollary affirmations regarding the unique deity of Christ—is probably under wider and greater attack, both overtly and subtly, both from inside as well as outside of professing Christianity than at any time since the earliest centuries. A study of the history of the doctrine will show that few, if any, of the objections and alternatives to it are new. One can profit from considering the arguments and defenses of the past, even while recognizing the need to consider carefully what is distinctive in the contemporary challenges.

A review of the doctrine’s development will also show that even those who formulated the orthodox consensus understood what they were agreeing to in varying ways, and these differences have continued, with various modifications, down to the present. Those who remain convinced that their understanding of the formula is the preferable one can still profit from having to consider and interact with alternative understandings.

One of the reasons the doctrine of the Trinity has often been under attack is because it is not found—in so many words—explicitly in the Bible. However, after considerable wrestling with the whole issue and after many false trails were pursued for varying periods, the overwhelming majority of professing Christians finally came to affirm it. But this was not accomplished until ad 381 at the First Council of Constantinople—that is, about 350 years after the death of Christ and the birth of the church. If we think back for a similar number of years from the present, it takes us to the close of the devastating Thirty Years War on the European continent, the period of Cromwell’s rule in Britain, and the Puritan predominance in New England. Those events seem so long ago. If the doctrine of the Trinity is so important, it might be asked, how could the church have grown from being a tiny sect of Palestinian Judaism to the dominant religion of the vast Roman Empire without explicit references to the doctrine in the apostolic writings or rapid formulations from them?

This is a fair question, to which the answers are both simple and complex. The simple answer is that the ingredients of the doctrine were, in fact, widely proclaimed in the canonical Scriptures and thereafter. It was not the ingredients but the way in which they were to be combined and expressed that was being discussed and debated for so very long. The more complex answer is the recognition that the gospel message is not a call for people to believe certain doctrines or theologies but to believe in their need for salvation and in the one true Creator God who, by becoming a human—Jesus of Nazareth—has provided for that salvation. It is a subtle but significant distinction to stress the importance of sound doctrine while at the same time conveying that it is a Person who saves and who is to be served and worshipped. From the time of the apostles onward, the call to conversion and obedience was faithfully made.

The importance of this doctrine, even though it took a long time to agree on its formulation, is also seen in the consequences in those expressions of Christianity that reject it. They not only deny the Trinity, but they alter (sometimes massively, other times subtly) the message of the gospel itself. To be sure, the gospel can be lost or heavily cloaked even in movements that remain officially Trinitarian (according to the agreed-upon understanding at Constantinople). But while there are probably some inconsistent and minor exceptions, I think it a safe generalization that the numerous movements that are explicitly non- or anti-Trinitarian proclaim a different gospel message. The doctrine of the Trinity is, therefore, not just a matter of academic interest for those who are philosophically inclined, but something which affects the very core of what people are called to believe.

For these reasons it is valuable for all Christians, especially those who teach the faith at any level, to have at least an elementary knowledge of how the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity came about more than sixteen hundred years ago, along with the resulting developments within it and departures from it. What follows is of necessity a brief and highly selective survey. For those who want more, the notes refer to longer treatments which in turn refer to still more elaborate presentations and source documents. [2]

The Doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture

The biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity that was formulated in the fourth century after Christ is given thoroughly elsewhere. [3] It is simple to summarize, but difficult to express. The Hebrew Scriptures, taken as a whole, clearly and unequivocally affirm that there is one and only one God, the Creator and Sustainer of all that is, both what is seen and what is unseen. Idolatry in any form is repeatedly and severely condemned. The New Testament writings nowhere change this central affirmation; rather, they reinforce it. Paul’s letter to the Colossians and the Revelation from Jesus Christ to John are just two of the writings which explicitly condemn the worship of any other than the one true God in the strongest terms.

Alongside of this, the writings of the New Testament explicitly distinguish the Father from the Son, and one usually called the Spirit, from both of them.

All three are joined in a baptismal formula, [4] and there are other triadic references, some that seem to be formulas, others more incidental. A different approach is given to John when he was lifted up “in the Spirit” and shown in a vision the throne room of the Creator God. [5] The one sitting on the throne (Rev. 4:2) is clearly distinguished from another, a descendent of David, who is like a slain lamb (Rev. 5:5–7). It is very significant that both are worshipped equally (Rev. 5:13). While pagans would readily be able to accommodate the worship of more than one god, Christians, faithful to their Jewish roots, would rather die than do so. The only way this vision could ever have been accepted as genuine is if Christians had come to believe that, somehow, Jesus is God, as is the Father, even though there is only one God. Moreover, throughout the New Testament, qualities and actions are often attributed to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and to none other—that are only associated with the one true God in the Hebrew Scriptures.

So from the beginning of the Christian movement, two truths were held together—God is absolutely one and there are three who are proclaimed and worshipped as divine. Exactly how this seeming contradiction could be rationally and faithfully handled was the challenge that called for serious theological reflection. It took over three centuries to reach a consensus. In particular, what was argued about was whether the three distinctions were eternal or something else, and whether they were genuinely equal or whether one—the Father—was pre-eminent, and if so, how.

It is noteworthy that those who wish to argue against the Trinity on the basis that the term itself and the later formulation are not found in Scripture nevertheless cannot avoid a corresponding problem, the problem of the Canon. The Bible nowhere tells us which are the divinely inspired books. There are competing canons for the Old Testament even among professing Christians. (Protestants accept the same thirty-nine books the Jewish people traditionally accept; Roman Catholics also include the Apocrypha.) It took about the same length of time for Christians to finally agree on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament Canon as it did to agree on the Trinity. But as with the Trinity, so with the Canon: the ingredients were there—and were referred to—all along. In the second century Christian authors began citing the apostolic writings in ways that clearly indicated they considered them to be uniquely authoritative. But the process of recognizing which books did or did not belong to the inspired New Testament paralleled the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity historically.

The Second and Third Centuries

Ignatius

Ignatius, the bishop of the important see of Antioch, was summoned to Rome (where he was subsequently martyred) early in the second century during the reign of the emperor Trajan. On his way he wrote seven letters that have been preserved. He makes many references in them to both the Father and to Christ, referring to Jesus as God and Savior. The Spirit is also referred to, but less frequently; in particular, he is mentioned in collaboration with the other two with respect to salvation. [6]

Justin Martyr

A half-century later, Justin, who was one of the first “apologists” (i.e. intellectual defenders of the faith against its opponents’ arguments), was martyred in Rome. He has been faulted for allowing Stoic and Platonic influences to affect his handling of doctrine. Justin himself might have replied that even as we have to translate from one language to another to communicate accurately, so it is appropriate to “translate” from certain ways of thinking to others. In any case, Justin does stress the triadic forms from the New Testament in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. He portrays Christ especially as the Word, yet in a personal way. However, he displays what will be a recurring tendency, especially in those of eastern (i.e. Greek) background, to think of the Son as subordinate to the Father. (At the same time he still affirms that the Son is truly God and that there is only one God.) [7]

In its beginning, the church was a Jewish minority establishing itself over against the majority of Jews who refused to accept Jesus as the long promised Messiah, much less as God himself become the Messiah. Soon the church began attracting Gentiles who in many cases had already been drawn to Judaism with its view of God and ethics. Much of the New Testament is taken up with showing that it is the continuation or fulfillment of the Old Testament revelation, not its repudiation. But as the second century progressed, Jewish adherents became a distinct minority in the church. Many of the Gentiles who were attracted to what they had heard about the character and teachings of Jesus had a less firm background in Jewish monotheism and were more likely to have either crude pagan, or philosophical concepts of divinity. This meant that Christians were now more ready to claim that they were the true Israel. The Jewish people had forfeited that role. The consequences for Christian doctrines (and for the well-being of the Jewish people in centuries to come) of this fateful development were more important in many other areas of doctrine than for the doctrine of the Trinity. [8]

Irenaeus and Gnosticism

The most important second-century writer was Irenaeus. He was born before mid-century in Asia Minor but migrated to Lyons in Gaul, where he became bishop for the last quarter of the century. He wrote extensively against the widespread Gnostic heresies which denied that the God of Jesus was the same as the God of the Old Testament worshipped by the Jews. While there are early indications in the New Testament of possible proto-Gnostic teachings(cf. Colossians and 1 John), as long as the Jewish background of Christianity remained strong, this threat was contained. Gnostics also denied that Jesus was really incarnate, saying that he only appeared to have a human body. Their concept of what salvation was all about also differed greatly. Accordingly, the Gnostics appealed to a whole different set of scriptures than did the apostolic church. Naturally, each side claimed that the scriptures of the others were spurious. Since it was the humanity of Christ rather than his deity that Gnosticism was denying, Irenaeus was concerned, understandably, to stress why God had to become man and die for our sins rather than send an exalted representative to enlighten us. Although the Spirit remains in the background, he is clearly affirmed., He is recognized as being with God along with the Son in the beginning and as being heavily involved in the process of salvation. Irenaeus’s focus is more on what is called the “economic” Trinity, that is, how the distinctions within the Godhead work out our salvation. The subject of the “ontological” Trinity, i.e. how the three distinctions within the one unity are to be understood within the inner being of God, was not addressed. [9]

Tertullian and Modalism

As the third century dawned, the first major Latin writer appeared—Tertullian. Born in North Africa, he became a lawyer and spent time in Rome. When he became a Christian, he returned to Carthage and used his writing skills to become a leading apologist for the faith. Interestingly, his displeasure with what he considered laxity led him to leave the mainstream church organization in favor of the more rigorist Montanist movement. The Montanists emphasized the soon return of the Lord and the continuing prophetic work of the Holy Spirit, while the main church stressed the Spirit’s work through its organization. Nevertheless, Tertullian was to be a major shaper of Trinitarian terminology for the western, Latin-speaking church. He wrote not only against ethical laxity and Gnosticism, but also against certain attempts at explaining the relationship of oneness and threeness in God that he thought were seriously wrong. [10]

In his work Against Praxeas, Tertullian opposed a view best referred to as “modalism.” Modalism dealt with the problem of relating the threeness and oneness by asserting that the biblical revelation of distinctions was to be seen as successive rather than simultaneous: the Father became incarnate on earth as Son and then left to return as the Spirit. This proved to be acceptable to many in the West, perhaps because it set them in contrast against the polytheism that was still vigorous in the Greco-Roman world. For the Modalists to speak of three distinctions seemed too much like speaking of three gods, i.e. tri-theism. Tertullian combated this by not only appealing to the obvious indications in Scripture that Father and Son interacted with each other and that certain things were true of only one (e.g., dying on the cross), but also by creating some terminology that quickly became standard in the West. Apparently it was Tertullian who first said that the term substantia should apply to the nature of the one true God, but that within the oneness there were, eternally, three personae. The problem with this terminology was that the word “person” did not have nearly the emphasis on distinct individuality in general usage then that it has subsequently come to have. Indeed, it was often used to indicate different roles that actors performed. The use of the term could easily be seen as endorsing some variety of modalism. But even though Tertullian was concerned to stress the unity of the Godhead and the permanent distinctions within it, he still could not avoid the then-common tendency to portray the Son and the Spirit as less than the Father. But one of his major contributions remains: he gave the West a vocabulary with which to wrestle with the problem.

Origin and Subordinationism

Origin was born near the end of the second century in the eastern, Greek-speaking portion of the Roman Empire. The East was more populous and sophisticated, both in general and with respect to the minority Christians. Origin became the head of a catechetical school in his native Alexandria for the first third of the third century. After a dispute with his bishop he relocated to Caesarea in Palestine and headed a school there until the middle of the century. His literary output was enormous (of which little has survived), as was his significance to the development of doctrine and biblical interpretation. Like Tertullian, his relationship with the organized church was controversial. Some of his teachings were explicitly repudiated, but his principles of biblical interpretation predominated until the Reformation. His more or less systematic work, On First Principles, survives in a free Latin translation. He was the first to use the key term homoousios to indicate that the Son and the Spirit are of the same essence or substance, as the Father. But he still saw the Father as the principle source of deity, which the Son and Spirit have in some sense eternally derived from the Father. Perhaps because of the generally prevailing philosophy, this sort of mild subordinationism continued to be widely tolerated as the best explanation for the biblical data. [11]

In general it is safe to say that all early attempts to explain the oneness and threeness in God tended to be either modalistic or subordinationist. Nevertheless, the various efforts did set the stage for the formulations of the fourth century.

The Fourth Century

Ever since its beginnings in the first century, apostolic Christianity had been facing opposition from various quarters. Much of the opposition was because it had been steadily spreading throughout the Roman Empire. Not only was there external opposition from other religions and philosophies, but from time to time in various places the civil authorities would persecute Christians. The Roman Empire was very pluralistic ethnically and tolerated a wide variety of religious expression. But as a kind of “glue” to hold this conglomerate together, they did require of everyone at least a nominal acknowledgement of the Emperor’s deity. Jews (a small, but not insignificant minority) had objected so strongly that they were eventually exempted. But when Christians were (by mutual agreement) no longer seen as a Jewish sect, they lost that exemption. They suffered for it, occasionally with martyrdom, depending on how rigorously local officials enforced emperor worship. But martyrs for a cause can attract others, and so the church continued to grow.

Even within the New Testament there were competing interpretations of the gospel from the beginning. Many of the letters were written to combat errors from within the ranks of professing Christians (cf. Galatians and Colossians). In the second century, Gnosticism in its various forms became a major rival to the Christian faith, and there were other expressions which had starkly different “gospels.” There was also discord within the church because several dissident movements felt that the mainstream church was too lax toward those who were weak in the face of persecution. Yet this was a different category of debate from that which involved the doctrine of the Gospel or the Trinity.

It is important to distinguish, then and now, between those who know and oppose what came to be the orthodox formulation of Christian truth and those who, basing their reflection on the apostolic Scriptures, seek to find the best way to express it. Many of those who were advocating what the church came to see as error were intending to be faithful. Had they lived, one hopes they would have joined in the consensus that was finally reached in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. Ever since then there have been Christians whose concepts of the Trinity have been closer to the views that Constantinople sought to counter, e.g. modalism, tri-theism, or subordinationism. Indeed, as we shall see, the tendency has always been to understand the Nicene Creed by stressing the unity of the Godhead or, in the opposite fashion, by stressing the distinctions within the Godhead.

Constantine and the Council of Nicea (ad 325)

The Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the year 313, starting the process by which the Christian faith was the only legal one at the end of the century. Of the various rival organizations, he embraced the largest and most widespread, usually referred to as “catholic” Christianity. Its bishops claimed to be in direct succession to the apostles.

Arius and the Person of Christ

But within the East a debate was raging that had been ignited by an Alexandrian named Arius, who lived from the middle of the third century into much of the fourth. He saw himself as true to the insights of Origen (who was not yet as widely condemned as he would be later). Arius was more consistent than Origin and sought to argue from Scripture that Christ was less than fully God. He did confess that Christ was the firstborn through whom all the rest was created and was, therefore, worthy of worship. Many eastern bishops agreed with him, while others felt strongly that he took subordinationism too far towards polytheism. Constantine, naturally wanting agreement within the religion he was favoring, called a council to resolve the matter. It met in Nicea, not far from the new capital that Constantine was building. [12] The emperor himself supposedly presided, and more than three hundred bishops gathered, many bearing the scars of the Roman persecution that had ended only a few years before. They were almost all from the East. The West was satisfied enough with Tertullian’s handling of the matter. [13]

Homoousios

The creed that was formulated at Nicea in ad 325 included the key term homoousios to indicate that the Son was of the same nature as the Father. Almost everyone present agreed to it, exile being the fate of those who did not. Constantine had been raised in the West and may well have had detectable western sympathies. However, it soon became evident that the imperial desire for agreement was not enough. The debate continued in the East, with even its advocates hesitant to use the controversial term.

Semi-Arians

Few were extreme Arians, and the term Semi-Arians is now used of them. At the time, they saw themselves as truly defending apostolic teaching. They feared that the West, and hence the Creed, was insufficiently clear on the biblical distinction between the Father and the Son. To their mind, homoousios could too easily be seen in a modalistic way. They did not see themselves as diminishing the Son, nor in any sense veering into polytheism by insisting that Christ is God and therefore to be worshipped. In the years following Nicea, they may well have represented a majority of the bishops in the East.

The emperors who followed Constantine were inclined to favor Semi-Arian and even Arian views. It was during this period that Germanic tribes north of the empire were being evangelized by Arian-leaning missionaries. When the Germans later invaded the empire in the West (having been repulsed in the East), they did so with a different version of Christianity than was prevailing among those they conquered. [14]

Athanasius and the Cappadocians

During this time Athanasius of Alexandria was a staunch defender of the Nicene Creed and its emphasis on the equality, yet distinctiveness, of the Father and the Son. The emphasis on the Spirit was less clear. Athanasius lived during the first three-fourths of the tumultuous fourth century, serving numerous times as bishop of his home city. Because of his strong anti-Arian stance, he frequently fell out of favor and was consequently exiled, only to be recalled when the tide turned. The West was always supportive, and the writings of Athanasius, along with those of three younger contemporaries from central Asia Minor known as the Cappadocians, gradually convinced most in the East that the Nicene formula was sufficiently clear on the distinctions within the Trinity. Part of the problem they had to deal with was the Greek and Latin terminology used to describe the Trinity. The Latin term substantia was the etymological equivalent of the Greek word hupostasis. The Latins said that there was one substantia in the Godhead, while the Greeks said that there were three hupostaseis, or three distinctions. Once it was clear that the Greek hupostasis was understood in the sense of the Latin persona, it was possible to come to an agreement. A major argument that won the day for the full deity of Christ was that Christ must be fully God in order to effect our salvation. This had already been seen by Irenaeus; the death of no mere emissary, however exalted, could be sufficient to atone for our sins. [15]

The Council of Constantinople (ad 381)

By 381, separate emperors ruled the eastern and western parts of the Roman empire, both of whom called the Council of Constantinople to re-affirm Nicea and to condemn a movement that had arisen which was denying the deity of the Holy Spirit. The resulting clarifications of the Nicene Creed are what has been understood as Trinitarian orthodoxy ever since (even by those who disagree with it). Unlike the Council of Nicea, there was genuine widespread acceptance of Constantinople. In large part, this was because the East continued to interpret the Creed in a way which stressed the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while the West stressed the unity of God and the full equality of Father and Son.

The Council of Chalcedon (ad 451)

Following Constantinople and its agreement on the Trinity, there began an equally heated debate in the East on how the deity of Christ is related to his humanity (bearing in mind he is co-equal with the Father). In 451, the Council of Chalcedon (near Constantinople) found an agreed-upon formula for the western church and the majority of the eastern church. But the Egyptian (Coptic), Armenian, and a portion of the Syrian churches dissented and have remained separate ever since. They probably felt that Chalcedon compromised Christ’s deity too much. Earlier, other Syrians had left for the opposite reason, feeling that his true humanity was not being maintained as faithfully as it had been in Scripture. [16]

It has been frequently asserted that the early church was influenced by philosophy too much in all these debates, and if it had stayed just with scriptural language, the problem could have been avoided. But a careful reading of the surviving records indicates that while all sides were trying to be true to scriptural revelation, each view would stress certain verses while overlooking others. The challenge was, and is, not just to hurl opposing verses, but to find formulas which faithfully reflect the thrust of all the relevant passages. Even as such formulas have to use a specific language (Greek and Latin being the two options in ancient times), so prevailing philosophical (or worldview) concepts provide the thought forms in which statements are framed. The challenge is to do this in a way that is faithful to God’s revelation. In actuality, it was those views labeled heresy, Gnosticism and even Arianism, which were probably more influenced by the philosophies of their times. Arius, for example, did not fall prey to the Gnostic (and wider philosophical) assumption that matter was inherently evil, but he did seem to share the belief that the absolute Creator could not directly become human but needed an intermediary to do so. Similarly, the Copts and the Syrians seemed to have problems with the notion that God the Son could become fully incarnate so that two natures were really united in one person. This philosophical idea of the great distance between deity and humanity is still active today whenever one meets those who admire Jesus but reject his deity. After centuries of discussion, the early church is to be commended for finally finding a formula which has served those who would be faithful to Scripture ever since.

Augustine and Subsequent Western Developments

Augustine

Without doubt, the most influential theologian in the West for the next thousand years or more was a North African of Latin background named Augustine. Born in the middle of the fourth century, he was not involved in the conflict that was resolved at Constantinople. But alongside his administrative duties as bishop of Hippo in North Africa, he conducted a voluminous writing ministry. Much of it was aimed against various errors, but his well-known Confessions and City of God are classics by any measure. He also spent about twenty years writing On the Trinity, not primarily to engage in controversy, but to guide his own reflections on this solemn topic in the light of Scripture. Nevertheless, the effect was to further drive the wedge between East and West, because Augustine developed the western tendency to stress the unity by focusing on the inner life of God apart from his external relations with us. Augustine’s writings impressed those in the West, and for several centuries his was the last word on the subject, even for those who could not fully understand him. But those in the East hardly knew of Augustine, and they were suspicious of some of his views that came to their attention. [17] They were always concerned about God in his relationships to us, and for this reason they emphasized the distinctives of the persons.

Previous reflection on the Trinity had generally attributed a preeminent role to the Father. Even those who sought to avoid subordinationism derived the deity of the Son and the Spirit from the Father. Augustine’s reflections carried him in a different direction. Starting from an emphasis on the unity of the Godhead and recognizing the scriptural emphasis on the primacy of love, he saw the relationship between Father and Son as essential for genuine love between two persons to exist. While contemporary Christianity has emphasized the love of God, it is important to recognize that Augustine stressed this theme long ago. In his view, the Holy Spirit became the transmitter of that love between the Father and the Son. A view like this might seem to de-personalize the Spirit and diminish him in comparison to the Son. Those in the East accused the westerners of doing just that. But what Augustine was actually doing, given his emphasis on love, was shifting the fountainhead of deity from its traditional source in the Father to the Holy Spirit. The love which the Spirit mediates becomes fully personalized in the Father and the Son. It is subsequently extended by the whole Trinity to God’s elect. [18]

Conflict between East and West over the Procession of the Spirit

Augustine thus paved the way for the West to feel free at a later date to add a phrase to the Nicene Creed, namely that the Spirit proceeds “from the Son” as well as from the Father. The East still sees the Son as sending the Spirit (cf. John 15:26) as part of the Trinity’s interaction with humanity. But in the inner being of the Godhead, they feel that those in the West have diminished the Spirit relative to the Son. Correspondingly, the West sees the East as diminishing the Son along with the Spirit relative to the Father, and western theologians have tended to feel that the East has never fully overcome its early subordinationist tendencies.

The East does have a point in noting the western de-emphasis on the individuality of the Spirit. In the Middle Ages the Spirit was seen to work primarily through the organized church and its sacraments. At the Reformation, Protestants shifted the emphasis so that the Spirit was seen to work primarily through the Scriptures. Of course, in the last two centuries there has been a renewed emphasis on the person and work of the Holy Spirit, first with the Wesleyans, then among the Brethren, and more recently in the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement. So it is no longer true to say that the West has underemphasized the Spirit. Given the Christocentric nature of much evangelistic preaching, it seems that the Father is currently the more underemphasized person of the Trinity—quite a reversal from earlier times. But this is to jump ahead in our narrative.

While there was little development in eastern Trinitarian thought through the Middle Ages, there was considerable opposition to what was happening in the West during the period following Augustine’s prodigious achievements. As the West gradually added to its recitation of the Creed that the Spirit proceeds “from the Son” as well as from the Father, the East became more and more aggravated. Of course they resented the unilateral changing of the Creed in the West. More importantly, they thought that this was a grave error theologically. When the East needed the West’s help in fending off Muslim advances, some eastern leaders were willing to compromise on the Trinitarian dispute. But the masses of clergy and people refused to go along. Both sides accused the other of being insufficiently attentive to Scripture and too willing to submit to philosophical influences. It is easy to say that both were probably right in their accusations, but that does not solve the controversy.

The East continues down to the present, therefore, to hold steadfastly to its understanding of Constantinople 381. Although the West was overwhelmingly guided for centuries by Augustine’s reflections in the early 400s, there were eventually some further developments in western Trinitarian thought.

Richard of St. Victor

In the twelfth century Richard of the monastery of St. Victor in Paris wrote a significant treatise On the Trinity. He advanced beyond Augustine by demonstrating that genuine love within the Godhead demanded three co-equal persons, not two with a transmitter. His emphasis on the social nature of the Trinity has received renewed appreciation in our time, especially when Trinitarianism is being challenged afresh by the aggressive thrust of Islam and by a philosophical or generic monotheism. [19]

Aquinas

In the thirteenth century, the great theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively on the Trinity, both in his systematic theology and in his apologetic work regarding Islam. Before his time Christian theology had found Platonic categories, with their emphasis on the greater reality of the unseen world, more conducive as a forerunner to Christian revelation. Through the Muslims,

Aristotelian thought had re-entered the European scene, and it was to become increasingly influential. Thomas’s achievement was to show how Christian truth did not have to be rejected if one became convinced of the validity of Aristotle’s emphasis on studying and appreciating this world as it is. While the Thomist distinction between nature (truths we discover by reason) and grace (truths which are disclosed by revelation) can lead to false dichotomies, it is helpful with regard to the Trinity. The Bible indicates that something of the essence or nature of God is accessible by observation and reason, even to fallen man. But the tri-personal nature of God and our entering into a personal, not just creaturely, relationship with him, is the result of grace and revelation. [20]

The Protestant Reformation and Its Aftermath

The Reformers

The massive upheaval and realignment within the western church known as the Reformation was associated with disputes on many fronts—political, economic, social, as well as religious and theological. However, disagreements over the doctrine of the Trinity—even of the kind that have continually affected relations between East and West—were not among the issues dividing Protestants and Catholics. The confessional statements that the main contenders issued as the conflict went along remained essentially true to the traditional western understanding of Constantinople 381 as influenced by Augustine. Nevertheless, there were subtle differences that help to explain why Protestantism in its subsequent expansion has been basically content to reaffirm the historic creeds and then get on with other emphases. For example, the Reformers stepped back from the kind of speculation about the essence and inner life of the Trinity that had begun in Augustine and continued in later medieval theology. Catholic mysticism emphasized knowing the Triune God personally and escaping into his glorious presence through some sort of union of the soul with God. The Reformers instead stressed serving God in this present world. Because of their emphasis on the work of God in relation to humanity as it is revealed in Scripture, the Reformers freely stressed the equality of each of the persons. Whereas the Catholics put their emphasis on the Spirit’s working through the church, the Reformers emphasized that the Spirit was working through the Word, not only in originally inspiring it, but also in illuminating and applying it. This strengthened a belief in the personality of the Spirit that later Protestants would carry further. Yet, seeking to be true to Scripture, they did not assign distinctive qualities to each person (Father as Creator, Spirit as source of love, etc.) as has often been done over the centuries. [21]

Lutherans and Reformed (later also known as Calvinists), despite their basic theological agreement, were nevertheless not able to cooperate regularly because of certain theological differences. These were not differences over the Trinity, but rather over their differing emphases on the relationship of the humanity and the deity of Christ in the one person. The Lutherans tended to emphasize the unity of the person, thereby making their view of the “real presence” of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper more feasible. (This was a major point of contention against the Reformed.) The Reformed have been more likely to stress the distinctive qualities of each nature. Even though the Christological debate immediately followed the resolution of the Trinitarian controversy at Constantinople in 381, these two closely related theological areas have not had as much impact on each other as might have been expected, especially since the concepts of nature and of person are crucial in each area.

Anti-Trinitarian Attacks

After the outbreak of the Reformation, it became less dangerous in some areas of Europe to explore or advocate long-repudiated beliefs. The Spaniard, Michael Servetus, soon fell afoul of both Catholic and emerging Protestant authorities by denying the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. He proposed a mixture of Sabellian (modalistic) and Arian ideas. His execution in Calvin’s Geneva in 1553 is possibly the most remembered thing about Calvin outside of the Reformed churches. [22] Even more influential were the anti-Trinitarian Italian uncle and nephew, Laelius and Faustus Socinus. Organizationally they were most successful in Poland, where their movement was known as “Brethren” (not to be confused with any of the other numerous movements with that name). Their teaching issued in the famous Racovian Catechism in 1562. They claimed that Trinitarian views were based on misinterpretations of the Bible. Socinian ideas soon became widespread in the intellectual centers of Europe and merged with the much more radical questioning of biblical authority that was evidenced in what became known as the “Enlightenment.” [23]

By the year 1800 the doctrine of the Trinity was both subtly and overtly under attack throughout the Protestant lands, especially in the university centers. Deism was the faith that many intellectuals would acknowledge. Deists believed in a god somewhat similar to the god of Aristotle, one that was far removed from the God revealed in Scripture, who is actively involved with his creatures. That those who questioned biblical authority should also deny the Trinity is, of course, a confirmation that the Trinity is a doctrine knowable only by revelation and not by reason alone. It is also a doctrine to be formulated with full awareness of God’s personal (yet diverse) interaction with his people over the centuries. Ironically, Unitarianism as an organized denomination appeared in England and New England among descendants of the Puritans, who were devout followers of Calvin and who had given a renewed impetus to an appreciation of the activity of the Triune God. Despite the prominence of individual Unitarians, these groups have never grown significantly. This could be taken as confirmation that a rationalistic approach to religion not based on revelation has very limited appeal.

While the Socinians of the 1500s were anticipating the widespread intellectual departure from Trinitarian doctrine, other less intellectual movements of the 1600s and 1700s strengthened it. The early Puritans, Pietists, Baptists, Quakers, and Wesleyan Methodists all emphasized the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing the individual to personal faith in Christ. With the exception of the Anabaptists and other “radical” movements of reform (such as the Socinians), the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s was overwhelmingly a continuation of the emphasis begun by Constantine where there was a close collaboration between the church and civil government. With few exceptions, Lutheranism and Calvinism (as well as Anglicanism) persevered in Europe as a result of support by the civil government that was strongly sought and obtained. Anabaptists and those who supported the idea that the church should be “free” from the state were not only opposed but also persecuted, and sometimes even killed. It is no wonder that they remained a very small minority for a couple centuries. The main Reformers had become individually convinced of the new (they would say “recovered”) doctrinal and practical emphases they were advocating. But their strategy was to persuade the leaders of their societies to embrace and then enforce the changes. The Anabaptist appealed to the individual to decide for himself (symbolized by adult baptism once one had been persuaded). But this was certain to harm their chances of persuading wavering rulers to accept Protestantism. The attack against “free” church views was ferocious.

Trinitarians of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries

As the 1600s and 1700s unfolded, the questioning of biblical authority by many increased. This was accompanied by greater emphasis on each individual’s personal acceptance of biblical revelation, not just a communal acceptance. To be sure, the Puritans were still strongly committed to a state-supported church, but they wanted individuals to be personally committed as well. Similarly, the Pietists and Methodists sought to promote personal renewal within the framework of the state churches. However, they formed certain parallel institutions so that there was at least a partial separation. For some Pietists and, by the close of the 1700s, for the Methodists, the separation between church and state became complete, and new denominations were born. Many argue that it was Methodism and the Awakenings of the 1700s on both sides of the Atlantic that gave birth to the Evangelical movement. However, they only called for a personal acceptance of the doctrines that had been recovered by the Reformers, and they constantly appealed back to them and beyond them to the apostolic writings. Therefore, I believe it is better to see this as a second major development within the Protestant movement which began in the 1500s. Protestantism was now dividing into its “Enlightenment,” Evangelical, and Strict Confessional components. In either case, the stage was set for the complexities of the modern period beginning around 1800.

From the point of view of Trinitarian theology, this Evangelical development brought no change in the classical formulation. But it had enormous implications in stressing the work of Jesus Christ and, in most cases, also the work of the Holy Spirit. Through the home meetings of the Pietists and the mass open-air meetings of the revivalists, there was a great emphasis on the importance of personally encountering Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. This encounter was facilitated by the enlightening, converting, and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. The role of the church and its priests (or preachers) and sacraments was re-defined. No longer were salvation and discipleship seen as mediated through the ecclesiastical institution and its proper conveyance of word and sacrament. Instead, salvation resulted from a personal acceptance of Jesus’ finished work on the cross and the subsequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The church was still very important, for it was the voluntary fellowship of those who had come to this personal faith, and it was the gathering where discipleship could be nurtured and sustained in the midst of a hostile world. Participation in the sacraments was not so much a way of tangibly receiving God’s grace as it was of expressing publicly that grace had been received by faith. No clerical intermediary was necessary, although the revival preachers certainly had a vital, though not essential, role.

Traditional churchmen and those committed strongly to the Protestant confessional traditions would look askance at these “enthusiastic” movements that they felt were too weak on the sacraments or on theological refinements. Nevertheless, the varied expressions of Evangelicalism were to prove by the late twentieth century to be the most vigorous and largest expressions of Christianity, with the partial exception of Roman Catholicism. It is true that the latter is still numerically larger, but the growing laxity in practice and the apparent disbelief in some of its basic tenets suggest that formal membership and actual commitment are not to be confused.

The Quaker movement, which emerged in the 1600s in England under the leadership of George Fox and which played a significant role across the Atlantic in Pennsylvania, illustrates well the importance of keeping the emphasis on personal or individual commitment wedded to Trinitarianism. The Quakers contrasted themselves in almost every way with traditional church practices, Catholic as well as Protestant. However, they soon found that without an anchor in Trinitarian theology and an authoritative Scripture, their early emphasis on Christ-likeness and the Inner Light could, and did, lead in all directions. Accordingly, the movement divided, with some becoming essentially Unitarian or humanist, others stressing a simple lifestyle, and many others becoming like Wesleyan-inspired denominations. Quaker influence was also to be found in later movements such as the Plymouth Brethren and the Vineyard.

The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

Rationalism and Anti-Trinitarianism within the Churches

For nearly 1500 years, the doctrine of the Trinity had been at the heart of European culture. Its art, its doctrinal and intellectual affirmations and arguments (not least the division of the eastern and western churches), the naming of some of its major intellectual centers, and of course its liturgical worship, all bear witness to this. But by 1800 this influence was clearly shattered. Increasingly, the universities, even if they still had Trinity Colleges in their midst, were no longer Trinitarian. Catholicism was greatly weakened in France (one of its historic strongholds) by the rise of deism and atheism. Protestantism, as indicated above, had sub-divided its initial divisions—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Anabaptist—into rationalist, revivalist, and traditionalist wings. Moreover, the still-continuing process of regularly adding more divisions had begun. Some of the earlier groups such as Quakers, Moravians, or Dunker Brethren would not become widely disbursed around the globe, but others, notably Baptists and Methodists and their offshoots, would.

Those who were more rationalistic and anti-Trinitarian did not usually continue within the historic Protestant churches, but this did not mean those who remained in leadership within them were steadfastly Trinitarian in the sense agreed at Constantinople in 381. Instead, a movement known as Liberal Protestantism emerged, first in Germany, then, throughout northwestern Europe, and finally, in the northern United States. Its founder is usually said to be Friedrich Schleiermacher, who flourished in Berlin in the first third of the nineteenth century. Coming from a Pietist background but no longer subscribing to its core beliefs, Schleiermacher sought to preserve Christianity for an increasingly skeptical European intelligentsia by radically re-defining most of its traditional beliefs, not least the Trinity. He resurrected a form of modalism. But in seeking to stress Christ-consciousness, he cast doubts on his true deity—even on his bodily resurrection. He continued to use many traditional terms, but in non-traditional ways. His desire was to renew the churches and their ministries from within rather than create a new denomination. In this he was hugely successful, for instead of a relative few departing to form “enlightened” denominations, as happened with the earlier Unitarian defections, there were now major reorientations within almost all of the existing older Protestant denominations. Liberalism believed in God, but stressed his continuity with his creation rather than the distinctions that orthodoxy had traditionally emphasized. Jesus was no longer seen as uniquely God incarnate, but as the most God-conscious of men, an example for us. The Bible was no longer wholly and infallibly inspired of God, but a mixture of inspiring affirmations interspersed with regrettable beliefs from earlier times. The resurrection of Christ was more likely to be understood as the first Christians coming to believe that Christ and his example were still alive in their lives, even though he was no longer with them in the same way. While believers in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity remained in most denominations, by the beginning of the twentieth century they were rarely in key positions in the theological faculties, denominational headquarters, and prominent pulpits. 24

New Trinitarian Movements

While this was happening, orthodox Trinitarians were growing through new movements, examples of which are the Restoration movement (Campbellites), Adventists, and the Plymouth Brethren. The first of these stressed ecclesiological reform along strictly New Testament lines, the second eschatological innovations, and the third, both. However, all three movements kept both the traditional doctrine of the Trinity and the newer emphasis on individual commitment. Interestingly, since all such movements stressed leaping back over the centuries of church history to get their doctrines directly from the Bible, each had a minority fringe that questioned the classical view of the Trinity, since it is not explicitly stated in the Bible. The continued growth of both the Baptist and Methodist movements with their evangelical emphasis on a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ also contributed to Trinitarianism remaining strong. In addition, the Methodist movement was proliferating numerous “Holiness” revivals within themselves and in other denominations. These called for an encounter with the Holy Spirit, usually called the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” which resembled a second conversion. This was not with a view to salvation (which came through Christ alone) but to sanctification. Many said that it could be instantaneous and entire, an event, claimed by faith, while others preferred to say it needed to be begun decisively, and then gradually developed, a process that was not necessarily complete this side of eternity. The effect of both approaches was to put an emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit that had not been common in the West. At the same time, the work of the Spirit was still firmly anchored within the Triune God and biblical revelation. Failure in this area was one reason why previous appeals to the leading and empowering of the Spirit had not met with favor. The Salvation Army, the Church of the Nazarene, and the Christian and Missionary Alliance are just three of the numerous late nineteenth-century movements with this kind of emphasis. Other Evangelical movements, however, felt that too much emotionalism and self-deception were involved in such calls to holiness. Also, theologically, the emphasis on the Holy Spirit could detract from the honor due to Christ alone. It was argued that, according to the Scriptures, the Spirit’s role was to glorify Christ rather than to call attention to Himself. Of course, Holiness advocates countered that they were simply obeying Scripture by not being content to remain as simply carnal or worldly Christians. In any case, the Holy Spirit was seeking to make them more Christ-like rather than draw them into some mystical union with himself.

World Missions

Another major development from the beginning of the nineteenth century was an enormous expansion in Protestant missionary work all over the globe. Moravians and other Pietist missionaries had begun somewhat earlier, as had a few Puritan neighbors of New England Indians. Common to all of these was the desire for those called and empowered by the Holy Spirit to take Christ to the “heathen.” The initial Protestant missionary endeavors quickly became primarily denominational, although arrangements of comity were often agreed to on the field so that they did not compete. Shortly after the middle of the nineteenth century there was a threefold development. Missions were formed which were intentionally non-denominational, that is, missionaries were drawn from and supported financially by congregations of various denominational backgrounds. Since the first wave of Protestant missions had gotten entrenched on the coasts, these missions usually went to the interior of continents or large countries. Such designations often formed part of their names. Finally, these missions stressed that their workers were not employees who were paid a salary supplied by the mission. Rather, they went by “faith,” that is, they trusted that the Holy Spirit who had called them would also guide others to support them. This pattern was pioneered by the first wave of Plymouth Brethren missionaries, and it has remained characteristic of them even when many others have become more organized in their support arrangements. Since many of these missionaries were not from the Wesleyan-Holiness spectrum within Evangelicalism, it is further evidence of a practical emphasis on the persons of the Trinity that is a widespread characteristic of the whole movement. And lest it be thought that the Father is forgotten, most Evangelicals probably directed their prayers and worship through the Son to the Father, viewing him pretty much as they viewed God generally.

Anti-Trinitarian Movements

While Liberal Protestantism was massively reinterpreting the historic doctrine of the Trinity and Evangelical Protestantism was developing an ever-livelier awareness of the distinct persons of the Trinity, there were other vigorous movements arising that were decidedly non- or anti-Trinitarian. Two of them are of special interest. Both originated in America in response to the large variety of competing forms of Christianity. Both have since grown to be major world religions and are active in most countries. Both strongly reject traditional Trinitarianism, but from quite different approaches. Arising in the early part of the nineteenth century, the Mormon movement claimed additional divine revelations and advocated a view of God that is virtually tri-theistic, if not polytheistic. Father and Son are said to be clearly distinct, but much more so than even Eastern Orthodoxy ever tolerated. Later in the century, what came to be known as Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed no new revelation, but instead had an organization which authoritatively interpreted the Bible in what was essentially an Arian way. Both organizations have been extremely aggressive in seeking converts, but the Mormons have been more successful economically and politically, at least in America. [25] Meanwhile, in many other countries there are more nationally based movements which, advocating a supposedly more straightforward doctrine of God than the complications of asserting both threeness and oneness, have grown at the expense of traditional Christianity as well. The success of such movements, as well as Islam with its uncomplicated monotheism, can also be taken as an indication that the early Christians certainly did not need to make the effort to argue for a Trinity as a way to get converts. They did so because they felt the data of revelation, coupled with the Christian experience of Jesus Christ when on earth, and of the Holy Spirit thereafter, compelled them.

The Pentecostal Movement

As the twentieth century began, what was already a complex scene became more so as it went along. The Pentecostal movement exploded from within the Holiness movement and also drew many adherents from a more Baptist background. The result was an even greater emphasis on the person of the Holy Spirit, who was thought to enable believers in Christ to speak in unknown tongues as on the day of Pentecost. This was the initial evidence of a baptism of the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion to faith in Christ. Typical of renewal movements that were seeking to fully practice the Scriptures, the movement was soon torn by those who rejected the orthodox Trinity in favor of a form of modalism. This minority is “Oneness Pentecostalism” (organized into many denominations) which sees Jesus as having come back in another form as the Holy Spirit, baptizes converts in water in the name of Jesus only, and often insists that one must speak in tongues to be saved. Generally, they are not in fellowship with Trinitarian Pentecostals—much less other Evangelicals. Their gospel message, like that of the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, lays heavy emphasis on what we are to do rather than what has been done for us by Christ by his death and resurrection. [26] Meanwhile, Trinitarian Pentecostalism has grown faster and spread more widely than any other expression of Christianity in church history.

Its adherents see this as confirmation that the church as a whole has stifled the work of the Holy Spirit for too long. Critics contend it attributes to the Spirit what really is just the release of human emotion and energy. In mid-century, a Charismatic movement erupted among older Protestant bodies as well as in Catholicism. The Pentecostal-type experiences were kept within these groups, or else new denominations were formed without some of the lifestyle trappings that marked the classical Pentecostals with their Holiness roots and lower economic status.

The Influence of Karl Barth

While both anti-Trinitarian (to a small extent) and pro-Holy Spirit (to a great extent) movements were growing on the popular level, academic theology in the Protestant mainstream was being jolted back to Trinitarian reflection by the magisterial work of the Swiss German, Karl Barth, widely recognized as the foremost theologian of the first half of the twentieth century. On the one hand, Barth decisively broke with the Liberal Protestant tradition to which he was heir in several ways. This included a rejection of natural theology in favor of an insistence on divine revelation from a transcendent God alone. But in reasserting the importance of the Trinity as being the God who reveals himself, Barth broke with all prior Christian tradition which had grounded the divine essence either principally in the Father (the East) or the Holy Spirit (the West since Augustine). Instead, Barth argued for Christ as being the unifying person within the Trinity, especially since we are not really able to look beyond what is revealed to the internal essence of God. By stressing that it is through Christ that we know God, Barth was in continuity with the Liberal Protestant tradition on Jesus, but with the opposite emphasis. He argued for the recognition of a truly divine Christ revealing himself to us in the incarnation, rather than for our admiring a remarkable Jewish spiritual genius. But like much of the western tradition, Barth was uncomfortable with stressing the distinct persons of the Trinity. His focus was on Christ, the revealed One. [27]

The achievement of Barth brought Trinitarian reflection back into the mainstream of academic theology after the near exile it had endured for a century and a half. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, the writings of Germans Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jurgen Moltmann have been among the most prominent of numerous academic reflections on the doctrine of the Trinity and how best to understand and express it. From the Roman Catholic side, the German Karl Rahner has had a similar role in rejuvenating reflection on the traditional doctrine. Writing in the first half of the century, an innovative Eastern Orthodox theologian, who nevertheless staunchly defended his church’s traditional distinctives, was the Russian Vladimir Lossky, who spent his adult life in Paris. As valuable as these academic contributions can be in causing us to re-examine the Scriptural revelation and learn from interaction with varying emphases, they have not had much effect on how the doctrine of the Trinity is formulated or understood among the masses of professing Christians. [28]

Concluding Reflections

Even when discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity remains fairly static (as it did for much of the middle ages and again in early modern times) the truth of the Trinity remains at the heart of Christian faith and theology. As we have seen, having to deal with the clear Scriptural teaching that there is one God while at the same time recognizing Father, Son, and Spirit as divine, created the need for systematic theology in the first place. The many movements that have arisen over the centuries that say we should just stay with Scriptural terms and phrases are repeatedly shown to be highly selective in which passages they appeal to. Moreover, they use biblical terms in ways that differ from how the Bible itself uses them. Hence the need for new terms and phrases to try to be true to the intention of Scripture. (This is not a problem confined to the doctrine of the Trinity. Terms like “sin,” “love,” and “salvation” also have widely varying connotations; it is the task of theologians working in various languages and eras to clarify these connotations.)

Of course, it is the task of theology to integrate all the relevant Scriptural passages, to convey the truth in terms that accurately convey the original meaning, but to express it in the languages and thought forms of later peoples. And theologians are also to be answering the questions that their contemporaries are raising. Every traditional doctrine has challenges. Some are raised by the discoveries of modern science. But the doctrine of the Trinity continues to face the same challenges it always has. How can God really be one and yet, in some sense, three? And even if it is so, does it matter? These old questions, first raised by adherents of Judaism and by various philosophical monotheists, soon came to be asked by Islam. And Muslims had great success in converting professing Christians to their simpler monotheism all across southwestern Asia, northern Africa, and eventually southeastern Europe.

In our own time, there is a renewed challenge from Islam as well as from other monotheisms. Christians who are not well-grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity are much more likely to fall prey to alternatives. The success in Islam’s winning converts among nominal Christians in former times, and even today, is evidence of that. So is the rapid growth in the twentieth century of such movements as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals (to name just three of the largest and most widespread non-Trinitarian bodies). And of course the readiness with which most of the older Protestant denominations (those that go back to the Reformation or that come from the early Evangelical awakenings) adopted Liberal Protestant theology is still further evidence of the need for understanding what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and why it is so critical. To those who say that the doctrine is too mystical and mysterious, the reply can be made that none of the movements that fail to affirm it are clear on other crucial elements of the Christian message, such as the true deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, his atoning death for our sins, and our salvation by grace through faith in his finished work alone. Instead, with possibly some inconsistent exceptions, non-Trinitarians have a different “gospel,” usually based on human effort, holding up Jesus primarily as an example for us to follow, and often associated with faithfulness to a particular organization. And besides, “simple” monotheists have mysteries of their own. For instance, how, in their concept, can God really be personal and really know and communicate love, since those things entail relationships? The doctrine of the Trinity declares a God who has personal relationships and love at the very heart of his being. [29]

But in addition to the challenge of other religions or rival expressions of Christianity, there is perhaps the greater challenge today of a widespread commitment to religious pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that, with only a few limits, one should recognize a variety of views that are acceptable ways to God or whatever ultimate reality there is. Pluralism says that it is fine for those who so wish to be Trinitarian Christians, but they should not think theirs is the only “right” way, nor should they aggressively seek converts from other views. There are two special difficulties. One difficulty is to defend the right of others to practice and propagate their religion and to have equal treatment under the civil law. We can call this the defense of religious plurality. But this is to be done without endorsing, in reality or appearance, the increasingly widespread belief in pluralism, as defined above. The other difficulty is to distinguish between monotheism in general, which is admittedly a more desirable belief than either polytheism or atheism, and Trinitarian monotheism. How does one lovingly respond to the increasingly heard assertion that “we all worship the same God”? That is indeed a challenge for Trinitarians.

A review of the history of the doctrine of the Trinity shows that whenever there is too much stress on God’s unity or oneness, it leads to unsupportable speculation on his internal life and overstresses those attributes that belong to his nature and his transcendence. But when there is too much stress on his distinctions or threeness, it can lead to overemphasizing his love, grace, and forgiveness, at the expense of his holiness and justice. Moreover, overstressing either can lead to an excessive emphasis on the human contribution to salvation or the role of an organization (historic or modern) as an additional mediator for salvation.

In addition, too great a stress on the distinctions within the Godhead can lead to a practical tri-theism with varying consequences. The Father is portrayed as the stern judge, with the gentle Son turning away his wrath. As a result we come into fellowship more with Jesus than with God. Also, the cutting loose of the Holy Spirit from being firmly anchored in the Trinity could account for two widespread developments. One, exhibited over the centuries, is that some Christians seek experiences attributable to the Spirit more than seeing him as directing them to the Father through the Son and seeking to make us all more Christlike. The other more contemporary danger is stressing the Spirit’s work in all religions and spiritualities rather than emphasizing his revealed task of bringing people to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is an ultimate mystery in this doctrine of the Trinity, and repeated efforts by great minds (and small ones, too) have discovered no real parallels. An overview of the history of the doctrine shows the importance of humility in reflecting upon it. After sixteen hundred years, it does not appear that we can improve upon the formula agreed to at Constantinople in 381, but we can certainly come to a better consensus on the understanding of it. This can only come about as we learn from the emphases of others as a way of leading to a better balance in our own understanding. Yet the continuing difference between western and eastern emphases, and the large gap between academic discussion and popular experience on the level of ordinary Christians, shows the need for much more work to be done, exegetically, theologically, and, not least, pastorally. Ultimately however, the purpose of it all is not simply to increase our understanding, valuable as that is, but to increase our worship, our adoration, and our amazement in the presence of the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Notes

1. This is the fifth article in a six-part series on the subject, “Understanding the Trinity.” The six articles were originally lectures delivered at a symposium on the Trinity held at Emmaus Bible College on October 10-12, 2002.
2. The first article in this series, “The Trinity and Scripture” by David J. MacLeod (EmJ 11 [Winter 2002]: 127-219) has copious footnotes referring to books and articles that are also quite relevant to the contents of this article. Those wishing to study the history of the doctrine further are, therefore, also referred to that article. For general background, not only on the Trinity but other doctrinal formation during the first five centuries, the widely accepted standard treatment remains Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly. First completed in 1958, its popularity saw it through five editions (the latest completed in 1976). Prince Press (an imprint of Hendrickson) re-issued it in 2003 in a very affordable hardback edition. In writing this article, two shorter and readily accessible books that I found most helpful were The Doctrine of God by Gerald Bray (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993 [Contours of Christian Theology series]) and The Trinity Guide to the Trinity by William J. La Due (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003). La Due has a helpful summary of the doctrine up through the early modern period, but he is too restrictive in his selection of more recent developments. He gives helpful references to the primary sources as well as to the major secondary sources. Although Bray is touching on more than just the Trinitarian aspects of the doctrine of God, he tells in his introduction why he stresses the latter in this book. He goes beyond historical reporting to constructive suggestions for theological reflection and does so in ways that (without endorsing every aspect) I wish heartily to commend.
3. See David J. MacLeod, “The Trinity and Scripture,” EmJ 11 (Winter 2002): 127-219.
4. Matthew 28:19.
5. Revelation 4–5.
6. La Due, Trinity Guide, 32.
7. La Due, Trinity Guide, 32–33.
8. For an excellent treatment of the process by which the church came to see itself as replacing or superseding Israel see Ron Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Waynesboro, GA: Authentic Media, PO Box 1047, 30830, forthcoming). [Note in the interest of full disclosure: the research for this book was done as a doctoral thesis that I supervised].
9. La Due, Trinity Guide, 33–34.
10. La Due, Trinity Guide, 34–37.
11. La Due, Trinity Guide, 37–42.
12. Constantinople, named after the emperor himself, was actually an enlargement of the older city of Byzantium.
13. La Due, Trinity Guide, 42–44.
14. With the passage of time, the Germanic conquerors, never large in numbers, gave up both their languages and their distinctive form of Christianity so as to blend with the general southwestern European population.
15. La Due, Trinity Guide, 44–45.
16. La Due, Trinity Guide, 56–57.
17. La Due, Trinity Guide, 51–54.
18. Bray, Doctrine of God, 165–77.
19. La Due, Trinity Guide, 67; Bray, Doctrine of God, 183–4.
20. La Due, Trinity Guide, 71–4; Bray, Doctrine of God, 182–3.
21. La Due, Trinity Guide, 75–6; Bray, Doctrine of God, 197–205.
22. Bray, Doctrine of God, 200–1.
23. La Due, Trinity Guide, 77–9.
24. La Due, Trinity Guide, 81–5, 88–92.
25. For several references to Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness beliefs see MacLeod, “The Trinity and Scripture,” EmJ 11(Winter 2002): 129, notes 9 and 10.
26. See Gregory A. Boyd’s authoritative evaluation, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
27. La Due, Trinity Guide, 125–31; Bray, Doctrine of God, 190–3.
28. La Due, Trinity Guide, 131–46; 95–102; 159–63.
29. The brief reflections by Bray on God’s love and its essential linkage with his wrath, his mercy, and his personhood are well worth pondering (Bray, The Doctrine of God, 220–4). His concluding chapter, “Constructing an Evangelical Theology Today”(225–51) has as its concluding section, “The Importance of the Trinity,” thereby reinforcing the value of this series of articles and the book that is to follow. Particularly relevant is the chapter by Alex Strauch, “The Trinity and the Doctrine of Love,” EmJ 12 (Winter 2003): 265-275.