A conversation with a friend, one I believe to be a brother in the Lord, caused me to further consider an element of God’s nature. It was regarding a concept that I’d accepted and taught as biblical truth: God being Triune (or God in Trinity). Triune is a combination of two words or two ideas: three-ness and oneness (etymology: from Latin tri- and unus, one). Of course, it would be a contradiction to say that “God is one” and also say that “God is three” and mean those two statements in the same sense and at the same time. That’s not the meaning nor intent of “triune.” Rather, it’s theological shorthand for “God is one in Being and three in persons.” Despite this concept being proclaimed, debated, and clarified for centuries, it’s still a topic of controversy today. Therefore, it is my hope and prayer that this brief treatment will convince some and reinforce in others the nature of God as revealed in Scripture: Trinity.
No “Trinity” in the Bible
This is one of the most common arguments against the Trinity. It’s true, too. The word “trinity” is not present in the Bible. Quite honestly, however, this is still a weak argument. Even the word “Bible” is not found in the Bible, but we are clear on what book we’re referencing when we say, “Bible.” Moreover, consider the word “Scripture.” That word is present in English Bibles as a reference to a specific written document since the noun form of the Greek word is graphe (γραφή) and translates to English as “written document,” “the writing,” or what became known as “Scripture.” The point here is that language constantly changes and evolves; words are always created collections of letters in a given language with a generally agreed upon meaning in a given culture. The English language did not exist when the Old and New Testaments were written. Therefore, in order to be consistent in arguing that people should avoid “trinity” because it’s a specific word not found in the Bible, one would have to stop using “Bible.” Additionally, they would need to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to avoid using words not officially rendered as part of the original biblical text. Overall, “trinity” not being present in the Bible is of little consequence.
History and the Trinity
Did the early, first century church use the term “Trinity?” That is highly unlikely. Yet, have you ever considered what possible reason could exist to explain why they wouldn’t have specified the precise nature of the Godhead? It seems the absence or degree to which the church expressed the nature of God was purely based on the needs of the day. Consider this. The concept of God being described in Trinity would not be fully articulated for another 200-300 years. The Trinity formula, like many things the modern church addresses today, stemmed from a desire to succinctly clarify what the Bible teaches over and against the false beliefs of the day.
More pointedly, trinitarian theology was most fully established in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea. While there were doctrinal writings and evidence of the Trinity long before that time, the clear description of the nature of the Father, Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit occurred in response to Arius (256-336). Arius was a popular preacher and presbyter from Libya.1 He began what would be known as the Arian Controversy when he taught that the Father alone was God,2 not Jesus Christ and certainly not the Holy Spirit. To combat this teaching that arose around 318 A.D., various church leaders came together to formulate a firm defense of the nature of God in the Creed of Nicaea in 325 A.D. The most common rendering for this creed would be the Nicene Creed, as it was refined several decades later at the request of Constantine.3
From a historical perspective, the early Christians generally believed that God the Father was/is God, Jesus was/is God, and the Holy Spirit was/is God. Whether they used “trinity” or not, this truth was expressed, believed, and further refined by the middle of the 4th century.
The Real Question: What does the Bible Teach about God?
What matters is not whether a given word is found in the Bible (like “trinity”) but whether its concept is taught in the Bible. That is, can we read a text or collection of texts and draw a particular conclusion? Yes.
Unfortunately, in an effort to be supremely biblical (and we should make every effort to be biblical, by the way), we can sometimes go too far, becoming self-defeating and irrational. Consider a man preaching a sermon who only used words found in the Bible and who only used the same words used in the specific passage from which he preached. Would we consider this helpful? Could it even be considered biblical commentary? Note, any biblical preaching exposition is by definition and necessity a collection of different words used to explain and exhort others regarding a given text. If an individual doesn’t use different words, phrases, and sentences, then they are merely reading the Scriptures—and Scripture reading is a fine and necessary endeavor, but it’s not the same as expository preaching. 4
The Bible and the Trinity
Essentially, the doctrine of the Trinity goes something like this: there is one God (Being; monotheism) eternally existing in three distinct persons (Father, Son, & the Holy Spirit).5 The distinction of “persons” is important. Since the Bible is careful to articulate God (the Father) from the Lord Jesus Christ and further still from the Holy Spirit, it is good and right for Christians to do so. Biblically, those are real distinctions. Furthermore, each person is co-equal, co-eternal, and God. Yet, as pictured below, the Father is not the Son nor Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor Son.
Standard Trinity Relationship Depiction:
Modern Trinity Depiction:
With the aforementioned pictures and disclaimers noted, let’s go through the tenets of this concept to see if it’s truly biblical. (Note, this is not exhaustive, as a full commentary on the Trinity goes beyond the intent of this blog post. For more reading on this matter, consider J.I. Packer’s “Knowing God” or James R. White’s “The Forgotten Trinity.”)
- There is one God. (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4; Gal. 3:20)
- The Father is God. (Mt. 6:9; Phil. 2:11)
- The Son is God. (Jn. 1:1; Jn. 20:28)
- The Holy Spirit is God. (Acts 5:3-4)
- The Father is not the Son. (Mt. 28:19)
- The Father is not the Holy Spirit. (Jn. 14:26)
- The Son is not the Father. (2 Cor. 4:6)
- The Son is not the Holy Spirit. (Jn. 15:26)
- The Holy Spirit is not the Father. (1 Pet. 1:2)
- The Holy Spirit is not the Son. (Jn. 14:16-17)
Concluding Thoughts
Finally, it should be noted that I don’t hold to these beliefs due to upbringing or training; it’s by conviction. Even with a solid understanding of the triune nature of God as revealed in Scripture, there is still a mysterious element to it, a scriptural truth and reality that defies my limited understanding. Nevertheless, I am convinced of the Scriptures that God is distinct and three in persons yet one in Being. As mentioned earlier, there is but one God. At the same time, the Bible also bears witness that there are “three” distinct persons who operate as God without violating this one Being concept. This is not three beings, which would be tritheism (or more generally, polytheism), but this is three persons. To say otherwise (and I don’t mean preferring to use different wording assuming that wording means the same thing.6) is to deny God’s revelation to man through His Word. In short, James White says it best, noting:
Christians believe in the Trinity not because the term itself is given in some creed-like form in the text of Scripture. Instead, they believe in the Trinity because the Bible, taken in its completeness, accepted as a self-consistent revelation of God, teaches that there is one Being of God that is shared fully by three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 7
1. Nick Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol. 1 (London: Grace Publications Trust, 2016), p. 219.
3. Chris Maunder and Henry Bettenson, eds., The Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 26-27. Below, I’ve cited the Creed of Nicaea in order to make it clear that this document, which predates Constantine, is not substantially different from the later Nicene Creed.
The Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.; not to be Confused with the Nicene Creed)
“We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and dead.
And the Holy Spirit.
And those that say ‘There was when he was not,’
and, ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’
and that, ‘He came into being from what-is-not,’
or those that allege, that the Son of God is
‘of another substance or essence’
or ‘created’
or ‘changeable’
or ‘alterable,’
these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”
4. I’m well aware of the concept of explaining Scripture with Scripture. In fact, I strive to do that regularly. Understanding Scripture based on other Scriptures is foundational and the best interpretive approach. My point here is that the preacher or expositor who doesn’t use some wording not used in the biblical passage (whether by anecdotes, analogies, illustrations, etc.) is going to be hard-pressed to teach anyone that struggles to understand the Bible. Even using synonyms would constitute using different words and is a helpful way to explain things.
5. Lest one think that the word “persons” is off-base or confusing, note that it has roots in Latin and relates more closely to the word “persona.” Moreover, the word persons is loaded in our modern understanding due to the way we use it now as opposed to what it meant when it was crafted. We must rid ourselves of these extra ideas when referring to the divine persons. The reason many orthodox churches continue to use this language is because it’s rooted in classical theology and is closely related to the wording used in the Nicene Creed and the Creed of Nicaea: “substance” or ousia (Gr. ουσία) and “entity/essential nature/person” or hypostatis (Gr. ὑπόστασις).
6. We must be careful of the wording we use if we elect not to use “persons.” The Potter’s House, where Bishop T.D. Jakes presides, has this on their statement of beliefs (emphasis mine):
“There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit” https://www.thepottershouse.org/explore/belief-statement/ (accessed 20 Jun 2021). Refusing to use “persons,” the Potter’s House wrongly presents what appears to be a modalistic view of God (i.e., that He can only be one at a time, as evident from “manifestations”). Additionally, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says this regarding the Trinity (emphasis mine):
“The Holy Trinity is the term many Christian religions use to describe God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Latter-day Saints believe very strongly in all three, but we don’t believe they’re all the same person. We do think they are one in purpose. Their purpose is to help us achieve true joy, in this life and the life to come (which we also believe in)” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/believe (accessed 20 Jun 2021). Ironically, they’re arguing something Christians don’t believe (that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one or the same person). Their view has parallels to Arianism of the 4th century and should be avoided.
7. James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2019), p. 26.
One thought on “About That Trinity…”