Source: The Trinity — Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey, Chapter 19, pp. 433ff
Unitarians as well as Trinitarians speak of the "attributes" of God because the word has become part of the traditional language of God. Yet, when we turn to the original text of the Bible, no author of Scripture ever used the word. It is actually a theological term which was developed by theologians to describe what God is in terms of His essential nature.
The words we use to describe the "attributes" of God are not found in the Bible either. Nowhere in the Bible do we find such words as "omnipotent," "omnipresent," "omniscient," and "immutable." Thus, these words are not biblical words per se. They are theological terms which developed over the centuries.
Does this fact mean that we cannot believe in the "attributes" of God? Of course not! It simply means that as history has progressed, the Christian Church has coined new words to express the old truths of Scripture.
What if someone were to issue the challenge: I challenge you to find the word "attribute" in the New Testament and all such words as "omnipotent," "omnipresent," etc. If you cannot find these words in the Bible and if you cannot find them defined in the modern sense, then I refuse to believe in them.
We would look with pity at such convoluted statements. To demand that a first century document use words and terms which did not develop until centuries later is patently absurd. This challenge is an example of the logical fallacy of setting up a "straw man" and then knocking him down.
The word "attribute" is not the issue. It is the idea that the word expresses. The Bible describes God in terms of what He is as well as what He does. For example, God is "Holy" (Isa 6:3). Thus, the attributes of God are implied throughout the Bible. It does not matter that these "attributes" were not explicitly and systematically defined, documented or defended until centuries later.
The same situation holds true when we deal with the theological word or term "Trinity." The word "Trinity" is no more found in the Bible than the word "attribute." It is a theological term coined by the Christian Church to express the biblical truth that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
This is why we do not expect to find in the New Testament the complex creedal statements on the finer philosophic points of the Trinity which took the Church centuries to work out. It would be absurd to demand that the authors of the New Testament must know of, understand, and write out the formulations of the Trinity which did not exist until centuries later. To demand that pre-Nicene authors use post-Nicene terminology is a logical and historical blunder of titanic proportions.
The anti-Trinitarians have yet to understand this point. They challenge the Trinitarian to show them in the Bible where the word "Trinity" is found as if this issue meant anything. In the Nov. 1, 1991 Watchtower magazine, the Society issued the challenge:
*** w91 11/1 p. 21 Part 1—Did Jesus and His Disciples Teach the Trinity Doctrine? ***
We invite you to search the Bible, especially the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, to see for yourself if Jesus and his disciples taught a Trinity. As you search, ask yourself:
- Can I find any scripture that mentions “Trinity”?
- Can I find any scripture that says that God is made up of three distinct persons, Father, Son, and holy spirit, but that the three are only one God?
- Can I find any scripture that says that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are equal in all ways, such as in eternity, power, position, and wisdom?
Search as you may, you will not find one scripture that uses the word Trinity, nor will you find any that says that Father, Son, and holy spirit are equal in all ways, such as in eternity, power, position, and wisdom. Not even a single scripture says that the Son is equal to the Father in those ways—and if there were such a scripture, it would establish not a Trinity but at most a “duality.” Nowhere does the Bible equate the holy spirit with the Father.
The Watchtower Society is clearly giving its readers the ridiculous impression that, if the word "Trinity" is not fond in the Bible, then the idea that this word conveys cannot be present. They then go on to challenge the Christian to show them in the New Testament where the doctrine of the Trinity is systematically stated or defined in its final and full form.
Was it a teaching of Jesus and his disciples? If so, it should have appeared fully formed in the first century of our Common Era. (p. 21)
The trick that is being played is to demand that the doctrine of the Trinity must be found in the New Testament "fully formed" or not at all. That the doctrine could be found in its infancy in the New Testament is not discussed.
In the August 1, 1992 Watchtower magazine, the Society quotes with approval the challenge issued by the Unitarian Alvan Lamson in 1869:
*** w92 8/1 p. 21 Part 4—When and How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? ***
“We challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note, during the first three ages, who held this [Trinity] doctrine in the modern sense.”
The 19th century Unitarians demanded that the doctrine of the Trinity must be found in the New Testament in "the modern sense" or not at all. They had no concept of the rise and progress of doctrine. They demanded that the "modern sense" of the Trinity be found in the New Testament.
The Rise and Progress of Doctrine
Theology is the living language of the Church which is deepened and enriched as time goes on. The progressive revelation unfolded in Scripture necessitated a progression of doctrine in history. The people of God have always striven to deepen their understanding of what God has revealed.
This means that the post-biblical formulations of the Trinity must be viewed as part of a historical progression of a doctrine which was originally revealed in the New Testament. Nicea is the flower which bloomed from the bud which is found in the Bible.
As with any process, there is a beginning and then later developments. Thus, Nicea was not the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is one of the high points in its development. Nicea did not invent the Trinity for the first time, as some Unitarians have claimed. The idea that the Three are One was not something novel or new. Nicea was one of the great moments in Church history when the Church was forced to define, document, and defend her doctrines.
The Unitarians during the nineteenth century controversy made a very basic error in logic and historical exegesis. They assumed that the authors of the New Testament could not have believed in the Trinity because they did not use the same exact terms used at the Nicea and later Councils.
They assumed that if such words as "Trinity" did not appear in the New Testament, then the doctrine which those words expressed could not be present either. The Unitarian Chadwick states:
The doctrine of the Trinity was not developed until the Council of Nicea, 325.
Other Unitarians have claimed that the Trinity was not "invented" the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., or even later with the Athanasian Creed! They made the fatal logical error of confusing the origin of a doctrine with its later formulations.
Even today some anti-Trinitarians argue that the doctrine was invented when the word "Trinity" was first used! To demand that the New Testament writers use terminology not yet developed in their day is ludicrous. Trinitarians do not expect to find the final terminology or formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity within the pages of the New Testament. It is absurd to demand that the pre-Nicene apostles must use Nicene or post-Nicene terminology.
New terminology for the Trinity was developed and more precise definitions given as various heresies arose which challenged it. But the liberal forget one irrefutable fact. In order for the doctrine of the Trinity to be defined and defended against the heretics who were attacking it, it obviously had to already exist. After all, the early heretics were challenging something! They were clearly challenging doctrines that were already in existence. They were objecting to what the Church already believed.
The fact that the Church defended the Trinity by carefully defining it in such a way as to answer those heretics and that the Church developed new terminology as part of her defense, proves that she believed in the Trinity from the very beginning.
The Christian Church has always focused its attention on those doctrines which are under attack at that time. When the New Testament was being written, the apostles were busy answering the heresies of their day. The book of Galatians was written to answer the Judaizers who denied salvation by grace alone though faith alone in Christ alone. Colossians, 1 John and 2 John were written to answer the Gnostics who denied the humanity of Jesus Christ and the Incarnation. The authors of the New Testament responded to those who challenged the Gospel in their day.
As time went on, new heresies arose which required the Church to be more precise in its definitions. Even today the Church has to respond to the heresy of process theology by giving more precise definitions of the omni-attributes of God. But let it not be forgotten that, when the Christian Church is forced by heretics to be more precise in its understanding and definition of a particular doctrine, this does not mean that the doctrine was not part of her beliefs from the beginning.
When we turn to the New Testament to see whether the Trinity is present, we do not expect or demand that it be present in its final doctrinal form worked out by theologians at Nicea and Chalcedon in response to the heresies of their day.
The doctrine of the Trinity was not under attack while the New Testament was being written. The deity of the Messiah and the Spirit were not challenged. There was no need to defend the Trinity because it was not under attack. Thus, we do not expect to find them responding to the heresies which later plagued the Church.
The science of grammar was not invented until relatively modern times. While we can talk today about gender, number, participles, etc. such terminology was unknown in ancient times. For example, the authors of the New Testament never heard of the "rules" of Greek grammar. They never heard of a "participle" or the "aorist" tense.
Since they did not know the modern rules and terms of grammar, does this mean that the New Testament authors did not know that gender and number should correspond? Does this mean that they were ungrammatical in their use of the Greek language? Of course not. They may not have known the rules, but they knew the grammar.
In the same way, just because the authors of the New Testament did not know the "rules" of the Trinity which were developed centuries later, this does not mean that they did not believe in the grammar of the Trinity. It is everywhere assumed in the New Testament. It lies underneath the surface at all times and then breaks forth in passages of praise to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
What then do we expert in the New Testament? We expect to find the bud of the flower which bloomed at Nicea. We expect to find the authors indicating that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. We expect to find the multi-personal nature of God in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are viewed as constituting one God. And this is exactly what we found in the New Testament.
We also expect to find them describing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways which reveal that they assumed that the Three were One in nature. And lastly, we expect to find the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit described as working together as One to accomplish different goals.
The Unitarians cannot expect to find any of the above in the New Testament. If the authors of the New Testament believed that only the Father was God, as the Unitarians claim, then we should not expect to find the Son or the Spirit called "God." The Three should not be described os "one" in nature or in work.
Whose view was verified by the exegetical evidence? The Trinitarian view was verified in every way possible! In the New Testament, the Three are viewed and worshipped as God. They are not viewed as three gods, but one God. They are not one person, but three persons. THat the authors of the New Testament believed in the Trinity is not dependent on their use of such words as "Trinity" or "person." They may not have know of the "rules" of the Trinity, but they sure knew the grammar of it.
The doctrine of the Trinity has been traditionally discussed under two headings: the "ontological" Trinity and the "economical" Trinity. The word "ontological" is derived from two Greek words—the word ον "on" which means "being" and the word λόγος "logos" which means "the study of." It has also been called the "transcendent" Trinity.
When we refer to the "ontological" Trinity, we are speaking of the Trinity in terms of its essential being or essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are viewed as one in nature. They are co-eternal, co-equal, co-omni, co-glorious, etc. This is what God is from all eternity in and of Himself apart from any divine works.
The "economical" Trinity describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as functioning together as a team to accomplish some task such as Creation or Providence. Thus, when we speak of the "soteriological" Trinity, we are speaking of the Three functioning together as One in order to bring about the salvation (σωτήριος) of sinners. It has also been called the "immanent" Trinity.
When the Trinity is at work accomplishing something, the Three Persons divide up the roles and responsibilities. This is where subordination comes in. The Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father when they function together to bring about salvation. The Father is the Sender and the Son and the Spirit are the Ones Sent to do His will on earth.
Subordination, in the context of the economical Trinity, does not pose any difficulty whatsover for the Trinitarian. The Father is "greater" than the Son by virtue of His office of being the Sender and Jesus the Sent (John 14:28). That the Father is greater in rank does not logically imply that He is better in nature.
The Unitarians and the Arian cults never seem to understand this point. The question they ask Trinitarians often stem from their ignorance of the distinction between the ontological and economical Trinity. One frequent question is:
If Jesus is equal to the Father, then how can Jesus submit to the will of the Father? (Mat 26:39)
This question is an example of what in logic is called a categorical fallacy. The first part of the question has to do with the ontological Trinity while the second half has to do with the economical Trinity. To mix the two categories together is a logical fallacy. The question is thus nonsensical. It is paramount to asking, "If a circle is round, then why is a square not round?"
Anti-Trinitarians are also guilty of the fallacy called false dilemma. They assume that either the ontological Trinity or the economical Trinity is true. If one is true, then the other is false. Thus, they falsely assume that we face the dilemma of having to choose between the two. In logic, this is known as the fallacy of false dilemma.
The Trinitarian does not face any such dilemma. There is no logical contradiction between speaking of God in terms of what He is and what He does. As a matter of fact, what God does is determined by what He is. For example, the soteriological Trinity is simply the application of the ontological Trinity to the plan of salvation. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, the work of salvation is divided between them. This is not a surprise or a difficulty to the Trinitarian.
Ephesians 1:2-14 is a good example. It is a Trinitarian doxology in which the Father is praised for choosing us (Eph 1:3-6), the Son is praised for dying for us (Eph 1:7-12), and the Spirit is praised for sealing us (Eph 1:13-14). The three members of the Trinity are seen working together to accomplish salvation. The following chart may help to clarify these distinctions:
| Ontological | Economical |
|---|---|
| nature | work |
| being | doing |
| essence | function |
Christian theologians have always pointed out that the economical Trinity presupposes the ontological Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit function as one because they are One. Salvation is consistently described in the New Testament as the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because God is triune.
Liberal theologians, of course, have it backwards. They assume that because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit function as one, the early Church made the mistake of thinking that they were one in nature. Once again, the liberals are basing everything on the Wrede-Bousset thesis which has been discredited time after time.
The soteriological Trinity is the application of the ontological Trinity to the eternal divine plan of salvation. The ontological Trinity is also applied to Creation, Providence, and Resurrection as well as to salvation. Whatever God does, He does as a Trinity.
It is assumed by modern liberals that the first step in any discussion of the Trinity is to set up an "either/or" dichotomy based upon their commitment to the Wrede-Bousset thesis. They begin with the a priori assumption that the authors of the New Testament did not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one God. Instead, they assume that the Church later borrowed that idea from Greek philosophy or pagan religions. We, thus, arrive at exact opposite viewpoints:
| Christianity | Liberalism |
|---|---|
| The ontological Trinity was first. | The economical Trinity was first. |
| The economical Trinity was deduced from the ontological Trinity. | The ontological Trinity was deduced from the economical Trinity. |
| It is found in Scripture. | It is not found in Scripture. |
The ontological Trinity is everywhere assumed in the New Testament. It is the theological "Given." The truth that God is three persons is the basis upon which the New Testament writers could speak so freely of God working together as three Persons.
What must be in order for what is to be what it is? If the New Testament writers believed in the ontological Trinity, they would apply this doctrine to such issues as salvation. Thus, the soteriological Trinity is something we expect to find in the New Testament because it was deduced from their belief in the ontological Trinity.
Thankfully, most modern liberals now freely admit that the New Testament clearly speaks of the economical Trinity. The New Testament contains dozens of passages which picture the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working together as One. This is particularly true of the soteriological Trinity.
How can the soteriological Trinity be so easily discussed and frequently praised in the New Testament, unless the ontological Trinity was already assumed to be true? Does not being precede action? Does not what someone is logically precede what someone does.
The following chart documents some of the clearer references to the economical Trinity in the New Testament. We have spent a great deal of time on each passage and it is clear to us that anyone who reads these passages with an open mind will see the Three working as One for our salvation. Be it the virgin birth or prayer, the Trinity is seen as the One in Three who accomplished it:
| Passage | Father | Son | Holy Spirit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mat 3:13-17 | Mat 3:17 - "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." | Mat 3:16 - Jesus came up | Mat 3:16 - the Spirit of God descending as a dove |
| Luke 1:35 | The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God. | ||
| Acts 2:33 | Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear. | ||
| Rom 5:1-6 | Rom 5:5 - the love of God has been poured out | Rom 5:1 - we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ | Rom 5:5 - through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. |
| Rom 8:3-4 | Rom 8:3 - God did, sending His own Son | Rom 8:3 - God did, sending His own Son | Rom 8:4 - so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who ... walk ... according to the Spirit. |
| Rom 8:8-9 | Rom 8:8 - and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. | Rom 8:9 - ... But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. | Rom 8:9 - ... if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. |
| Rom 8:15-17 | Rom 8:15 - "Abba! Father!" | Rom 8:17 - and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. | Rom 8:16 - The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God |
| Rom 8:26-30 | Rom 8:28 - And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. | Rom 8:29 - For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, | Rom 8:26 - Now in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for [us] with groanings too deep for words |
| Rom 8:16-17 | Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, | Rom 8:17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ... | Rom 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, |
| Rom 8:29 | Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; | ||
| 1Co 2:2-5 | 1Co 2:5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. | 1Co 2:2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. | 1Co 2:4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, |
| 1Co 6:11 | 1Co 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. | ||
| 2Co 1:21-22 | 2Co 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, | 2Co 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, | 2Co 1:22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. |
| Gal 3:1-5 | Gal 3:5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? | Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? | Gal 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? |
| Gal 4:4-6 | Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, | Gal 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" | Gal 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" |
| Eph 1:3-14 | Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, | Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace | Eph 1:13-14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. |
| Eph 2:18 | Eph 2:18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. | ||
| Eph 2:19-22 | Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, | Eph 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, | Eph 2:22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. |
| Eph 3:16-19 | Eph3:16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, | Eph3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, | Eph3:16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, |
| Eph 4:5-6 | Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. | Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, | Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; |
| Eph 5:18-20 | Eph 5:20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; | Eph 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, | |
| Php 3:3 | Php 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, | ||
| 1Th 1:3-6 | 1Th 1:3 constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, | 1Th 1:6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit, | 1Th 1:5-6 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit, |
| Tit 3:5-7 | Tit 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, | Tit 3:6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, | Tit 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, |
| Heb 9:14 | Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? | ||
| Heb 10:29-30 | Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." | Heb 10:29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? | |
| 1Pe 1:2 | 1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. | ||
| 1Pe 3:18 | 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; | ||
| 1Pe 4:14 | 1 Peter 4:14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. | ||
| 1Jn 4:2 | 1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; | ||
That these passages describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit functioning together as the economical Trinity is now universally accepted by scholars. For this reason, we pass on to the issue of the ontological Trinity.
The ontological Trinity is the basis of Christianity's uniqueness in an ocean of world religions. It is so essential to biblical Christianity that the first step a new convert takes is to be baptized in the name of the Triune God:
Matthew 28:19-20 (NASB) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are invoked as three equal Persons. The Son manifests omnipresence and omniscience by promising to be with all believers at all times in all places throughout this age.
The ontological Trinity is so clear in this passage that some liberal have claimed that it cannot be a part of Matthew's original gospel. It has to be a later interpolation because according to Bousset the ontological Trinity is not a New Testament concept. Besides being circular reasoning, there is no manuscript evidence for such a claim.
From the very beginning of the Church, one's initiation into the Christian community began with an acknowledgment of the Trinity in the act of baptism. Smeaton is absolutely correct when he states:
The Christian Church, from the beginning, believed in the doctrine of the Trinity with unhesitating faith. It was not a conclusion formed gradually in the consciousness of the Christian community, partly by reflection, partly by Biblical inquiry. The Church found in the baptismal formula an emphatic allusion to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and simply accepted it as here doctrine of the Trinity. It was brought within the scope of every Christian mind, learned and unlearned, as the fundamental and the primary truth of which no Christian disciple could plead ignorance. The substance of the doctrine is, that God is one, and that the Persons are distinct; and after all the investigations that have confounded and fatigued the acutest understanding, we only return to the same simple formula of baptism, which is level to the capacity of the humblest.
In His pre-incarnate state, the Logos existed "face to face" with the Father (John 1:1). Thus, He was from all eternity God. Even the Incarnation did not lessen His deity. This is why Paul was so careful to say that Jesus remained deity, even when He came to earth and died for us (Phil. 2:6). That this was assumed to be true and part of the Church's beliefs is seen in the hymnody of the early church when they sang hymns to Christ as God. As we have already documented, some of these ancient hymns are either quoted, alluded to or paraphrased in the New Testament itself.
This is also seen by the equality shown between the Father and the Son in the salutations placed at the beginning of most Epistles:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Rom 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; 6:23; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:2; 1Ti 1:2; 2Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; Phm 1:3; 2Jn 1:3)
It is that little word "and" that makes this argument irrefutable. Grammatically, the authors are looking equally to the Father and the Son for grace, mercy, and peace. They could do this only if they assumed that the Father and Son were equal in nature.
It is now recognized that since these "salutations" can appear later on in an epistle (Eph 6:23) as well as at the beginning (Eph 1:2), they are indications of what the author is praying for and to Whom he addresses those prayers.
The apostles prayed to the Father and to the Son that They might grant the saints grace, mercy, and peace. The apostles looked up to heaven to both of them equally. The ontological relationship between the Father and the Son is clearly the assumption which underlies their prayers to them. The deity of the Son is seen from the fact that He has to be omniscient to hear their prayers and eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent to answer them.
The objection that the Father and the Son are only functioning as equals in all these passages misses the point. They can function as equals only because they are equal. The apostles assumed that the Father and the Son were ontologically one nature and equality. Thus, they could function as one.
Paul also states in his introduction to the Thessalonian church that the Church was in spiritual union with the Father and the Son equally:
1 Thessalonians 1:1 (NASB) Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.
The Greek is quite clear. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. According to the Greek text, is the in union with the Father? Yes. Is it also in union with the Son? Yes. Are they seen here as equals? Yes. Does this also require that the Lord Jesus Christ be God? Yes. He has to be eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent in order for all churches everywhere at all times in every generation to be in spiritual union with Him at the same time.
The ontological relationship between the Father and Son is clearly stated in John 10:30:
"I and the Father are one."
ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
Greek grammarians point out that the Greek word ἕν "one" is not the word we would expect to find. Since two masculine persons are in view, we would expect to find the masculine ἑις. This would mean that Jesus and the Father are one person. But the word ἕν is neuter and in this passage means that Jesus was saying, "I and the Father are one and the same thing, i.e., nature."
If all Jesus meant by these words was that he and the Father were working together, no one would have objected. But those who standing there and listening to Jesus came to the conclusion that He was claiming to be God by nature (John 10:33). As they prepared to stone Him for blasphemy, Jesus could have denied it and told them that He did not mean that He was God. But He did not do this. Instead, He referred them to an Old Testament passage where the judges were called "God."
This passage has proven itself down through the centuries as an effective antidote to Arianism on the left and Modalism on the right. Hendriksen explains:
Note how carefully both the diversity of the persons and the unity of the essence is expressed here. Jesus says, "I and the Father." Hence, he clearly speaks about two persons. And this plurality is shown also by the verb (one word in Greek) "we are" (ἐσμεν). These two persons never become one person. Hence, Jesus does not say, "We are one person" (ἑις), but he says, "We are one substance" (ἕν). Though two persons, the two are one substance or essence. It has well been said that ἕν frees us from the Charybdid of Arianism (which denies the unity of essence), and ἐσμεν from the Scylla of Sabellianism (which denies the diversity of the persons).
The unity of the Three is seen from 2 Corinthians 13:14:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
Paul's prayer indicates that he was praying equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That the ontological Trinity is in view is clear from the grammatical equality of the Persons and the attributes necessary for Them to give all believers everywhere at all times and places grace, love, and fellowship. The Son and the Spirit have to be God as much as the Father in order for this benediction to work.
This text is a good example of how the authors of the New Testament wrote down material which could be later used to answer the Arians and the Modalists. While Paul never heard of either Arius or Sabellius, yet through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote down material which in principle refuted both heresies.
Second Corinthians 13:14 is a good example of this. As we have already seen, it clearly establishes that the Three are One in nature. This has been correctly used against the Arians. But, at the same time, it also clearly establishes that the One is Three in Persons. This refutes the Modalists. The Greek text is as follows:
Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.
The Granville Sharp rule once again applies. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have the definite article τοῦ before their name and they are separated by the word καὶ. This means that three separate Persons are in view.
There are other passages where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are grammatically treated as Three Persons, not as one person:
Mat 28:19 — τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,
the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit2 Thess 3:5 — Ὁ κύριος τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ
the Lord, God [the Father], the Christ1 Cor 12:4-6 — τὸ πνεῦμα, ὁ κύριος, ὁ θεὸς
the Spirit, the Lord, God [the Father]
In each of the passages above, the rules of Greek grammar are operating even though they were not formulated until centuries later.
The use of different prepositions also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different persons:
Ephesians 2:18 (NASB) for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.
ὅτι δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.
The apostle states that through Jesus Christ we gain access by the Holy Spirit to the Father. The three prepositions used (δι᾿, ἐν, πρὸς) require three different persons. We already saw this with the preposition "with" (μετὰ) used in 1 John 1:3 to distinguish between fellowship with believers, the Father, and the Son.
The same can be seen in 2 John 1:3 where the prepositions indicate more than one person is in view.
Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
The authors of the New Testament believed that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They appealed to Them in prayer and worshipped Them. God is Three in One and One in Three at the same time.