the trinity-not a logical contradiction
TRANSCRIPT
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.
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 2/14
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.
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 3/14
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).
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 4/14
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
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 5/14
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).
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 6/14
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.
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 7/14
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
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 8/14
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.
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 9/14
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).
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 10/14
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
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 11/14
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).
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 12/14
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
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 13/14
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).
8/4/2019 The Trinity-Not a Logical Contradiction
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-trinity-not-a-logical-contradiction 14/14
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).