Trinitarianism, Part 1

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: In concluding the general themes of Theology Proper, several articles on the doctrine of the Trinity, of which this is the first, will be presented in succeeding issues of Bibliotheca Sacra.]

Introduction

Having investigated in preceding articles the fundamental truth of the existence of God and having exhibited some evidence as to His perfections as seen in His attributes, His sovereign purpose, and His self-revelation through His names—all of which is embraced under Theism and is a general division of Theology Proper—, it now remains to inquire as to whether God is, as to His mode of existence, an absolute unity, or does He subsist as a plurality of Persons? If He subsists as a plurality of Persons, what manner of Persons are these and what is their number?

Recognizing that the word trinity is not found in the Sacred Text and that the doctrine which it represents is not directly taught therein, Dr. W. Lindsay Alexander states: “But though a truth be not formally enunciated in Scripture, it may be so implied in the statements of Scripture that it becomes the proper and necessary expression of these statements. In this case the doctrine is a conclusion drawn inductively from what Scripture announces, and so is as truly a doctrine of the Scripture as any natural law—that of gravitation, e.g.—is a doctrine of nature. Whilst, then, we admit that the doctrine of the Trinity does not stand on exactly the same ground as the doctrines formally enunciated in Scripture, we claim for it an equal authority on the ground that it lies involved in the statements of Scripture, and is the proper evolution and expression of these. As a doctrine it is a human induction from the statements of Scripture; but the induction being fairly made, it is as much a part of God’s teaching in His word as is any of those doctrines which He has formally enunciated there. The phenomena (to use the Baconian phraseology) with which we have here to deal are, on the one hand, the clearly revealed fact that there is but one God; and, on the other, the no less clearly revealed fact that there are three to whom the attributes and qualities of Deity in the highest sense are ascribed, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Both these statements must be received by all who acknowledge the Scriptures as the rule of faith: the question is, How are they to be construed so as that, without doing injustice to either, a just and harmonious expression of the whole truth contained in them shall be obtained?”[1]

In this division of Theology Proper, the greatest mystery of all revealed truth is confronted. Mere difficulty in conceiving what is peculiar and befitting the Infinite One should offer no objection to a doctrine based on revelation. The nature of God must present mysteries to the finite mind, and the triune mode of existence is perhaps the supreme mystery. M. Cocquerel states: “God is the only intelligent Being, for Whom no mystery exists. To be surprised, to be indignant at encountering mysteries, is to be surprised, is to be indignant at not being God.”[2] Unavoidably, some anticipation of this problem has been met when attending upon the plural form of Elohim. The mode of the divine existence is an essential feature of knowledge if right conceptions of God are to be formed. So important a disclosure, it may be expected, will claim a large place in revelation, and should, to some extent, be confirmed by reason. It is obvious that, with reference to revelation and in passages too numerous to be adduced, there is clear reference made to distinctions in the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are constantly named as separate Persons with specific operations said to be wrought by each. All this appears in narrative, in doctrine, and in worship which is prescribed for the creature in his relation to the Creator. All the divine attributes as well as the properties of personality are ascribed to each Person of the Godhead with so much certainty and frequency that the fact of a triune mode of existence cannot be doubted by an unprejudiced mind. On the other hand, disclosures equally plain and numerous are made which present God as essentially One. These two averments of the Bible are alike authoritative and, therefore, to the same degree demanding as to their recognition. Though no finite mind has ever comprehended how three Persons may form but one Essence, that precise truth is the testimony of all parts of the Bible. It is not possible to define these distinctions and all they imply. No doubt, there is a distinct consciousness which identifies each Person, yet there is a united possession of attributes and of nature. This disclosure presents a knowledge-surpassing complexity, but is free from the element of contradiction; for a contradiction exists where two contraries are predicated of the same thing and in the same respect. Such contradictions do not appear in revelation, and attempts to claim such a thing have failed. The doctrine of the Trinity is drawn wholly from revelation, since creation is incapable of serving as a medium of expression of the issues involved. The doctrine as presented in the Scriptures is therefore believable if not explicable. The how of any superhuman reality is not, and probably could not be, apprehended by the finite mind. It is enough to know from a trustworthy source that the reality does exist. To understand a proposition is one thing; to understand the truth or fact asserted in that proposition is quite another thing. These two aspects of understanding are constantly distinguished in human experience. No scientist or philosopher has an explanation to offer as to how mind acts upon matter nor can they discover the mysteries which are related to life itself—nutrition, assimilation, and growth, nor can they understand the inner workings of a vast array of proven facts and forces which nature presents. Inability to penetrate into the depths of such phenomena, is not considered a reason for rejection of the obvious facts themselves.

The triune mode of existence of the three Persons who form one Essence belongs to a category of ultimate facts and the inexplicable feature is not to be confounded with the evidence as to the abstract and actual truth itself. No argument has been advanced against the trinitarian conception other than that it does not conform to the limitations of the mind of man. In a defense of Unitarianism, Dr. Channing writes of the doctrine of the Trinity as an “outrage on our rational nature,” and “contradicting and degrading our reason.” If Dr. Channing meant by “rational nature” that he could accept only what the human mind understands and therefore human reason approves, it may be asserted that neither Dr. Channing nor any other man has ever confined his actions to such restricted limitations. Each human being employs a never-ending succession of realities and forces concerning which no explanation can be offered. Are not these, as well, to be classed as “outrages upon our rational nature” as much as the inexplicable doctrine of the Trinity?

Revelation concerning a trinity of Persons related in one Essence contradicts no absolute truth. It is evident that as to wholly separated and individually identified subjects, one is not three, nor are three one. Such is a contradiction. The doctrine of the Trinity asserts no such inconsistency. It affirms no more than that a being may be singular in one sense and plural in another. Various illustrations of such realities in nature might be introduced. In the constitution of a human being there is conjunction of unity and plurality. The immaterial and material elements combine to form one individual. Each of these elements is essential to human existence in this sphere. Thus it is seen that a human being may be singular in one sense and plural in another. If plurality and unity are both required in human existence, why should plurality and unity be denied in the case of the divine existence? Should it be supposed that God may include in His creature what He cannot manifest in Himself? By this analogy no attempt is made to demonstrate that a human person combining in himself the material and immaterial is comparable as to elements or order with three persons subsisting in one divine Essence. The analogy goes no further than to establish a principle. In the case of the human being, there is one consciousness with a twofold subsistence; in the case of Deity, there are three consciousnesses and but one nature. The principle that plurality is not incompatible with unity is thus proven. In the one case, being common to human experience, there is no doubt entertained about it; in the other case, being outside the range of human experience, there is unreasoned objection raised. It is probable if both of these positions were wholly and equally outside the range of human experience, there would be as much perplexity engendered by the presentation of one as by the other. Which, after all, is the more abnormal, a Being purely spiritual subsisting as three Persons with one nature, or one person subsisting with two natures which are as widely different from each other as the material and the immaterial? In their abstract form, one proposition is no more complex than the other, and since the conjunction of plurality with unity is the most obvious fact of human life, it should not be styled an insult to human reason when it is asserted by God Himself, and on the authority of revelation, that God represents the conjunction of plurality and unity—one Essence subsisting in three Persons.

The restrictions which are generally imposed upon the scope of Theology Proper, namely, that it comprehends only the Persons of the Godhead apart from their works, are to be observed in this treatise. The doctrine of the Trinity falls into four major divisions: (1) The fact of the Trinity; (2) God the Father, the First Person; (3) God the Son, the Second Person; and (4) God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person. It is anticipated that the third of these divisions, or that concerning the Son, will yet be treated more fully under Soteriology and Christology, and that the fourth division, or that concerning the Holy Spirit, will yet be treated more fully under Soteriology and Pneumatology.

I. The Fact of the Trinity

Advancing forward in the attempt to apprehend that which may be known relative to the triune mode of existence, two errors are to be avoided: (a) It may be supposed that the Godhead is composed of three distinct Persons—as Peter, James, and John—who are related to each other only in the loose fashion in which men may associate themselves together relative to certain ideals and principles; which supposition, in the case of God, would be tritheism. Or (2) that the Godhead is one Person only and that the triune aspect of His Being is no more than three fields of interests, activities, and manifestations; which supposition would be Sabellianism. Burden is laid upon the student of theology to recognize that, regardless of the mystery involved, he is appointed to discover and defend the truth that the Bible is monotheistic to the last degree, contending, as it does, that there is one God and only one; yet as certainly it asserts that this one God subsists in three definite and identified Persons.

The term personality as applied to God is not to be understood or taken in its strict philosophical sense, in which case wholly distinct beings are indicated. God is one Being, but He is more than one Being in three relations. Well defined acts which are personal in character are ascribed to each Person of the Three. These acts unequivocally establish personality. Language labors under difficulties at this point. The Persons are not separate, but distinct. The Trinity is composed of three united Persons without separate existence—so completely united as to form one God. The Divine Nature subsists in three distinctions—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Personality is expressed in such terms as I, thou, he—and it is thus that the Persons of the Godhead address each other—, and in personal acts; but it is not required that the One God shall be restricted to one Person, though that restriction obtains throughout creation. Therefore, no reason exists for denying this complexity in the Godhead. The term person is not generally employed in the Bible, though all that constitutes personality is repeatedly predicated of each member of the Trinity. This will hardly be disputed. In Hebrews 1:3 it is stated that the Son is “the express image” of the ”person” of the Father. While the word used here may signify any specific identity such as an essence or person, it does serve to assert the distinction which exists between two Persons of the Godhead and the equality of them. Various Greek words were reduced to their most exact meaning when the controversy was waged against Arius who denied that Christ was of the same substance as the Father, and against Sabellius who allowed the Deity of the Son and Spirit but denied to them proper personality. Biblical terms have thus stood the most searching tests and the proof of the doctrine of the Trinity is written large in the history of the church. The conclusion of the church as to the teaching of the Bible concerning relationships within the Godhead is well stated by Hermann Venema:

“1. We say that there are three ὑποστάσεις or subsistences, truly and properly so called, who are mutually distinct—each possessed of intelligence, subsisting by itself, and not communicated or communicable to the others—and whom we call persons, according to the definition we have given of that term. We do not mean by this that there are three modes of subsistence or three modes of manifestation, but, as we have said, three intelligent subsistences really distinct from each other. For a person suggests the idea of one possessed of intelligence and power, and subsisting by himself, and such is our meaning when we say that there are three persons in the Godhead.

“2. We say that the three persons or subsistences have each really a divine nature—a nature including all the attributes which we have already spoken of as belonging to a perfect Being, such as independence, eternity, immutability, omnipotence, etc.

“3. We say that these subsistences have not a separate but one and the same divine nature. There is but one God, as we have said, and therefore there must be but one divine nature existing in eaeh—the same numerical and not merely the same specific essence common to the three.

“4. We say, moreover, that the three persons partaking of one and the same essence stand in close relation to each other—the second person being from the first and the third from the first and second. This relation is implied in the names Father, Son, and Spirit—the Father being the source of the one essence which is partaken of by the other two. This participation of essence, in reference to the Son, is called generation—and, in reference to the Spirit, procession or spiration.

“Such is a simple and, as far as we can attain to it, a clear explanation of the mystery of the Trinity—from which we may know at least generally what we are to understand by this doctrine.”[3]

Probably no doctrine of the Word of God is more far-reaching in its implications than that of the Trinity. Those who fail to see this and who minimize its importance usually embrace some heresy regarding the two Persons—the Second and the Third. Dr. Priestley said, “All that can be said for it is, that the doctrine, however improbable in itself, is necessary to explain some particular texts of Scripture; and that, if it had not been for those particular texts we should have found no want of it, for there is neither any fact in nature, nor any one purpose of morals, which are the object and end of all religion, that requires it.”[4]

This statement, quite characteristic of those who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity, makes “the facts of nature” and “purpose of morals” the “object and end in all religion,” and ignores the whole idea of a divine self-revelation, the work of redemption, and eternal destiny. Obviously, it is in these fields thus neglected that the truth concerning the Trinity has its fullest manifestation. The denial of the doctrine of the Trinity results in dishonor to Christ, to the Holy Spirit, and to the testimony of the Bible. This dishonor may well be specifically observed:

1. Three Dishonors

a. Christ

In the consideration of the doctrine of the Trinity, the crucial question as to the absolute Deity of Christ as Second Person and the Spirit as Third Person is involved. Those who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity automatically reject the Deity of the Son and the Spirit. An important distinction is to be observed between the claim that God as one Essence is only one Person, and the claim that God though one Essence is three equally divine Persons. Both claims could not be true and those, whoever they may be, who are in error in this matter are altogether wrong and little removed from the hallucinations of the pagans. Too long it has been deemed by many that it is an optional matter as to whether the triune existence of God is recognized or not; the baseless assumption being that if the trinitarian conception is rejected, the “One God” idea still remains to bless mankind. Whereas the only reliable source of any knowledge of God is in the Bible and the Bible knows nothing of “One God” who does not subsist in a threefold Personality. Waterland states: “If God be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the duties owing to God will be duties owing to that triune distinction, which must be paid accordingly; and whoever leaves any of them out of his idea of God, comes so far short of honouring God perfectly, and of serving him in proportion to the manifestations he has made of himself.”[5] Over against this assertion that those who deny the triune existence of the Godhead do not worship the God of the Bible, is the alternative that trinitarians are guilty of idolatry when rendering complete divine honor to the Son and the Spirit, were it proven that the triune existence as a revelation is without worthy evidence in its support.

Dr. Priestley, in accord with some others of a more recent day, sees no place for the trinitarian claim either in nature or morals; but nature, the Bible declares, is the creation of the Son, is sustained by Him, and exists in a peculiar sense for Him (Col 1:16, 17). Similarly, while it might be conceived that moral ideals could be derived from the unitarian notion of God, there could be no redemption for those who fail apart from that which is wrought by the Son in His substitutionary sacrifice. A moral scheme which provides no cure for those who fail is the doom of all since all fail. The sentiment that God might forgive sin as an act of mere generosity is an insult to holiness and divine government. The imperative need of redemption for the world in its present estate is evinced by the fact that God, who knows all that is involved, has provided it at such measureless cost. It was Jehovah who was pierced (Zech 12:10); God who purchased the Church with His own blood (Acts 20:28); it was ὁ Δεσπότης—the High Lord—that bought sinners (2 Pet 2:1); and the Lord of Glory was crucified (1 Cor 2:8).

Not only does the whole plan of salvation impinge upon the Deity of the Son, but the measure of God’s love is reduced to naught if God gave only a creature to men as His love-gift to them (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 2 Cor 9:15; 1 John 3:16). Such an expression of divine love would be feeble indeed. In the same manner, if Christ is only a creature, as opponents of trinitarianism contend, His love for man is little more than an incidental item. To quote Waterland again: “If Christ was in the form of God, equal with God, and very God, it was then an act of infinite love and condescension in him to become man; but if he was no more than a creature, it was no surprising condescension to embark in a work so glorious; such as being the Saviour of mankind, and such as would advance him to be Lord and Judge of the world, to be admired, reverenced, and adored, both by men and angels.”[6] It was Christ’s own love which led Him to come to this world as a Savior. No creature could, with any reason, say to the Father: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).

It is this love of Christ which motivates all Christian love. This is a great theme, but of little force if Christ is not God. Dr. Richard Watson has expressed it well: “The love of Christ to us also as a motive to generous service, sufferings and death, for the sake of others, loses all its force and application. ‘The love of Christ constraineth us; for we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead.’ That love of Christ which constrained the apostle was a love which led him to die for men. St. John makes the duty of dying for our brother obligatory upon all Christians, if called to it, and grounds it upon the same fact. ‘He laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brethren.’ The meaning, doubtless, is in order to save them; and though men are saved by Christ’s dying for them, in a very different sense from that in which they can be saved by our dying in the cause of instructing, and thus instrumentally saving each other; yet the argument is founded upon the necessary connection which there is between the death of Christ and the salvation of men. But, on the Socinian scheme, Christ did, in no sense, die for men, no, not in their general mode of interpreting such passages, ‘for the benefit of men:’ for what benefit, independent of propitiation, which Socinians deny, do men derive from the voluntary death of Christ, considered as a mere human instructor? If it be said that his death was an example, it was not specially and peculiarly so; for both prophets and apostles have died with resignation and fortitude. If it be alleged, that it was to confirm his doctrine, the answer is, that, in this view, it was nugatory, because it had been confirmed by undoubted miracles. If that he might confirm his mission by his resurrection, this might as well have followed from a natural as from a violent death; and beside the benefit which men derive from him, is, by this notion, placed in his resurrection, and not in his death, which is always exhibited in the New Testament with marked and striking emphasis. The motive to generous sacrifices of ease and life, in behalf of men, drawn from the death of Christ, have, therefore, no existence whenever his Godhead and sacrifice are denied.”[7]

Thus of the all-sufficiency of Christ, Dr. Graves has declared: “If the Redeemer were not omnipresent and omniscient, could we be certain that he always hears our prayers, and knows the source and remedy of all our miseries? If he were not all-merciful, could we be certain he must always be willing to pardon and relieve us? If he were not all-powerful, could we be sure that he must always be able to support and strengthen, to enlighten and direct us? Of any being less than God, we might suspect that his purposes might waver, his promises fail, his existence itself, perhaps, terminate; for of every created being, the existence must be dependent and terminable.”[8]

b. The Holy Spirit

Equally involved in this problem is the Deity of the Holy Spirit, who, according to the Scriptures, exercises every power and function of God. Sherlock has written convincingly: “Our salvation by Christ does not consist only in the expiation of our sins, etc., but in communication of Divine grace and power, to renew and sanctify us: and this is everywhere in Scripture attributed to the Holy Spirit, as his peculiar office in the economy of man’s salvation: it must therefore make a fundamental change in the doctrine of Divine grace and assistance, to deny the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For can a creature be the universal spring and fountain of Divine grace and life? Can a finite creature be a kind of universal soul to the whole Christian Church, and to every sincere member of it? Can a creature make such close application to our minds, know our thoughts, set bounds to our passions, inspire us with new affections and desires, and be more intimate to us than we are to ourselves? If a creature be the only instrument and principle of grace, we shall soon be tempted either to deny the grace of God, or to make it only an external thing, and entertain very mean conceits of it. All those miraculous gifts which were bestowed upon the apostles and primitive Christians, for the edification of the Church; all the graces of the Christian life, are the fruits of the Spirit. The Divine Spirit is the principle of immortality in us, which first gave life to our souls, and will, at the last day, raise our dead bodies out of the dust; works which sufficiently proclaim him to be God, and which we cannot heartily believe, in the Gospel notion, if he be not.”[9]

c. The Scriptures

To assert that the Scriptures teach the divine Unity subsisting in three Persons is not to beg the question. It is rather to disagree with those who fail to account for the Biblical testimony, and it is to agree with the wisest and greatest of men who have their part in the Church of Christ. As to the testimony of the Scriptures bearing on the trinitarian view, Dr. Richard Watson may well be quoted again: “But the importance of the doctrine of the holy trinity may be finally argued from the manner in which the denial of it would affect the credit of the Holy Scriptures themselves; for if this doctrine be not contained in them, their tendency to mislead is obvious. Their constant language is so adapted to deceive, and even to compel the belief of falsehood, even in fundamental points, and to lead to the practice of idolatry itself, that they would lose all claim to be regarded as a revelation from the God of truth, and ought rather to be shunned than to be studied. A great part of the Scriptures is directed against idolatry, which is declared to be ‘that abominable thing which the Lord hateth;’ and in pursuance of this design, the doctrine that there is but one God is laid down in the most explicit terms, and constantly confirmed by appeals to his works. The very first command in the decalogue is, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me;’ and the sum of the law, as to our duty to God, is that we love Him ‘with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength.’ If the doctrine of a trinity of Divine persons in the unity of the Godhead be consistent with all this, then the style and manner of the Scriptures are in perfect accordance with the moral ends they propose, and the truths in which they would instruct mankind; but if the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures, then is the language of the sacred books most deceptive and dangerous. For how is it to be accounted for, in that case, that, in the Old Testament, God should be spoken of in plural terms, and that this plurality should be restricted to three? How is it that the very name Jehovah should be given to each of them, and that repeatedly and on the most solemn occasions? How is it that the promised incarnate Messiah should be invested, in the prophecies of his advent, with the loftiest attributes of God, and that works infinitely superhuman, and Divine honours should be predicted of him? and that acts and characters of unequivocal Divinity, according to the common apprehension of mankind, should be ascribed to the Spirit also? How is it, that, in the New Testament, the name of God should be given to both, and that without any intimation that it is to be taken in an inferior sense? That the creation and conservation of all things should be ascribed to Christ; that he should be worshipped by angels and by men; that he should be represented as seated on the throne of the universe, to receive the adorations of all creatures; and that in the very form of initiation by baptism into his Church, itself a public and solemn profession of faith, the baptism is enjoined to be performed in the one name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? One God and two creatures! As though the very door of entrance into the Christian Church should have been purposely made the gate of the worst and most corrupting error ever introduced among mankind,—trust and worship in creatures as God; the error which has spread darkness and moral desolation over the whole pagan world!”[10]

In concluding this plea for a right and Biblical recognition of the triune mode of the divine existence, it may be observed that the whole economy of man’s redemption serves to bring to man the revelation of God in His threefold subsistence, and dim, indeed, is the spiritual vision which receives no instruction from this limitless disclosure which God has proffered to man.

2. General Definitions

In its teaching, the Bible is neither polytheistic—gods many—, nor tritheistic-gods three—, nor unitarian—one god who exercises his interests and powers in various ways. The monotheistic doctrine of One God subsisting in a plurality of Persons—three, no less and no more—is that which accords with all Scripture and, though characterized by mystery when approached by the finite mind, is, nevertheless, without contradiction and is perfect in all its adoption and parts. It is as perfect as the God whom it discloses. Testimony relative to the trinitarian conception of God might be adduced from the early fathers and later writers almost without end. The following will suffice: Augustine, “All those catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that there are not three Gods, but one God.” Tertullian, “He is God and the Son of God, and both are one. And thus Spirit from Spirit and God from God becomes another in mode of being, not in number; in order, not state or standing (i.e., as divine); and has gone forth, but has not gone out of (or separated from) the original (divine) source.... They are three, not in substance but in form, not in power but in a specific distinction; but of one substance and power.... Hold fast always the rule which I avow, in accordance with which I testify that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not separated. When I say that they are distinct, only ignorance or perversity will take this as meaning a diversity which issues in separation.... For the Son is other than the Father, not by diversity, but by distribution; not by division, but by distinction. The Father and Son are not the same, but they differ one from the other in their mode of being (modulo).” Athanasian Creed, “We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity; neither confounding the person nor dividing the substance.” Gieseler, “The unity and equality of the persons, which necessarily resulted from holding sameness of essence, was not fully acknowledged at once, even by the Nicenians, but continued to be more clearly perceived, until at last it was expressed by Augustine for the first time with decided logical consequence.”[11] The Westminster Catechism states of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that they “are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.” On the numerical aspect of the doctrine, Dr. Samuel Harris says: “We see, therefore, that the prevalent doctrine of the church and its theologians has been that God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is numerically and indivisibly one in his substance, or essential being. Therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three Gods, one in a merely generic unity, as men are one in the unity of genus; nor in a merely moral unity, as persons of the same moral character and purpose are one. They are distinguished as three only within the numerical and indivisible oneness and onliness of God.”[12]

Any true conception of this doctrine must include three major features, namely, “The oneness and onliness of God; the three eternal distinctions or modes of being of the one only God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and the proper Deity of each of the three—God the One indivisible Absolute Spirit in each of these peculiar and eternal modes of being.” As an exercise of his discernment, the student will do well to scrutinize most critically the following definitions of the trinitarian idea as set forth by various well-known theologians and teachers:

Dr. Dick: “While there is only one divine nature, there are three subsistences, or persons, called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who possess not a similar, but the same numerical essence, and the distinction between them is not merely nominal, but real.”[13]

Dr. Strong: “In the nature of God there are three eternal distinctions and these three are equal: not merely three Persons in One, or three Gods in one, nor that God manifests Himself in three ways. There are three essential distinctions in the subsistence of God.”

Dr. Joseph Cook: “The Father, Son and Spirit are one God. Each has a peculiarity incommunicable to the other. Neither is God without the other and each with the other is God.”

Augustine: “The Father is not the Trinity, nor the Son the Trinity, nor the Spirit the Trinity: but whom each is is singly spoken of, they are not spoken of as three, but one—The Trinity.”

Dr. C. I. Scofield: “God is one. He subsists in a Personality which is three-fold, indicated by relationships, as Father and Son; by modes of being, as Spirit; and by different parts taken by the Godhead in manifestation and redemption.”

Dr. Charles Hodge: “The Father says, ‘I,’ so the Son and the Spirit. The Father says ‘Thou,’ so the Son and the Spirit. The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father and the Spirit witnesses. Each is severally both subject and object. The same titles, attributes, worship, adoration, confidence, and devotion is due each. There is no more evidence that the Father is God than that the Son or the Spirit. The Deity of one is no more clearly revealed than the other.”

Calvin: “God predicates that He is unique [unicum], yet so as that He distinctly proposes to be considered in three persons; which unless we hold, there will flutter in our brain only the bare and empty name of God without the true God. Moreover, lest any should dream of a threefold God, or think that the simple essence of God is torn by three persons, we must seek a short and easy definition, which may free us from all error.”[14]

Dean Swift: “God commands us to believe there is a union and there is a distinction; but what that union is or what that distinction is all mankind are equally ignorant; and must continue so, at least till the day of judgment, without some new revelation. Therefore I shall again repeat the doctrine of the Trinity as it is positively affirmed in Scripture:

That God is there expressed in three different names as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost; that each of these is God, and that there is but one God. But this union and distinction are a mystery utterly unknown to mankind.”[15]

Dr. Pye Smith: “In the absolute perfect unity of the Divine Essence there are three objects of our conception, or subjects known by different properties, which are in the Scripture designated by the attribution of such appellations, pronouns, qualities, and acts as are proper to rational, intelligent, and distinct Persons. Instead of Persons the term subsistence is by many preferred. These three Divine Subsistences are not separate Essences (this notion would be Tritheism). Nor mere names, or properties, or modes of action (Modalism or Sabellianism); but this unity of subsistences is an essential, necessary, and unchangeable property of the Divine Essence. There are Hypostatical Characters or Personal Properties which are distinctive of each Person, and which express the relations of each to the others.”[16]

The Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, Father almighty, Maker of all things seen and unseen; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, etc., and in the Holy Ghost. Those that say that there was a time when he was not, and that He was not before He was begotten, and that He was made of things that are not; or say that He is of a different hypostasis or essence from the Father, or that the Son of God is created, nourished, and capable of being changed, the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

The Athanasian Creed: “The Catholic faith is that we venerate one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity, neither confounding the Persons nor separating the substance. The Person of the Father is one, of the Son another, of the Holy Spirit another. But the Divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit is one, their glory equal, coeternal their majesty...The Father is neither made, nor created, nor begotten: The Son is from the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten: The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. Therefore there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less; but all the three Persons are coeternal and coequal, so that in all things both a Trinity in unity and a unity in Trinity is to be worshipped.”

A satisfactory summarization of this great averment of the Bible is made by Dr. Alexander as follows: “That as respects the distinction in the one Godhead it is real and eternal, and is marked by certain properties peculiar to each Person and not communicable. These properties are either external or internal; the latter relating to the modes of subsistence in the divine essence, the former to the mode of revelation in the world. The notae internae are personal acts and notions; the former being (1) That the Father generates the Son, etc., and breathes the Spirit; (2) That the Son is begotten of the Father, and with the Father breathes the Spirit; (3) That the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son. The personal notions are (1) Unbegottenness and paternity as peculiar to the Father; (2) Spiration as belonging to the Father and Son; (3) Filiation as peculiar to the Son; (4) Procession (spiratio passiva) as peculiar to the Spirit. The external notes are (1) The works in the economy of redemption peculiar to each: the Father sends the Son to redeem and the Spirit to sanctify; the Son redeems mankind and sends the Spirit; the Spirit is sent into the minds of men and renders them partakers of Christ’s salvation. (2) The attributive or appropriative works, i.e. those which, though common to the three Persons, are in Scripture usually ascribed to one of them, as universal creation, conservation, and gubernation to the Father through the Son; the creation of the world, raising of the dead, and the conduct of the last judgment, to the Son; the inspiration of the prophets, etc., to the Spirit.”[17]

It cannot but prove of practical benefit if the student, having considered the testimony given above, shall attempt the formation of a definition of the trinitarian idea, avoiding the errors which have been indicated.

3. The True Emphasis

Since the Second Person of the Godhead is revealed as the concrete declaration or manifestation of God to men (John 1:18; 2 Cor 4:6; 5:19), the investigation into the doctrine of the Trinity by theologians has too often centered upon the Second Person to the neglect of the doctrine itself. Such action on the part of men is natural, for the whole of the Christian faith is—perhaps more than elsewhere—compressed in the words, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor 5:19). With reference to this text, Neander says: “We recognize therein the essential contents of Christianity summed up in brief.” It is in the work of redemption that the distinctions between the Persons of the Godhead more clearly arise. This is emphasized by Dr. James Orr: “The doctrine of the trinity is not a result of mere speculation, not a theory or hypothesis spun by theologians out of their own fancies, still less, as some eminent writers would maintain, the result of the importation of Greek metaphysics into Christian theology. It is, in the first instance, the result of a simple process of induction from the facts of the Christian revelation... The triune conception of God is justified, when it is shown to be the conception which underlies the triune revelation God has given of himself, and the triune activity in the work of redemption.”[18]

It is exceedingly difficult for Jews, Mohammedans, and Unitarians to understand that Christians are as much committed to the doctrine of One God as are they, and, more so, since it is to the Christian not only a revelation of the Scriptures, but it is a fundamental theme which he is appointed to exhibit and defend. To acknowledge the triune mode of existence, does not impair, diminish, or complicate the doctrine of the One God, nor lessen the obligation to uphold it. The Koran reflects this misconception: “Say not, There are three gods; forbear this; it will be better for you. God is but one God.... They are certainly infidels who say, God is the third of three; for there is no god besides one God.... And when God shall say unto Jesus at the last day, O Jesus son of Mary, hast thou said unto men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides God? He shall answer, Praise unto thee! it is not for me to say that which I ought not.” The Jew resists this doctrine since to acknowledge the Trinity in the Godhead is, on his part, to recognize the Deity of the One whom he identifies as Jesus of Nazareth. The Unitarian resists this doctrine since otherwise he must acknowledge the need and way of redemption through Christ. The Mohammedan resists this doctrine since to acknowledge it is to ignore the warning of the Koran and, to his mind, depart from the foundation of his faith, namely, There is one God. The Christian missionary to Islam faces this resistance as does the missionary to the Jew and the inexplicable mystery which the triune mode of existence presents is an added problem in his work. W. A. Rice, M.A., writes: “Nothing would be easier than to win proselytes among Hindus and Mohammedans if only this doctrine of the Trinity were given up.”[19] None of these various peoples are wholly open to the Scriptures. The Jew rejects the New Testament; the Unitarian rejects the trustworthiness of all Scripture; and the Mohammedan rejects the Bible itself. Mohammed evidently gained what impression he had of Christianity from the Roman Catholic Church and, it is evident his acquaintance with the true testimony of the Scriptures was meagre.

In approaching the theme of the Trinity, the student may well be prepared to confront a deep mystery which, of necessity, is not explained to finite minds. The fact that the doctrine is enshrouded with mystery tends to restrict its consideration to those who are, by spiritual illumination, minded to believe the testimony of God relative to things unknowable. To others the doctrine of the Trinity presents no problem since it is by them rejected completely. Failure to respect the silence of God here, as always, leads to confusion. Such, indeed, has been the character of much theological controversy over the trinitarian contention. With some native acumen, Dr. Robert South (1634) has said of this doctrine: “As he that denies it may lose his soul; so he that too much strives to understand it may lose his wits.”[20] Similarly, John C. Doderlein (1780) said: “We have reached a field which we have long been dreading, ample for crops, yet sown and tangled with briers the seeds of which have been sown broadcast by the fruitful ingenuity of theologians and nourished by the heats of councils and synods mingled with the tempests of anathemas; crops which many good men seem to think ought to be cut down, or, if the sacred thicket must be spared, abandoned to theologians to cultivate it.”[21]

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. System of Biblical Theology, Vol. I, pp. 94, 95.
2. Christianisme Experimental.
3. Institutes of Theology, p. 201.
4. History of Early Opinions.
5. Waterland’s Importance.
6. Ibid.
7. Theological Institutes, Vol. I, pp. 460, 461.
8. Scriptural Proofs of the Trinity.
9. Sherlock—Vindication.
10. Theological Institutes, Vol. I, pp. 462, 463.
11. Church History, Translation revised by H. B. Smith, Vol. I, p. 313.
12. God the Creator and Lord of A11, Vol. I, pp. 324, 325.
13. Quoted from Lectures on Theology, Wardlaw, Vol. II, p. 6.
14. Institutes, Bk. I, c. 13, Par. 2.
15. “Quoted from Swift’s Works, Vol. III, p. 434, in Wardlaw’s Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 4.
16. Theology, p. 277.
17. System of Biblical Theology, Vol. I, p. 104.
18. The Christian View of God, pp. 303, 304.
19. The Crusaders of the Twentieth Century, p. 230.
20. Works, Vol. II, p. 184.
21. Institutio Theologiae Christianae, Vol. II, pp. 333, 340.