The trinity is defined as there being one God in three persons, the Father, Son and Spirit. The most explicit affirmations of this doctrine is the Johannine comma in 1 John 5:7, which reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This verse was used by some early Christians as early as the 200s to defend the doctrine of the trinity and is found in many ancient Latin manuscripts. However, this article is not intended to further dwell on the case for the authencity of this verse. Nevertheless, the concept of the trinity is all over the rest of the Bible. We see the three persons mentioned in the great commission in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" and in the Pauline epistles in places such as 2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.".
 |
| The trinity |
However, there are differences among Christians how they understand the trinity. People are often put into two ”camps” on the trinity (although sometimes people have mixed models). The first model is the ”classical trinity”, while the second is the ”social trinity”. These two differ in some important areas, although neither side should view each other as heretical, as we are dealing with details of the trinity and not the entire concept itself.
The differences between these two views mostly boils down to the issue of how the persons of the trinity are distinguished from each other. In the classical model, the persons of the trinity are distinguished from each other by their eternal relations of begetting and procession, however they share in the one divine will which they all share from the divine essence, while social trinitarianism distinguishes the persons through having distinct centers of volition, knowledge and emotion.
Both classical trinitarians and social trinitarians agree that essence answers to the word "what", while person to the word "who", being distinct subjects of action. However, they differ on this topic if will should be ascribed to person or essence. Thus, in the classical view, nature provides the capacity to will, while person is the agent who wills, while in social trinitarianism person providides both the capacity and is the agent who wills.
This article deals with these distinctions and examines which position is more Biblical.
One divine will or three divine wills?
A person must have a will to be a person; however, is that will an attribute of the essence of the person or a property of personality itself? This can sound complicated, so let me explain in more easy terms. The trinity is the doctrine that God is one in essence in three persons. Thus, the question then is on the topic if will belongs to the essence, or as a property of person itself.
Looking at the Bible for answers, it seems that the answer is that will belongs to essence, since the Bible always speaks of the will (singular) of God, not the wills (plural) of God. We see in the following scriptures examples:
1 Thessalonians 5:18
18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
1 Peter 2:15
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
1 John 2:17
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Now, it is understandable that seeing only one will in the trinity may be concerning to some people who hold to the social trinity as it may feel like it erodes the distinctions of the persons without knowing more detail on this issue, as there are still three persons in the Trinity; thus, even though they share one will, they work distinctly (though inseparably) through that will. On this John Nelson Darby wrote:
The Spirit distributes to whom He will; but this is not separate from the will of the Father and the Son. They have not the same counsel but one counsel, mind, purpose, thought; yet they act distinctly in the manifestation of that counsel. The Father sends the Son, and the Son the Spirit.
I agree with Darby's statement, which reflects a classical understanding of the divine will in the trinity. We see an order in the trinity, as it is always the Father who sends the Son, and both the Father and Son who send the Holy Spirit. The persons of the trinity work inseparably but distinctly in every work in manifestation of the divine will.
This understanding of the will in the trinity was also held by the Anabaptists of the early Reformation, among whom (as my previous articles show), eternal security was sometimes taught:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, divine, incomprehensible, eternal, spiritual Being. We say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one will, one mind, one essence, one Being, and therefore the only true, living, almighty, and eternal God.” - The Waterlander Confession, Section II, 1577 AD
This does not deny the persons being distinct from each other. Each person is able to say "I" to the exclusion of one another. We can see the distinction of the persons in multiple places in the scripture. Jesus prays to the Father (Luke 23:34), the Father loves the Son (John 3:35), the Father sends the Son (1 John 4:14) and Jesus breathes forth the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). The modalist concept of God, which asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely "modes" or "manifestations" of a single person, is entirely contrary to Scripture. The Bible clearly reveals the relational distinctions between the persons of the Trinity, as seen in passages where the Father loves the Son, the Son prays to the Father, and the Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son. These interactions demonstrate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons who share one divine essence, not merely roles or masks assumed by one person. Modalism is a dangerous heresy as it denies the person of Jesus Christ, in whose person and work we believe for our salvation.
However, what of the places in scripture where Jesus says to the Father ”not my will, but thine, be done”? This is explained by the incarnation, as when Jesus became a man, he took on a full human nature, including a human will. On this, Lewis Sperry Chafer writes:
The Scriptures declare that Christ possessed a human body, soul, and spirit, and that He experienced those emotions which belong to human existence. Much difficulty arises when the thought is entertained of two volitions—one divine and one human—in the one Person. Though this problem is difficult, it is clearly taught in the New Testament that Christ, on the human side, possessed a will which was wholly surrendered to the will of His Father. The surrender of the will, while it obviates any possible conflict between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, does not at all serve to remove the human will from His unique Person. The human will was ever present regardless of the use He may have made of it. (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology)
Charles Ryrie also writes:
A similar error developed after Chalcedon that taught that Christ had only one will though conceding verbally that He had two natures. It is called monothelitism. This was condemned at the third council of Constantinople in 680. A study of errors should help clarify the truth and make us more careful how we express it. Semantics are very important in the statements of theology. (Ryrie, Basic Theology)
Eternal begetting and procession?
Eternal generation and procession are today often forgotten doctrines, however only in the last century it was commonly taught, and writers such as Ironside, Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord among others. In the classical trinity, each person is distinguished from the other by their relations of origin, the Father as unbegotten, the Son as begotten and the Holy Spirit as proceeding. These eternal relations correspond to the order in which they work in creation, with the Father always sending the Son and not vice versa, and the Father and Son always sending the Holy Spirit and not vice versa. Here are some examples of writers who taught these doctrines:
Ironside in his commentary on Proverbs 8 sees it as confirming the doctrine of eternal generation:
This picture of creation implies the unity of the divine nature. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). God’s thoughts are above ours. Our best human language is a poor vehicle for the expression of such wondrous truths. Christ is eternally the Son, yet truly the Begotten.
This understanding of Proverbs 8 is also held by Scofield in his reference Bible:
[1] The Lord possessed me
That wisdom is more than the personification of an attribute of God, or of the will of God as best for man, but is a distinct adumbration of Christ, is sure to the devout mind. Prov 8:22-36 Jn 1:1-3 Col 1:17 can refer to nothing less than the Eternal Son of God.
Eternal generation was also defended by Walvoord and Chafer in their writings:
The theological term eternal generation implies that without beginning or ending, the Second Person is the manifestation of the Godhead. It is thus that the “only begotten Son” hath declared God to man (John 1:18). The Son said, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world” (cosmos—John 17:6; cf. 1 John 1:2; 4:9). He was Only Begotten in the uniqueness of His begetting. In like manner, He was First Begotten, being first in point of time, as well as in His essential Being, above all others begotten. God gave to the world for its salvation Him who ever was His Son (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology)
The very nature of procession points to its eternity. Procession like the eternal generation of Christ is not a matter of creation, commencement of existence, or analogous in any way with physical relationships common in the human realm. It proceeds rather from the very nature of the Godhead, being necessary to its existence. Without the Holy Spirit, the Godhead would not be what it is. The procession of the Holy Spirit cannot be compared to the incarnation, as the incarnation was not essential to deity, though it is essential to its manifestation, especially the attributes of love and righteousness as they combine in grace. (The Person of the Holy Spirit Part, John Walvoord)
This doctrine is explained in more detail by Charles Hodge:
The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son (1Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology. Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1998. p. 183)
However, is this scriptural? The most popular scriptures used to defend this idea come from the gospel of John, these are:
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 5:26: “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”
John 6:57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John 3:16 is a very commonly used verse to defend the doctrine of eternal generation, this is due to the word "monogenes", which has been traditionally translated as "only begotten", which implies generation. However, in the modern day this has been questioned, and many today have attempted to argue that it should better be translated as "only-unique". However, I would myself hold to the King James translation of this verse, which states "only begotten". Now, there are also good evidences for translating it as only begotten as it is evident that the early church writers who spoke Greek natively, understood it as referring to being begotten. This is also the translation which the early versions such as the Peshitta and Jerome's Vulgate (both from the 400s) used.
The next verse, John 5:26 is also a very great text that demonstrates this doctrine, as it says: "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself". Those who oppose the doctrine of eternal generation, generally argue that it is referencing only communication of the ability to grant life. However, what must be noticed is the first part of the verse, which states "For just as the Father has life in Himself". Thus, whatever "life in Himself" means at the end of the verse, must mean the same as at the beginning of the verse. If this is granted, this verse alone is sufficient to establish eternal generation.
These texts are not the only ones to establish this view, next we find Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 5:5, which also reference Jesus being begotten:
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5:5)
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7)
Some may object that the word "today" is used, yet we must remember that this is spoken by God, Who is outside of time. The bible declares that with the Lord "one day is like a thousand years" (2 Peter 3:8), thus the word "today" is not referencing a specific time in history, but eternity. Now, Paul applied the text in Acts 13:33 to the resurrection, yet it must be carefully maintained that Christ did not become the Son of God when He rose from the dead, as Jesus is already called the Son prior (Matthew 14:33), but it was at the resurrection that he manifested being the Son of God.
A very strong text however comes from Micah 5:2, which reads in the King James:
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Notice how clear this is, the goings forth of Jesus have been "from everlasting". Social trinitarians often try to retranslate the passage to say "from ancient days", thus arguing that it refers to the beginning of creation. However, the Hebrew word is "olam", which is the basic word translated as "everlasting" in most other places in the Old Testament.
Another text which shows the doctrine of eternal generation is Proverbs 8:22-29, as Scofield and Ironside previously noted. The verse reads thus:
22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Notice how this describes being set up from "everlasting", and being "brought forth" before creation. Sometimes people argue that this personalization of wisdom in Proverbs 8 has nothing to do with Jesus, however the New Testament associates Jesus as the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:30) and there is no sense in which God's literal wisdom was somehow "brought forth" or "set up from everlasting". This passage also combats Arianism (which claims that Jesus was created), because it says that Jesus was set up from everlasting (not at a point in time), as Ironside writes:
From this point on, the anointed eye loses sight of all else and is fixed on Christ; for it is He who is now presented for the contemplation of our souls. We see Christ as the uncreated Word, yet the begotten Son by eternal generation-titles admittedly paradoxical, but after all distinctly Scriptural.
Other texts which also imply eternal generation include Colossians 1:15, which calls Jesus the "image" of God, and Hebrews 1:3 which calls him the "brightness of his glory".
The eternal procession of the Spirit is also explicitly affirmed in John 15:26, which reads:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
However, it is also implicit that he proceeds from the Son also, as he is called the "Spirit of Jesus Christ" in Philippians 1:19 and Galatians 4:6, and it alings more closely with the order of the workings of the trinity, where Jesus breathes on the Apostles the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).
Read more
Since the trinity is a very major topic, this article only touches on the surface of the doctrine. There is an excellent article on the trinity made by Thomas Ross, where he gives a more detailed analysis of the classical trinity. Thomas Ross is an Independent Baptist writer, however he does not hold to Free Grace theology, thus I would not recommend all of his content as a whole, nor support his claims about the doctrine of salvation (see my article on the biblical basis of Free Grace theology). Nevertheless, you can read his article on the trinity here: The Trinity: God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
No comments:
Post a Comment