the trinity-not a logical contradiction

8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 1/14

The Trinity: Not

a Logical Contradiction

By Gary F. Zeolla

It is often claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a logical contradiction. Three cannot

equal one. It is true; three cannot equal one. But this is not what the doctrine of the Trinity

teaches! To explain why will require the defining of several terms.

First, theologian Millard J. Erickson defines the Law of Contradiction as, "A principle of

logic which states that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same

respect."(1)

In this context, respect means, "A particular aspect, feature, or detail."(2) So for a statement

to be contradictory the two things being compared must be identical in every way.

To illustrate, if I said that right now, at this very moment, I have only one apple and I have

three apples, that would be a logical contradiction. One is not "non-one" - one is one. But, if I

said I had three apples yesterday but today I have only one apple, there is no contradiction.

The "time" is different.

Similarly, if I said I have only one apple but I have three pieces of fruit, there would also be

no contradiction. Apples and fruit are related but not identical. All apples are fruit, but not allfruit are apples. So the "thing" being compared is not the same in every respect.

Now, to apply this to the doctrine of the Trinity. One way of stating the doctrine is to say that

God is three Persons in one essence.

Essence means, "The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or

identify something. The most important ingredient; the crucial element. The inherent,

unchanging nature of a thing or class of things." Person means, "The composite of

characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self."

So essence and Person are somewhat related, but they are not identical. The former refers tointrinsic properties and the latter emphasizes individual personality. So there is no logical

contradiction in saying God is three in Person and one in essence. The "things" being

compared (i.e. person vs. essence) are not identical in every respect.

In fact, in its definition of "person" The American Heritage Dictionary includes the

following, "Theology. The separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as

distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them."

Another way of looking at God's three-in-oneness is to study His objective knowledge versus

His subjective knowledge. Objective can mean, "Based on observable phenomena." Soobjective knowledge comes from observing things.



Since all three Members of the Godhead are omniscient, each knows all things that can be

observed. So they all have the same objective knowledge (i.e. each possesses all objective

knowledge possible).

On the other hand, subjective can mean, "Particular to a given person; personal subjective

experience." So subjective knowledge is attained via personal experience, not observation.

Only the Father sent His Son to die for the sins of His people. Only the Son died for the sins

of His people. Only the Holy Spirit regenerates His people.

Now each Member of the Godhead has the objective knowledge that each of these events

occurred. But only each respective Member has subjective knowledge of each event. So the

Father, Son, and Spirit have the same objective knowledge in these cases but each has distinct

subjective (or experiential) knowledge.

Thus God is one in respect to His objective knowledge; three in respect to his subjective

knowledge. Since, objective and subjective knowledge are not identical, again, there is nological contradiction.

Either way it is looked at, the doctrine of the Trinity does not teach three equals one. It

teaches God is one in one respect; three in a different respect. So the Trinity is not a logical

contradiction.

Replies to Responses

I posted the above commentary in "alt.christnet.theology" Newsgroup. I received a couple of shortresponses to the post. Below are my replies to these responses.

#1 - The point of my post was that the doctrine of the Trinity is not "gibberish" as you claim.

It is only confusing to those who don't understand the simple rule of logic of the Law of

Contradiction.

Or to put it another way, if I could have assumed that those reading my post knew rules of

logical and how to use a dictionary it would have been a fraction of its length. But my

experience has shown me that most people have not been taught rules of logic and don't seem

to know how to use a dictionary; so much of my post was devoted to explaining the Law on

Contradiction and defining key terms.

As regards your claim that the Trinity was somehow "invented" in the early Church to make

things complex, try reading the writing of the people who lived at the time. If you do, you

will see that the doctrine of the Trinity was simply a way of EXPLAINING the Biblical

teaching that God is three-in-one.

#2 - Thank you for your response. To clarify my position, what the Bible teaches is that God

is "somehow" one and "somehow" three. Terms like "essence" or "Person" are simply

attempts to EXPLAIN God's three-in-oneness. My post indicated another way that God's

three-in-oneness could be explained.



Moreover, these concepts were not invented in the fourth century as you seem to imply. They

can be seen in the writings of the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries.

As for what the Bible teaches, see the Scripture Study Doctrine of the Trinity found in my

Scripture Workbook . It collects together hundreds of verses relevant to this subject.

As for the teachings of the Church Fathers see the following article: The Father, the Son, and

the Spirit - In the Post-Apostolic Church.

Footnotes:

1) Millard J. Erickson. Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Moody

Press, 1982), p.36.

2) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright 1992

by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc.

All rights reserved. The rest of the definitions in this post are also from this source.

The Trinity: Not a Logical Contradiction. Copyright © 1999 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darknessto Light ministry (www.dtl.org).

The Father, the Son, and the

Spirit

In the Post-Apostolic Church: Part One

By Gary F. Zeolla

How did Christians immediately after the time of the apostles explain the relationship of the

Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? What did they believe about the nature of Jesus Christ

and the Holy Spirit? This two-part article will study various documents of the post-apostolic

Church to answer these vital questions.

Ignatius (d.117 AD)

Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John. In 117 AD he was led from Antioch to Rome to

be martyred for his faith. Along the way, he wrote seven letters - six were addressed to

various churches, the seventh to Polycarp, another disciple of John (Lightfoot, p.97). In these

letters, he refers to Jesus as "God" twelve times.

The following is the most important of these references, "There is one only Physician, of

flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, GOD in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary andSon of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Lightfoot, p.139).

http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/swb.htm


http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/post-apostolic/pt-1.htm




http://www.dtl.org/index.html









For clarification, passible means, "Capable of suffering" and impassible, "Not subject to

suffering" ( American, pp.907, 504). Also, "generate and ingenerate" (Greek, gennetos kai

agennetos) can also be translated "created and uncreated" (Stevenson, p.13). Using these

simpler terms, Ignatius' statement will be diagrammed.

There is one only Physician

of spirit of flesh

uncreated created

God man

true Life death

Son of God Son of Mary

not subject to suffering capable of suffering

Jesus Christ our LordSo Ignatius apparently believed Jesus was both GOD AND MAN. And these ideas he

received from his mentor, the apostle John (see John 1:1,14; 4:6; 5:18; 8:40; 11:33-35; 12:27;

20:28; 1John 1:1-3; 4:1-3; 5:20; 2John 7). Ignatius further believed Jesus retained His full

humanity even after His death and resurrection.

Ignatius wrote in reference to Jesus' crucifixion:

For He suffered all these things for our sakes (that we might be saved); and HE SUFFERED

TRULY, as HE ALSO RAISED HIMSELF TRULY; not as certain unbelievers say, that He

suffered in semblance .... For I know and believe that HE WAS IN THE FLESH EVENAFTER THE RESURRECTION (Lightfoot, p.157; Luke 24:36-45; John 2:18-22; 19:28-35;

20:19-28).

"On the Martyrdom of Polycarp" (155 AD)

In 155 AD, Polycarp was burned at the stake for being a Christian. The details of his

martyrdom were recorded in a work known as, "On the Martyrdom of Polycarp." This

document was very popular in the early Church. As such, it probably reflected the beliefs of

many Christians of the time (Lightfoot, pp.185-187).

The writer first recounts the story of Polycarp's arrest and conviction. He then quotes

Polycarp's somewhat lengthy prayer spoken after being tied to the stake.

Polycarp ends this prayer with the following words to God the Father:

I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal and heavenly High-Priest,

JESUS CHRIST, They beloved Son, through whom WITH HIM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT

BE GLORY both now and ever and for the ages to come. Amen. (Lightfoot, p.208; Rev

5:13).

After this prayer, the author records what happened when the executioners attempted to burn

Polycarp - the flames made a wall around Polycarp, but did not touch his body! So anexecutioner had to stab him in order to kill him. When his blood came forth, it extinguished



the flames! The writer declared, "And all the multitude marveled that there should be so great

a difference between the unbelievers and the elect" (Lightfoot, p.208).

The narrative of this document ends with the following:

Now the blessed Polycarp was martyred on the second day of the first part

of the month of Xanthicus .... in the reign of THE ETERNAL KING JESUSCHRIST. TO WHOM BE THE GLORY, honour, greatness, and eternal

throne, from generation to generation (cp. Rev 5:8-12).

The document ends with the writer declaring it is his hope:

... that THE LORD JESUS CHRIST may gather me also with His elect into His heavenly

kingdom; TO WHOM BE THE GLORY WITH THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT

for ever and ever. Amen (Lightfoot, p.210; John 17:1-5; Rev 21:22,23; 22:3-5).

So throughout this document, both Polycarp and the writer ascribe glory to the Father, the

Son, AND the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was believed to be of inferior nature to the Father, would

they have combined praise to both together? If the Spirit was believed to be just "God's activeforce" (as Jehovah's Witnesses teach), would it have made sense for them to have ascribed

glory to IT along with the Father and Son?

Justin Martyr (c.100-165 AD)

Justin had been a philosopher until he, "met a venerable old Christian. This humble Christian

shook his confidence in human wisdom and pointed him to the Hebrew Prophets." After his

conversion he, "devoted himself wholeheartedly to the vindication and spread of the Christian

religion." As his surname implies, Justin, like Ignatius and Polycarp, became a martyr for his

faith in Christ (Moyer, p.220).

One of Justin's most important writings is now titled, The First Apology of Justin Martyr . In

this work, he explains the early Christian's attitude towards the three Members of the

Godhead.

He first declares:

We worship the Maker of the universe." He then explains that Christians do not believe they

need to offer blood sacrifices to God to be accepted by Him. Instead, "We petition Him that,

after we die, we might be resurrected to an incorruptible life, THROUGH FAITH IN HIM.

Justin then explains how Christians know they are saved by faith, not works:

The Person who taught us these things is none other than JESUS CHRIST Himself, who was

brought into the world for this very purpose .... It is only reasonable that WE WORSHIP

HIM, since we have learned He is the very Son of the true God Himself." So Justin tells us

the early Christians worshipped Jesus (see Matt 28:9).

Justin now explains their attitude towards the three members of the Godhead:

WE HOLD HIM (JESUS) IN THE SECOND PLACE AND THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT IN

THE THIRD. We realize that you think us insane to give a crucified Man a place second to

the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all. But that's because you do not discern

the mystery of these things. However, I will make it plain to you, and I only ask that you payattention to what I am about to tell you (Dods, pp.98, 99).

http://www.dtl.org/subject/jws.htm



http://www.dtl.org/subject/forgiveness.htm







Before looking at what Justin says about Jesus here, the statement about the Spirit needs to be

noted. If the Spirit was believed to be just a force, how could IT be given a "place" behind

Jesus? (compare Matt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14).

But what does Justin mean by Jesus being "second" to God? Before jumping to any

conclusions, it is important to do what Justin says to do, "pay attention to what I am about totell you."

In the next several pages, Justin explains how demons have tried to mislead the Greeks and

Romans through pagan mythology. He then begins a discussion about how the Jews are even

confused in their beliefs about God.

He states, "The Jews still teach that the nameless God spoke directly to Moses." They have

this misconception, "Because the Jews neither know the Father nor His Son ..." (Matt 11:27;

John 8:19).

Justin next explains who really spoke to Moses, "THE ANGEL OFGOD SPOKE TO MOSES in a flame of fire out of the bush SAYING

"I AM THAT I AM, THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, the God of Isaac,

the God of your Fathers'" (see Exod 3:1-6,14).

For Justin, "The Angel of God" is also known as "the Logos of God"

or "God's Son." So, according to this Church Father, it was the Son

who spoke out of the burning bush. And be sure to note the words

attributed to Jesus, "I AM THAT I AM!" There is no stronger

ascription of Deity possible.

Also, the words said to have been spoken by the Son from Exodus 3:6,14, in their original

contexts, were spoken by the LORD (Jehovah). Thus, Justin clearly believed and taught Jesus

is Jehovah!

Justin further states:

Those who think the Son is the Father are shown never to have really been acquainted with

the Father. Nor do they known that the Father of the universe has a Son, who - since He is

THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN LOGOS OF GOD - IS TRUE DEITY (Ps 2:7; Prov 30:4; Col 2:9;

above quotes from Dods, pp.105, 106).

So - even though Jesus is in some way "in second place" - there is no doubt Justin believed inthe full Deity of Jesus Christ. Also , he believed there is a distinction between the Father, the

Son, and the Spirit (Matt 3:16,17; John 8:17,18).

Irenaeus (120-203 AD)

Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp. And remember, Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John.

Like Justin, Irenaeus was a strong defender of the Christian faith. He also taught many

similar ideas to Justin's. This can be seen in his work, Against All Heresies.



Irenaeus opens this book with a general discussion of God and the creation of the universe.

He states that God created all things, that there is only one God, and that nothing is above this

one God (Bush, pp.67-70; Gen 1:1; Exod 8:10; Isa 43:10).

Irenaeus then writes:

He (God) formed all things by His Word that NEVER WEARIES. For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those

things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for

the formation of all things... (Bush, p.71).

There are couple of important points that should not be missed here. First, Irenaeus says the

Word [i.e. Jesus] "never wearies." This is an attribute God (see Isa 40:28).

Second, Irenaeus teaches, "all things" were formed by the Word; so the Word could not have

been one of the things which were formed (John 1:1-3; Col 1:16,17).

Irenaeus ends his discussion on the creation by quoting Genesis 1:1 and commenting, "Butneither gods nor angels had any share in the work" (Bush, p.71). Thus, since God created

through the Son, Jesus cannot be "a god" or just an angel (Isa 44:24; 48:12,13; Heb 1:1-14).

Near the end of the book, Irenaeus quotes Genesis 19:24, "Then the LORD rained upon

Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven." He then comments,

"For it here points out THE SON WHO HAD BEEN TALKING WITH ABRAHAM, had

received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness."

But Genesis 18 records conversations between the LORD (Jehovah) and Abraham. Also,

Genesis 19:24 states Jehovah destroyed Sodom but Irenaeus says the Son did.

So, like Justin, Irenaeus must have believed Jesus is Jehovah! Even further, a careful reading

of Genesis 19:24 will show there are TWO Persons named Jehovah! ("the LORD ... from the

LORD" - see also Isa 48:16; Zech 2:6-3:2).

Irenaeus then quotes Psalm 45:6,7, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of

Thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore

God, Thy God, has anointed Thee."

He then comments, "For the Spirit designates BOTH of them BY THE NAME OF GOD -

both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, theFather." So now Irenaeus says there are two Persons called "God."

Psalm 50:1 is next quoted, "The GOD of gods, the LORD hath spoken, and

hath called the earth." Then Irenaeus asks the question, "Who is meant by

God?" He then quotes Psalm 50:3 ("God shall come openly, our God shall

not keep silent.") and answers his own question, "THE SON, who was

manifested to men."

Irenaeus closes his discussion on this subject by declaring:

Herefore, as I have already stated, NO OTHER IS NAMED AS GOD, OR IS LORD,

EXCEPT HIM WHO IS GOD AND LORD OF ALL, who also said to Moses, "I AM THATI AM." And 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto



you' (Exod 3:14); and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who MAKES THOSE WHO BELIEVE

IN HIS NAME THE SONS OF GOD. And again, WHEN THE SON SPEAKS TO MOSES,

He says, "I am come down to deliver this people" (Exod 3:8; above quotes from Bush,

pp.80,81).

First, it should be noted that like Justin, Irenaeus teaches belief in Christ is all that is neededto become a child of God. Second, this passage again shows the early Church attributed the

words of Jehovah to Jesus (see Exod 3:7).

The confusing part here is Irenaeus' claim there is only ONE who is "GOD and LORD of all."

He had previously given TWO distinct Persons these names.

The only possible way to reconcile these statements is Irenaeus believed in one way the Son

and the Father are equal and one; but in some different way they are distinct and separate.

The other Church Fathers studied also held similar beliefs. And they based these convictions

on the teaching of the Scriptures.

But how can this equality yet distinction of the Father and Son be explained? And, more

generally, how should God's "three-in-oneness" be defined?

To answer these questions requires a look at the distinction between "Person" and "essence."

This and other relevant subjects is discussed in Part Two of this article.

Notes: LORD" in most Bible versions is a rendering of the Hebrew, personal name for God,

traditionally pronounced "Jehovah" though "Yahweh" is probably a better pronunciation.

Scripture quotations appear as they are seen in the translation of the Church Father quoted

from. Otherwise, Scripture references from: The New King James Version. Nashville, TN:

Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, unless otherwise indicated.

All emphases in quotes are added.

Bibliography:

See end of Part Two.







The Father, the Son, and the

Spirit

In the Post-Apostolic Church: Part Two

By Gary F. Zeolla

What did Christians immediately after the time of the apostles believe about the relationship

of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Part One of this article looked at important

Church documents of the early second century. This part will study the works of Church

Fathers from the late second to mid-third centuries.

Athenagoras (Late Second Century)

Athenagoras was a professor of philosophy in Athens. He originally intended to write a

treatise against Christianity. So, as a true scholar, he began studying the Scriptures in order to

be able to more effectually refute them. But instead he, "became convinced of their truth, and

consequently, turned from being a persecutor to an ardent defender of the Christian faith"

(Moyer, p.21; cp. Gal 1:23).

Athenagoras' most important work is called, A Plea for the Christians. In this book heexplains and defends Christian beliefs and values.

He begins by discussing the Christian belief about the nature of

God, "Our doctrine acknowledges ONE GOD, the Maker of the

universe, who Himself is UNCREATED (for that which is does

not come to be, but that which is not) but has MADE ALL

THINGS BY THE LOGOS which is from Him" (Bush, p.38;

Psalm 33:6; 90:2; John 1:3).

So Athenagoras believed "all things" were created by the Logos.

He thus separates the Son from the creation. Also note, for Athenagoras, "uncreated" meanssomething which "does not come to be" (see Exod 3:14).

He further states that Christians, "... acknowledge and firmly hold that He is God who has

framed ALL THINGS by the Logos, and HOLDS THEM IN PLACE BY HIS SPIRIT"

(Bush, p.40). If "all" created things are held in place by the Spirit, the Spirit cannot be a part

of the created things but must also be eternal (Heb 9:14).

He next proclaims that Christians believe in "the unity of the Deity" and exposes, "the

absurdities of polytheism" (Bush, pp.40-42; Isa 43:10; 45:20-25). He then declares, "... we

acknowledge also a Son of God" (Prov 30:4).




http://www.dtl.org/subject/god.htm









Athenagoras explains the nature of this Son of God:

But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and operation; for after the pattern of

Him and by Him were all things made, THE FATHER AND SON BEING ONE. And, the

Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, IN ONENESS AND POWER OF SPIRIT,

the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God.... HE IS THE FIRST

PRODUCT OF GOD, NOT AS HAVING BEEN BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE - for fromthe beginning, God, who is eternal mind, had the Logos in Himself, BEING FROM

ETERNITY INSTINCT WITH LOGOS (Bush, pp. 42,43; Micah 5:2).

Athenagoras first says the Logos is "the first product of God." But before anyone can get the

wrong impression that this statement means he believes the Son was created, he declares the

Logos had "not been brought into existence." Remember his earlier definition of uncreated

was, "did not come to be."

Also, the Father is said to have His Logos "from eternity." So whatever is meant by the Son

being, "the first product of God" - it cannot mean He is created.

He now makes an interesting statement about the Spirit, "The Holy Spirit

Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an affluence

of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the

sun" (Bush, p.43).

Taken by itself, this statement could sound like he believed the Spirit was

just a force. And it is statements like this one (and the previous one about

the Son being "the first product of God") which the unscrupulous will latch onto and quote

out of context to try to "prove" the Church Fathers did not believe in the Trinity.

Even worse, such writers often do not fully document their sources. This makes it almost

impossible to check the accuracy of the quotations. A "good" example of this unscholarly and

dishonest practice can be seen in the Jehovah's Witnesses' pamphlet, "Should You Believe in

the Trinity?" Page 7 contains short quotes from six Church Fathers; but NO sources are given

for any of the quotations.

This ministry, however, ALWAYS provides full documentation for ALL quotes in our

articles. We have nothing to hide. As for Jehovah's Witnesses . . . ?

Having said this, it is time to look at what else Athenagoras has to say on this subject. In the

very next sentence, he says Christians are, "... men who speak of GOD THE FATHER, andof GOD THE SON, and of THE HOLY SPIRIT, and who declare their POWER IN UNION

and their DISTINCTION IN ORDER" (Bush, p.43; Titus 3:4-6; 1Pet 1:2).

Note the phrase, "God the Son." Also, if he believed the Son was created and the Spirit just a

force, how could he say they have "power in union" with the Father? And be sure to note,

despite this equality, there is still a "distinction in order." This idea will be discussed in detail

later.

He now moves to a discussion about angels and demons, "We employ

language which makes a distinction between God and matter, and the

natures of the two. For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son HisLogos, and a Holy Spirit, UNITED IN ESSENCE .... so also do we







apprehend THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER POWERS ... (Bush, pp.51,52).

So Athenagoras teaches there is only two kinds of existence, "God and matter." The Son and

Spirit are classified on the Father's side. The "other powers" (angels and demons) are distinct

from these Three.

Further, the Son and Spirit are "united in essence" with the Father. "Essence" means, "The

intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identifies something"

( American, p.465). Two of God's "indispensable properties" are His eternality and personality

(see Exod 3:14). So if the Son and Spirit have the essence of God, they must be uncreated

Persons.

So, looking at ALL he has to say on this subject, it is seen Athenagoras clearly believed the

Father, Son, and Spirit all have the essence of Deity. Yet, earlier, he emphatically proclaimed

the Christian belief of there being only ONE God.

But how can there be only one God if THREE Persons have the essence of Deity? For help inanswering this difficult question another Church Father will be studied.

Tertullian (c.160-220 AD)

"Undoubtedly, Tertullian is one of the greatest of the early church apologists" (Moyer, p.83).

Tertullian's most important work is titled simply, The Apology.

In this book, Tertullian declares, "We have been taught that He [the Son] proceeds forth from

God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is CALLED

GOD FROM UNITY OF SUBSTANCE WITH GOD" (Bush, pp.92,93).

The Son is "called God from unity of substance with God." This declaration is similar to

Athenagoras teaching the Father, Son and Spirit are "united in essence" as "substance"

means, "Essential nature, essence" ( American, p.1213; Rev 7:10,17).

Tertullian continues, "He [the Son] is made a SECOND IN MANNER OF EXISTENCE - IN

POSITION, NOT IN NATURE" (Bush, p.93). "Nature" refers to, "The essential

characteristics and qualities of a person or thing" ( American, p.832; For the rest of this

article, essence, nature and substance will be considered to be synonyms).

So Tertullian says the Father and Son are equal in essence; they have the same intrinsic

qualities. But the Son is "second" to the Father "in position." But is it possible for someone to

be equal in essence to another but be below him in position?

The Scriptures teach all people are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26,27). Thus, we are

all of the same essence - equal in all essential properties (Gal 3:28).

Yet, the Bible also teaches certain persons should submit to others (Luke 7:8; Rom 13:1-5;

Eph 5:21-6:9; Phil 2:3,4; Col 3:18-22; Heb 13:17; 1Pet 3:1-7; 5:5). And further, not accepting

both parts of this pattern can lead to deleterious effects in a society (see 2Tim 3:1-8; 2Pet 9-

11; Jude 8).



So it clearly possible for one person to submit to or be in a "second place" to another yet

without essential human equality being forfeited.

In a similar way, the Son can be second in position to the Father yet they can still be equal in

essence (1Cor 11:3). Moreover, the Son willingly submits to the Father (Phil 2:5-8) and the

Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14). But the essential unity of the Godhead is nevercompromised by this behavior (Rom 8:9-11).

Elsewhere, Tertullian further clarified the early Church's belief that God is

three-in-one, "In his Against Praxeas he set forth the first statement of the

Trinity as ONE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS" (Moyer, p.396; Note:

"person" means, "A self-conscious being capable of thought, will and

interaction with others" - adapted from American, p.925 and Erickson,

p.127).

So according to Tertullian's definition, God is one in essence, three in Person. And since

"essence" and "person" are not identical, there is no logical contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity.

In other words, within the one essence of God there eternally exists three distinct yet equal

centers of consciousness. As such, love and communication are possible within the Godhead

(John 17:24). Our ability to love and communicate results from our being created in the

image of the triune God (Gen 1:26,27; 1John 4:7-11).

And please note, Tertullian did not INVENT the idea of a three-in-one God; he was merely

EXPLAINING this attribute of God. The concept itself was handed down to him from the

Apostles through the Scriptures and other Church Fathers.

Origen and the "Rule of Faith"

The next early Church document to be studied is the "Rule of Faith." Origen (c.185-235)

explains what this phrase refers to, "The holy apostles, when preaching the faith of Christ,

took certain doctrines, those namely which they believed to be the necessary ones, and

delivered them in plainest terms to all believers" (Jude 3). So the Rule of Faith refers to theessential doctrines of Christianity.

Origen then outlines these beliefs, "First, that God is one, who created and set in order all

things, and who, when NOTHING existed, caused the universe to be."

Next comes the section on the Son:

He who came to earth, was BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE

EVERY CREATED THING. And after He had ministered to the Father in

the foundation of ALL things, for ALL things were made through Him, in

these last times HE EMPTIED HIMSELF AND WAS MADE FLESH,

ALTHOUGH HE WAS GOD; AND BEING MADE MAN, HE STILLREMAINED WHAT HE WAS, NAMELY GOD. He took to Himself a

http://www.dtl.org/dtl/article/essentials.htm





body like our body, differing in this alone, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit

(above quotes by Origen from Stevenson, p.199).

C.S. Lewis explains the distinction between begotten and created (or made), " When you

begat, you begat something of the same kind as yourself.... But when you make, you make

something of a different kind from yourself.... What God begets is God; just as what manbegets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man creates is not man (Lewis,

p.138).

So saying the Son is "begotten of the Father" in and of itself upholds His equality of essence

with the Father. And one essential attribute of God is His eternality (see Exod 3:14; Ps 90:2;

102:25-27). Further, before God created there was no time (see Hebrews 1:2 where a literal

translation would be that through the Son, God made "the ages" - or paraphrased, "the

successions of time").

So the Son was "begotten" outside of time; hence, there was never a time when He was not

(see Hebrews 1:10-12 where Ps 102:25-27, referenced above, is applied to the Son). PreviousChurch Fathers studied also asserted the eternality of the Son.

Second, the Rule of Faith declares the Son was God before the creation and He remained God

even after He was "made man" (Ps 45:6,7; Heb 1:8; John 5:18; 20:28).

He did, however, in some way "empty Himself" at the incarnation (Phil 2:6-8). But this

"emptying" did not cause a lost of His essential Deity. So the Son is now FULL GOD AND

FULL MAN. But how should this "two-in-oneness" of the Son be defined?

Previously, Tertullian defined the Trinity as "three Persons in one essence." The Son can be

said to be existing as ONE PERSON WITH TWO NATURES (full humanity AND full

Deity; Col 2:9). A logical contradiction is again avoided since there is a distinction between

"person" and "nature" (or essence).

The Rule of Faith also has a clause on the Holy Spirit. Origen writes, "The apostles delivered

this doctrine, that THE HOLY SPIRIT IS UNITED IN HONOUR AND DIGNITY WITH

THE FATHER AND THE SON" (Stevenson, p.199, 2Cor 13:14).

Only a Person can have "honour and dignity." Moreover, the Father, Son, and Spirit are

"united" in this ascription. So the three must be of equal essence.

Dionysius of Alexandria (c.190-264 AD)

The last Church Father to be studied is Dionysius of Alexandria. In the letter to be quoted

from, Dionysius is arguing against three different heresies about the Godhead which had

arisen by the mid-third century.

The first heresy was "tritheism." This is the belief the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three

distinct gods. He writes, "I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and

DESTROY that most sacred teaching of the Church of God, THE DIVINE MONARCHY,

making it as it were three powers and three separate substances and godheads three" (cp.Deut 4:35; 6:4; Neh 9:6; Isa 44:6-8; 45:5,6).



The second heresy was "modalism" which claims the Father, Son, and Spirit are one and the

same PERSON. Dionysius writes in reference to Sabellius (one of the main promoters of the

idea), "HE BLASPHEMOUSLY SAYS THAT THE SON IS THE FATHER, and the Father

is the Son" (Isa 48:16; Matt 3:16; John 8:17,18; 14:16,26; Acts 2:30-36).

The third heresy later came to be know as "Arianism" (after Arius who became the doctrine'smost notable advocate). It taught the Son was created. Dionysius says in response, "Equally

must one CENSURE THOSE WHO HOLD THE SON TO BE A WORK, and consider that

the Lord came into being.... In many passages of the Divine Oracles is the Son said to be

generated, BUT NOWHERE TO HAVE COME INTO BEING (John 1:1-3,18).

Dionysius' close to his letter will provide a fitting end to this two-

part article:

"Neither then may we divide into three godheads THE

WONDERFUL AND DIVINE MONAD: nor disparage with the

name of "work" the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but

we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ HisSon, and in the Holy Spirit, and hold that to the God of the universe

the Word is united.... For thus BOTH THE DIVINE TRIAD AND

THE HOLY PREACHING OF THE MONARCHY WILL BE PRESERVED" (Stevenson,

pp.252,3; Matt 28:19).

The links below are direct links to where the book can be purchased from Books-A-

Million.

. Bibliography: Note: All emphases in quotations are added.

Note: Scripture quotations appear as they are seen in the translation of the Church Father

quoted from. Otherwise, Scripture references from: New King James Version . Nashville,

TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, unless otherwise indicated.

American Heritage Dictionary . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985.

Bush, Russ ed. Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics A. D. 100-1800 . Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1986.

Dods, Marcus. Transl. We Don't Speak Great Things - We Live Them! Tyler, TX: Scroll

Publishing, 1989.

Erickson, Millard. Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Moody Press,

1982.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity . New York: Collier Books, 1952.Lightfoot, J.B. and J.R. Harmer. Apostolic Fathers . Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Moyer, Elgin. Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

"Should You Believe in the Trinity?" Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,

1989.

Stevenson, J. ed. A New Eusebius. rev. by W.H.C Frend. London: SPCK, 1987.

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit in Post-Apostolic Church. Copyright © 1999 by Gary F.

Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.dtl.org).

http://www.qksrv.net/click-710296-32499




http://www.qksrv.net/click-710296-42121?isbn=0785202277





http://www.qksrv.net/click-710296-42121?isbn=031045641X




















the trinity-not a logical contradiction

Documents