Coherent Trinitarianism - Part 1

Christ Covenant Church

“Come now, let us reason (think coherently) together says the Lord” – Isa 1:18

Coherent (def.): clear, consistent, logical and reasonable (equitable/just). Coherent things are intelligible, they make sense. Coherency is therefore a prerequisite to the identification of something as truth.

The doctrine of the Trinity believed by most of Christendom since the first and second councils of Nicaea (325 and 381 A.D.) – i.e., Nicene Trinitarianism,[1] denies that the three fully divine and distinct Persons that make up the Godhead (or Divine Family) are also three separate or distinct Beings. Though three in Person, those three exist as one being.[2] This study will demonstrate why this monotheistic view of the Trinity is incoherent and false while establishing the view presented in Scripture – otherwise known as Coherent Trinitarianism.

Why this study should matter to you as a Christian:

1) We are called to defend all of the doctrine handed down by Jesus and the apostles (Jud 1:3 “the Faith” = All doctrine - not simply those teachings related to “salvation” – especially since one of the main things Jesus did during His earthly ministry was challenge people’s ontological view of God).

2) Our obedience demands that we possess correct (or coherent) thinking about God (Deu 29:29 = Properly observing or obeying God’s Law requires we teach and defend what has been revealed about Him [literally, what has been made clear/coherent]; 1Co 15:34).

3) Our confidence and perseverance in what we believe depends on coherency (e.g., Mat 16:1-4, 22:41-46) = Jesus came to restore the coherency of God’s revelation/religion lost by the Judaism of His day. The lack of coherency provided by Israel’s shepherds were causing distress and doubt in the covenant community (Mat 9:36) = One of the most important jobs of the God’s shepherd is to create stability in his flock through the removal of confusion and the restoring of coherency (Jer 3:15 “understanding” = Coherency).

4) Our defense and promotion of Christianity depends on coherency.

“A Christian might say that the Trinity is an utter mystery and cannot be logically explained yet insist that if a defining doctrine of another worldview is ‘an utter mystery logically,’ then that worldview must be rejected. But this will not do. If we allow opaque mysteries in our own worldview, we have to allow them everywhere. Or if we demand logical consistency in other worldviews, we must demand it of our own. That is, the criteria for rational evaluation must be objective. Special pleading should be apologetically out of bounds…If Christians desire to demonstrate the truth and rationality of Christianity to those who hold other worldviews, they must apply objective criteria to the contending worldviews. If none are given, there is no apologetic, but only preaching.” – Douglas Groothuis (Christian Apologetics)[3].

5) Nicene Trinitarianism’s best apologists admit (by commission or omission) the incoherency of their belief.

“All of this leaves us wondering…how three persons could be parts of the same Being - rather than three separate Beings? Since the divine persons are, prior to the incarnation, three unembodied Minds, in virtue of what are they one Being - rather than three individual Beings?” – William Lane Craig[4] (“A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity”)

My email exchange with Doug Groothuis from 8/31/24 – 9/2/24

(Me) Dr Groothuis: I am thankful for your words (in Christian Apologetics) but was wondering if (in light of such statements) you could provide me with a coherent explanation for the Trinity (three persons who are one person). Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this. I have yet to find an explanation that doesn’t end in some form of modalism. (8/31)

(DG) Scott: Read the Athanasian Creed on this and a good systematic theology, such as Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, or John Frame, Systematic Theology, or Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology. Also consult The Westminster Confession. Davis is good on philosophical theology. Godspeed for truth and goodness and beauty, Doug (8/31)

(Me) Dr Groothuis: Thank you for your reply. Your sources seem to support what you condemn: “no logical explanation…only preaching”. For example in the Athanasian Creed it says: Now this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one…Thus the Father is God,

the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God… Just as Christian truth compels us

to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.”

Am I missing something? Nowhere does it explain how believing that three persons can equal one is coherent. Diligently seeking to understand. (8/31)

(Me) Hi Dr Groothuis, I found something in a Ligonier (RC Sproul) video that was different from what I have heard. He explained the issue of singular (God as one) as essence or being but not person (three persons, one essence or being). This again however seems like wordplay - unless what is meant by essence or being is nature (e.g., divine versus human) but then we are left with three gods (persons) who are all fully divine (in essence/nature/being) and once more not a trinity (as you understand it). To me, at least, it seems no different than saying you and I are both human (we share the same essence) but are separate persons- no singularity to speak of. The trinity: one true God who exists as three persons is essentially tritheism [which means the Bible does not teach a monotheistic religion]. If my questions/our conversation would be better served by meeting, I am willing to pay a speaking fee. There is a group of us that would appreciate your counsel. (9/2)

(DG) I suggest you read Stephen T Davis on this, as I mentioned. (9/2)

(Me) I bought the book as you suggested and read the chapter on the Trinity. Here was the extent of his explanation: “Scripture affirms that there is one and only one God; Christianity is, after all, a monotheistic religion…We won’t be going into details as to this last claim.”

(Me) Could I pay you to meet with us to discuss this further? (9/2)

(DG) This is not the extent of Davis's explanation. He gives several models and engages the strengths and weaknesses of each. You simply give the statement of the doctrine. Philosophical theology attempts to explain and defend.

(DG) Does this help you any? I know you need more than this. (9/2)

(Me) I have read (and own) most of the systematics you mentioned as well as others - including Grudem’s with the diagram you included. They do nothing more than describe what trinitarian doctrine teaches (there is father, son and Holy Spirit, all equally divine and separate persons yet one singular God versus three gods). What I am looking for is a coherent explanation for how this can be (there distinct persons, three distinct consciouses yet one being)? As I mentioned I am not a modalist. Yet if the Bible is truth, then how can one of its most important doctrines be incoherent (e.g., 2+2 = 5)? I would be more inclined to “force the square peg into the round hole” if Scripture warranted it but such seems not to be the case. The mention of “one” in the Shema is (based on the context) dealing with exclusivity (one and only true God) versus singularity (one single being who is God; Deu 6:4; cf., Mar 12:29). The same can be said about James 2:19 or other passages. I found none requiring the “singularity (yet plurality)” incoherent view presented by the post-Nicene Church. It seems this was the problem with the Jews as well when Jesus claimed Himself to be an another deity alongside the Father (a violation of their Second Temple invention of monotheism). Not only that but He also claimed to have life in himself (John 10) a statement that doesn’t square very well with the idea of one Being or essence. Once more, thanks for taking the time. I do appreciate it and would love to talk in person if possible. I know you are a busy man. (9/2)

Dr. Groothuis has yet to reply…or share his own explanation/defense of the Nicene Trinity as coherent.

1. The Bible teaches Coherent Trinitarianism.

1.1. DEFINTION: the one true God of heaven and earth exists as a Godhead (or Divine Family) of not only three fully divine and distinct Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) but also three separate or distinct Beings, each possessing their own cognitive faculties, unique personality and role within the Godhead.

1.2. The fact that the Bible uses plural language at times when speaking of God, demands that we think of Him as a plurality or as three distinct Beings (e.g., Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22; Gen 11:7; Gen 19:24; Isa 6:8; Mat 26:63-65 w/Dan 7:13[5]).

1.3. When the Bible uses singular language to speak of God, it most often – if not always, refers to a specific member of the Godhead

1.3.1. The Father (Eph 4:6; 1Co 15:34 w/vv20-33)

1.3.2. The HS (Act 5:4 w/v3)

1.3.3. The Son/Jesus (2Pe 1:1; Isa 45:5a) “I am the LORD [Heb., Yhwh[6]] and there is no other; Besides Me (Yhwh), there is no God (Elohim)” = IOW: In these ancient times, there is no other member of the Godhead that human beings may personally know (Isa 45:4b and 5b – Notice the reference to knowing) as the Uncreated Creator, Sustainor, Savior and Sovereign over all things (Isa 40:4, 40:28, 43:10-13, 44:8, 44:24, 45:7, 12, 18-23). We can be sure that Jesus is indeed the Yhwh speaking in Isaiah given:

1) John’s confirmation that the Yhwh Who commissioned Isaiah to be His mouthpiece/to speak on His behalf (in the first person, “I…”), was Jesus (Isa 6:5 [“LORD” = Yhwh] w/Joh 12:41).

2) He is the specific Person of God (Elohim) in the Godhead/Trinity most directly involved in the affairs of the Patriarchs (“Jacob”), OT Israel (Isa 45:3-4) and the world (i.e., He is the Chief Operating Officer of the Trinity[7] – Hence Gen 18:1-22 w/19:24 [Joh 8:56]; Exo 23:20-22 w/Jug 2:1 [Jud 1:5]; Jos 5:13-15 w/Exo 3:1-5, 14 [Joh 8:58-59]; Consider also Heb 3:4-6 [w/Isa 6:1][8]).

1.4. As additional food for thought consider:

1) Though the OT saints knew of God the Father (Deu 32:6; Isa 9:6[9], 63:16, 64:8[10]; Joh 8:41), their personal experiences were more with Jesus. He was the Yhwh they were interacting with most of the time. It wasn’t until the teaching and propitiatory ministry of Jesus’ incarnation, that the OT saints gained personal knowledge and relationship with the Father (Joh 1:18; Joh 8:19, 14:6-9, 16:26-27; Mat 11:25-27; Heb 10:19-22).[11]

2) The enlightenment, education and access provided by Jesus w/respect to the three distinct Yhwhs of Elohim may be reason entrance in the covenant community changed from vows to the Elohim of the three patriarchs (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) to the three Yhwhs themselves (Father, Son, Holy Spirit – Mat 28:18-20).

[1] Though evidence exists of trinitarian language before Nicaea, (e.g., Tertullian), the formation of Nicene Trinitarian doctrine (three persons, one being) is a later development. “No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of believing that the one God is tripersonal.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The clearest statement w/regard to NT would not happen until the 4th century, through the writings of the Cappadocian Father, Gregory Nazianzus, “The Godhead is one in three, and the three are one.”

[2] “The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence or being.” – The Southern Baptist Faith And Message (Section II). Though the “three in one” idea was present – at least in germinal form, at Nicaea’s first council, it wasn’t until her second council that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were officially affirmed as consisting of the same singular ousia (essence or being).

[3] Dr. Douglas Groothuis is a Christian apologist and author who teaches philosophy at Denver Seminary.

[4] Dr. William Lane Craig is likewise a Christian apologist and author, who teaches philosophy at Houston Christian University and Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.

[5] In brief, Daniel seven’s “Son of Man” should be viewed as referring to another Divine Being for the following reasons: 1) in the Bible, only God is viewed as coming on the clouds, 2) in the Bible, only God is worthy of global worship, 3) in the Bible, only God receives a kingdom with global and everlasting dominion, 4) the close similarities between Daniel’s Son of Man and the divine figure of Ezekiel one, 5) the close similarities between Daniel’s Son of Man and the Divine King of Psalm 89 and 110. 6) its appropriation of Babylonian/Ugaritic mythology which identifies the “rider on the clouds” as co-deity with the “father of years” (Ancient of Days) (e.g., Ezekiel one and ten’s appropriation of the Babylonian zodiac [oxen/cherub, eagle, human and lion]). For further study see Markus Zehnder, “Why the Danielic ‘Son of Man’ Is a Divine Being.”; It’s important to note that ancient Jews saw Daniel 7:13 as teaching what became known as the “two powers in heaven” or the co-deity of God, One of whom also shared in flesh and blood (a Son of Man deity). By the time of Jesus however, the Jews had rejected this view as heretical, embracing the novel idea of monotheism for reasons later to be discussed. For further study on the doctrine of the two powers of heaven see Alan Segal, The Two Powers of Heaven.

[6] Otherwise known as the tetragrammaton, Yhwh is God’s official name and what distinguishes Him from (false) deities of the pagan nations (e.g., Molech, Marduk, Bel, Baal, Dagon, Artemis).

[7] A COO is a senior executive who manages the day-to-day operations of a company (insert Creation) as second in command to the CEO (think God the Father) to whom they directly report (Joh 5:19).

[8] It only makes sense that Jesus would be the Yhwh (i.e., member of the Godhead/Trinity) Who would become human (incarnate) given He was (and continues to be) the One most directly engaged and involved in the affairs of humanity – most especially those of His covenant people.

[9] Though this passage is a reference to Jesus, the fully divine Son of God, like Isaiah 7:14 (“Immanuel”) the name given to the child in this prophecy is in reference to His Father not Himself – a common practice in ancient times (e.g., OT kings) and important to His identity as Messiah (the son of David who received the promise of God the Father’s eternal fathership – Psa 89:26-28; 2Sa 7:14). For further study see John Goldingay, “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6)”

[10] Given what was said earlier about Isaiah being Jesus’ mouthpiece, it is important to note the distinction in message between those words pertaining to Jesus and those pertaining to the Father. As should be expected, when in relation to Jesus, Isaiah’s words are spoken in the first person – giving the impression that Jesus is speaking directly through Isaiah (e.g., Isa 41:4 “I, the LORD,, am the first, and with the last, I am He”) whereas wen in relation to the Father, Isaiah’s words are statements about the Father not from the Father (e.g., Isa 64:8 “But now, O LORD, You are our Father”). Unlike the case with Jesus, Isaiah is not speaking as the Father’s mouthpiece.

[11] The same could be argued for the Holy Spirit (Joh 3:1-10).