Considering that people want a fundamental and in-depth presentation of the biblical and Christian doctrine of the Trinity, I decided to use material from the book “Christian Theology” by Millard Erickson, chapter 15 “The Trinity of God: The Trinity”. I think this will be useful to everyone reading this article.

Quote

Chapter 15. Trinity of God: Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is a concept unique to Christianity. Among all the world's religions, only Christianity proclaims that God is one and at the same time consists of three Persons, each of whom is a Divinity. Thus, it puts forward a statement that, upon superficial examination, seems internally contradictory. Moreover, this doctrine is not clearly and openly stated in Scripture. Nevertheless, sincerely believing minds came to him on the basis of the testimony of Scripture.

The doctrine of the Trinity is of great importance for Christianity. It deals with the question of who God is, what He is like, what He does, and how one can approach Him. In addition, closely related to the understanding of the Trinity is the question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which has caused considerable friction throughout history. The position taken on the Trinity has a profound impact on Christology.

This position also determines the answers to many practical questions. Who should we worship - only the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit or the triune God? Who should we pray to? Should the works of each Person of the Trinity be considered as independent, or should the atoning death of Jesus be considered the work of the Father as well? Should the Son be considered essentially equal to the Father or should He be given a lesser position?

In articulating our position on the Trinity, we are putting our theological method to the test. There is no clear teaching about the Trinity in Scripture, so we will be forced to develop related topics and draw certain conclusions from other biblical teachings and find specific conceptual means to express their understanding of the issue. In addition, given the long and complex history of the development of this doctrine, we have to evaluate the theories of the past in the context of that time and that cultural environment, and only then formulate our concept in relation to the conditions of our time. Thus, elaborating the question of the Trinity is an exercise in systematic theology, requiring the use of all the skills we discussed in the early chapters.

We begin our study of the Trinity by looking at the biblical foundations. This is the foundation of everything else. It is very important to highlight the evidence of Scripture as a result of which the church formulated and proclaimed this amazing doctrine. We will then examine the various historical formulations of the doctrine, noting their distinctive features, advantages and disadvantages. Then we will give our own modern formulation, presenting and explaining its fundamental provisions in such a way as to give it a meaning appropriate to today's times.

Recorded by

Quote

A. Biblical teaching

Let's start with the biblical evidence related to the doctrine of the Trinity. There are three separate but interrelated types of evidence of the unity of God (there is only one God), evidence of three persons of God, and finally indications or at least hints of the trinity.

1. Unity of God

The faith of the ancient Jews was strictly monotheistic, as it remains for the Jews to this day. The Oneness of God was revealed to Israel at different times and different ways. The Ten Commandments, for example, begin with the words: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2-3). The Hebrew expression translated here “before My face” is “al panai.” Although it is sometimes translated “before Me,” it still literally means “before My face.” God demonstrated His unique reality by works, so Israel should to worship, serve and obey Him exclusively.There was no one else who could so convincingly support his claim to Divinity.

The prohibition of idolatry in the second commandment (Ex. 20:4) is also based on the uniqueness of Jehovah. He does not tolerate any worship of Objects made by human hands, for God is He alone. He is the only one who belongs to the unique category of true Deity. The rejection of polytheism runs throughout the Old Testament. God repeatedly demonstrates His superiority over other contenders for Divinity. Of course, it can be argued that this should not necessarily be taken as conclusive evidence of the strict requirement of monotheism in the Old Testament. Perhaps it simply means that other gods (gods of other nations) are rejected in the Old Testament, but that the Israelites may have more than just one true God. In response to this objection, it is enough to recall the completely unequivocal statements in the Old Testament that there is only one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (for example, Exodus 3:13-15).

A clearer indication of God's exclusiveness is the Shema in Deut. 6. The Israelites were commanded to learn these great truths themselves and pass them on to their children. People were to meditate on the truths. These words will be ... in your heart, "Deut. 6:6). They were to speak about them - at home and on the road, when they lay down and when they rose up (Deut. 6:7). They were to "Were to use visual reminders of them - wearing bandages on the arms and over the eyes, writing them on the doorposts of houses and on the gates. What are these great truths to which such importance was attached? The first of them is a statement or statement, the second is a commandment or commandment." Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4). There are various translations of this Hebrew text, and they all emphasize the uniqueness, the incomparability of Jehovah's divinity. The second great truth that God wanted to teach Israel is the commandment , based on His uniqueness: “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength” (Deut. 6:5). He is one, so Israel’s faithfulness must be undivided. After the Shema (Deut. Deut. 6:13). A negative command is also given: “Do not follow other gods, the gods of the nations that are around you” (Deut. 6:14). God is one, which excludes the possibility of recognizing the reality of the gods of the surrounding nations and makes them unworthy of worship and service to them (cf. Ex. 15:11; Zech. 14:9).

The doctrine of the unity of God is not limited to the Old Testament. In James 2:19 glorifies faith in one God, although it notes its insufficiency for justification. Paul also emphasizes the uniqueness of God. When discussing the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols, the apostle writes: “We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that ... we have one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we are to Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we are for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" ​​(1 Cor. 8:4, 6). Paul, like Moses in the law, excludes idolatry on the grounds that there is only one God. Paul writes the same thing to Timothy: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5-6). At first glance, these verses seem to separate Jesus from the only God, the Father, but the main idea of ​​the first passage is that only God is the true God (idols are nothing), and the second is that there is only one God and only one mediator between God and people.

2. Three-Person Deity

All this evidence in itself must inevitably lead to a clearly monotheistic view. What then prompted the church to go beyond it? The reason was other biblical evidence showing three faces of God. The divinity of the first of them, the Father, is beyond doubt. In addition to the passages already cited from the letters of Paul (1 Cor. 8:4, 6; 1 Tim. 2:5-6), we can note the cases where Jesus calls the Father God. In Matt. 6:26 He says that “your Father in heaven feeds them [the birds of the air].” Following this, He says that “God clothes the grass of the field” (Matthew 6:30). And in Matt. 6:31-32 He states that we do not need to worry about food and clothing because “your Father in heaven knows that you need all these things.” It is clear that for Jesus God and “your Father in heaven” are interchangeable concepts. And in many other references to God, Jesus clearly means the Father (for example, Matt. 19:23-26; 27:46; Mark 12:17, 24-27).

Jesus' divine position is somewhat more problematic, but He is also represented as God in Scripture. (The topic of the Divinity of Jesus will be discussed in the section on Christology [chapter 32], so we will not go into detail here.) The most significant reference to the Divinity of Jesus is found in Phil. 2. Phil. 2:5-11 sounds like a hymn to the early church, and in it Paul calls his readers to humility. He writes that Jesus, “being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2:6). The word translated "image" here is . This term is both classical and biblical. Greek means “the essence of a thing or phenomenon.” It implies their true nature. The word  should not be confused with , also translated as an image, but in the sense general view and external appearance, not essence.

In Phil. 2:6 Paul, if considered an Orthodox Jew raised in rabbinic teachings, makes a truly astonishing statement. Expressing the faith of the early church, it calls for a deep and complete acceptance of the divinity of Christ. This acceptance is expressed in the use not only of the word , but also in the words “equal [] to God.” The meaning of this verse is usually taken to mean that although Jesus was equal with God, He did not try to hold on to that position. If the view is expressed that Jesus is not equal with God, then this verse shows that He did not seek equality with God. Based on this interpretation,  (“theft”) does not mean that He had “unstolen,” “natural” power, but that He did not claim it. But this is clearly not the case, for in Phil. 2:7 says that He “made Himself of no reputation” (). Paul does not specify how Jesus humbled Himself, but it is clear that it was an active, conscious self-denial, and not a passive avoidance of a decision. Consequently, He was equal to God before. And only God can be equal to God470.

Another important passage is Heb. 1. The author, whose identity is unknown to us, addresses a group of Jewish Christians. He (or she) makes several categorical statements about the full Deity of the Son. In the opening verses the author (whom we will designate by the masculine pronoun) states that the Son is superior to the angels, and writes that God speaks through the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he created the universe (Heb. 1:2). He then describes the Son as "the radiance [ ] of God's glory" and "the image of His hypostasis" ( ). One could perhaps view this as a statement of God's self-revelation through the Son rather than the Son's divinity, but the context suggests otherwise. Not only are the words of God in which He declares Himself to be the Father of Him whom He calls the Son (Heb. 1:5), but also His words in which He addresses the Son as “God” (Heb. 1: 8 - quotation from Ps. 44:7) and as to “the Lord” (Heb. 1:10 - quotation from Ps. 101:26). In conclusion, the author notes that God said to the Son: “Sit at My right hand” (from Ps. 109:1). It is significant that the author of the letter addresses Jewish Christians, who are unconditionally committed to monotheism, in order to irrefutably demonstrate to them the Divinity of Jesus and His equality with the Father.

The final consideration is Jesus' self-awareness. It should be noted that Jesus never directly declared His divinity. He never said, "I am God." Nevertheless, there are certain indications that He understood Himself in this way. He claimed to own something that could only belong to God. He spoke about the angels of God (Luke 12:8-9; 15:10) as if they were His own (Matthew 13:41). He considered the kingdom of God (Matt. 12:28; 19:14, 24; 21:31, 43) and God's elect (Mark 13:20) to be His own. In addition, He claimed to forgive sins (Mark 2:8-10). According to the Jews, only God can forgive sins, so they accused Jesus of blasphemy (). He also claimed to have the power to judge the world (Matt. 25:31) and to reign over it (Matt. 24:30; Mark 14:62).

In this regard, it is also worth noting how Jesus responded to accusations of appropriation of Divinity and to manifestations of sincere recognition of it. At His trial He was charged with calling Himself the Son of God (John 19:7; Matt. 26:63-65). If Jesus had not considered Himself God, He would have had a great opportunity here to dispel misconceptions. But He didn't do it. In fact, the trial before Caiaphas was the closest He came to proclaiming His Divinity. To the question: “Tell us, are You the Christ, the Son of God?” - He answered: “You said; even I say to you: from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Either He wanted to be executed on false charges, or He recognized Himself as the Son of God. In addition, when Thomas turned to Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28), Jesus did not refute his words.

There are biblical references to the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. In this regard, we can note the passages in which the Holy Spirit is identified with God. One example is Acts. 5:3-4. Ananias and Sapphira withheld part of the proceeds from the sale of their estate, and presented the money laid at the feet of the apostles as the full proceeds. In this case, lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3) is equivalent to deceiving God (Acts 5:4). In addition, descriptions of the Holy Spirit show characteristics and deeds related to God. The Holy Spirit convicts the world about sin, about righteousness and about judgment (John 16:8-11). He restores or gives new life (John 3: In 1 Cor. 12:4-11 we read that the Spirit gives gifts to the church, distributing to everyone as He pleases. He also receives the honor and glory reserved for God.

In 1 Cor. 3:16-17 Paul reminds believers that they are God's temple and that the Spirit lives in them. In chapter 6, he writes that their bodies are the temple of the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19-20). God and the Holy Spirit appear to be interchangeable terms. There are also passages that place the Holy Spirit on an equal footing with God. One of them is the instruction on baptism in Matt. 28:19, another is Paul's blessing in 2 Cor. 13:13. Finally, Peter in 1 Pet. 1:2 addresses the readers as “those chosen before the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ.”

Recorded by

Quote

3. Trinity

Upon superficial examination, these two concepts - the unity and trinity of God - appear to contradict each other. In the early days, the church did not have much opportunity to study the relationship between the two data sets that pertained to them. The process of self-organization and spread of faith, as well as the struggle for survival in a hostile environment, prevented serious dogmatic research. When the position of the church became stronger, it began to compare and combine both types of materials. As a result, she came to the conclusion that God should be understood in trinity, or as the Trinity. This raises the question of whether this teaching is stated in the Bible, whether it follows directly from Scripture, or whether it is simply derived from other teachings of the Bible.

The text commonly cited to support the doctrine of the Trinity is 1 John. 5:7, in the traditional translation it sounds like this; “For three bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” Here we seem to see a clear and definite statement of the trinity. Unfortunately, the linguistic basis for this conclusion is so weak that some modern translations (such as the NIV) include these words only as a footnote, while others (such as the RSV) omit them altogether. Therefore, if there is a biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere.

An indication of the trinity is also considered to be the plural form of the noun that denotes the God of Israel - ("elohim"). This word has a broad meaning, it was used in relation to other gods. When talking about the God of Israel, it usually, but not always, stands in the plural. It is therefore argued that this is an allusion to the plurality of God. But the plural form is also interpreted as indicating greatness and power, rather than the plurality of God's nature. Theodor Wriesen believes that the plural form aims to elevate the referent to a position of supreme representative of a certain category, and on this basis rejects the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity is inherent in Genesis 1: 26471. Walter Eichrodt believes that the plural greatness ("elohim) the author of Genesis uses to protect his cosmogony from all kinds of polytheism and at the same time time to defend the idea of ​​God the Creator as the absolute ruler and the only being with any weight472.

But not all modern Old Testament scholars are of the opinion that the plural "elohim should be interpreted as an expression of greatness. Nantes, for example, objected to such an understanding in his monograph "A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity." He argued that the understanding of the plural " elohim in the sense of greatness means reading the ancient Hebrew text from the point of view of modern thinking, for all the kings of Israel and Judah in the biblical texts were called nothing less than singular 473. Rejecting the idea of ​​multiple greatness, Knight at the same time notes that in Hebrew There are features that can help us understand the essence of this term. Words for water and sky (among others) are plural. In grammar, its phenomenon is called the cardinal plural. Water can be thought of as many falling drops or as a mass of water in the Ocean (ocean water). Knight argues that it is this quantitative difference that explains the plural "elohim." He also believes that the same explains the plural spelling of the singular noun ("adonai").

There are also other plural forms. In Gen. 1:26 God says, “Let us make man in our image.” Here both the verb “let us create” and the pronoun “To ours” are in the plural. In Gen. 11:7 again uses the plural form of the verb: “Let us go down and confound their language there.” During his calling, Isaiah heard the words of the Lord: “Whom shall I send? and who will go for Us?” (Isa. 6: It is objected that all these are cases of plural with the meaning of greatness. But from the point of view of logical analysis, the transition from singular to plural in the first and third of the examples given is indicative. Gen. 1:26 sounds like this; " And God said [singular]: Let us make [plural] man in our image [plural]. " The verb referring to "elohim, the author does not use the plural (greatness), but God's words about Himself are given in the plural Same thing in Isaiah 6:8: “Whom shall I send (singular)? and who will go for Us [plural]?”

An indication of the Trinity is also seen in the doctrine of God's image in man. In Gen. 1:27 we read:

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them.

Some researchers see repetition of the same thought not only in the first two lines, but also in all three. That is, the words “male and female he created them” are equivalent to the words “God created man in his own image” and “in the image of God he created him.” Based on this, the image of God in man (a generic concept) is seen in the fact that man is created as a man and a woman (that is, as a plural person)475. This means the plural character of the image of God, inherent in both the prototype and the creation. According to Gen. 2:24, man and woman must become one - “echad), which implies the union of two independent beings. It is significant that in the Shema the same word refers to God: “The Lord our God is one” (Deut. 6:4 Here it seems that a very definite statement is being made about the nature of God - He is an organism, that is, a combination of various parts.

In Scripture, three persons are repeatedly linked together into a single, equal whole. One example is the instruction on baptism in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20): one must baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Please note that “name” is used in the singular, although we are talking about three persons. Please also note that there is no hint of any subordination or subordination. This formula became part of the earliest tradition of the church - we see it in the Didache (7.1-4) and in Justin's Apology (1.61).

Another direct connection of the three names is found in Paul's blessing (2 Cor. 13:13): "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God (the Father), and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Here again we see the combination of three names into a single equal whole.

In the Gospels and Epistles there are also less direct and obvious cases of the unification of the three Persons. The angel tells Mary that Her child will be called the Holy One, the Son of God, because the Holy Spirit will come upon Her (Luke 1:35). At the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16-17), all three Persons of the Trinity are present. The Son is baptized, the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, the Father speaks words of praise about the Son. Jesus attributes His miracles to the power of the Spirit of God and says that they are evidence of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt. 12:28). The same triplicity can be seen in Jesus' statement that He would send the promise of the Father to the disciples (Luke 24:49). The Three Persons are also linked in Peter’s sermon on Pentecost: “Therefore He, having been exalted by the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, poured out what you now see and hear... repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:33, 38).

In 1 Cor. 12:4-6 Paul speaks of the special gifts that believers receive in the body of Christ: “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; and diversities of activities, but the same God. producing all things in all." In a soteriological context, he says: “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: “Abba, Father!” (Gal. 4:6). He writes about his own ministry as given by God. “grace to be a minister of Jesus Christ among the Gentiles and to perform the sacred act of the gospel of God, so that this offering of the Gentiles, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, might be acceptable to God" (Rom. 15:16). Paul connects different aspects of the process of salvation with different Persons of the Trinity: “He who affirms you and me in Christ, and the one who anointed us is God, who has sealed us and given the deposit of the Spirit into our hearts" (2 Cor. 1:21-22). Paul addresses the Thessalonians as "brethren beloved by the Lord" and writes that he always gives thanks for them, because “God has chosen you from the beginning through sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13) We may also mention the blessing in 2 Corinthians 13:13 and Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3: 14-19.

It is clear that Paul saw a close relationship between the three Persons. The same applies to other authors of messages. At the beginning of his first letter, Peter addresses his readers as “those chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:1-2). Jude exhorts his readers: “Building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, awaiting mercy from our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life” (Jude 20-21).

A less obvious indication of Paul's Trinitarian views is the very structure of some of his letters. Faith in the Trinity is evidenced not only by their content, but also by their form. This question has been explored in some detail by Arthur Wainwright476. He breaks the first eight chapters of Romans into the following parts:

God's judgment is upon all (Rom. 1:18 - 3:20).

Justification through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21 - 8:1).

Life in the Spirit (Rom. 8:2-30).

Part of the Epistle to the Galatians is divided according to the same scheme:

Justification through faith in Christ (Gal. 3:1-29).

Adoption through the redemption of Christ and the sending of the Spirit (Gal. 4:1-7).

Slavery of the law and freedom given by Christ (Gal. 4:8 - 5:15). Life in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16 - 6:10).

The same applies to 1 Corinthians. It is clear that the Trinity was an important part of Paul's ideas about evangelism and the Christian life.

The idea of ​​the equal unity of the Trinity is most clearly expressed in the fourth Gospel. The Trinity is affirmed in it over and over again: John. 1:33-34; 14:16, 26; 16:13-15; 20:21-22 (cf. 1 John 4:2, 13-14). As George Hendry477 has shown, the relationship between the three Persons is constantly emphasized. The Son was sent by the Father (John 14:24) and came from Him (John 16:28). The Spirit is given by the Father (John 14:16), sent by the Father (John 14:26), and proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). But the Son is also closely connected with the coming of the Spirit: He prays for His coming (John 14:16), the Father sends the Spirit in the name of the Son (John 14:26), the Son sends the Spirit from the Father (John 15:26), the Son must go to send the Spirit (John 16:7). The ministry of the Spirit is understood as a continuation and development of the ministry of the Son. He will bring reminders of what the Son spoke (John 14:26), He will testify of the Son (John 15:26), He will speak what He hears from the Son and glorify the Son (John 16:13- 14).

The introductory part of the Gospel also contains rich material related to the doctrine of the Trinity. In the first verse of his book, John writes: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ). This is an indication of the Divinity of the Word; note the reverse word order in the first and second parts of the original phrase, emphasizing the idea of ​​God (or Divinity). Here again we see the thought of two Persons - the Father and the Son and the community between Them, and the preposition  implies not just closeness to the Father, but also close communication.

There are other passages in this Gospel that emphasize the closeness and unity between the Father and the Son. Jesus says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and also: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). He prays that the disciples may be one, just as He and the Father are one (John 17:21).

Our conclusion from the material considered is this: although Scripture does not explicitly set forth the doctrine of the Trinity, there are so many references to the Divinity and unity of the three Persons in it, especially in the New Testament, that it becomes quite clear why the church formulated this doctrine. And with this formulation of the question one can “accept.”

Recorded by

Quote

B. Historical reconstructions

As we have already noted, in the first two centuries AD there were few conscious attempts to resolve the theological and philosophical questions relating to what we now call the doctrine of the Trinity. A triad of concepts was used: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but there were practically no attempts to explain it. Thinkers such as Justin and Tatian emphasized the inner unity between the Word and the Father, using, in particular, such an image as the impossibility of separating light from its source - the sun. Thus they showed that, despite all the differences between the Word and the Father, They constitute an inseparable whole478.

1. "Economic" view of the Trinity

Hippolytus and Tertullian developed an "economic" view of the Trinity. It paid little attention to exploring the eternal relationship between the three Persons, emphasizing how this triad manifests itself in creation and redemption. Creation and redemption show the difference between the Son and the Spirit from the Father, but they must be considered inseparable in eternal existence. Like the mental faculties of man, God's mind, that is, the Word, was seen as immanent. Bmu.

According to Tertullian, there are three manifestations of the one God. These three manifestations are different and can be counted, but they come from one indivisible force. One can speak of difference (distinctio) or distribution (dispositio), and not of distance (separation). To illustrate the unity of the Divine, Tertullian gives examples of the root and the sprout from it, the source and the river, the sun and the light. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are one substance , this substance manifests itself in different ways, but it is indivisible479.

Even with not very careful examination, we can note a certain vagueness of this idea of ​​​​the Trinity. And an attempt to more thoroughly analyze its meaning generally leads to a disappointing result.

2. Dynamic monarchianism

At the end of the 2nd and 3rd centuries two attempts were made precise definition relationship between Christ and God. These views are called monarchianism (literally "single dominion"). Both attempts emphasize the uniqueness and unity of God, but only the second of them recognizes this name. Studying these two theologies will help us better understand the basis on which orthodox Christian views were ultimately established.

The founder of Dynamic Monarchianism was a Byzantine leather merchant named Theodotus, around 190 AD. who presented this teaching in Rome. On many doctrinal issues, such as divine omnipotence, the creation of the world, and even the virgin birth of Jesus, Theodotus adhered to completely orthodox views. But he argued that before his baptism, Jesus was an ordinary, albeit absolutely virtuous, man. During His baptism, the Spirit, or Christ, came upon Him, and after that He began to perform the wonderful works of God. Some of Theodotus' followers believed that at this point or after the resurrection Jesus became God, but Theodotus himself denied this. Jesus was an ordinary man who was inspired by the Spirit, but who did not constantly indwell him480.

The next exponent of this teaching was Paul of Samosat, who propagated his views in the middle of the 3rd century and was condemned by the Synod of Antioch in 268. He argued that the Word (Logos) was not a real person and that, therefore, Jesus Christ was not the Word. The term refers rather to God's commandments and regulations. God determined and accomplished His will through the man Jesus. This is the meaning of "Logos". What is common in the views of Theodotus and Paul of Samosata is the idea of ​​God's dynamic presence in the life of the man Jesus. God's works or God's authority were manifested in and through Jesus, but there was no real essential presence of God in Him. Dynamic monarchianism did not become widespread and did not become a popular movement. It was distinguished by its rationalistic content and was a rather isolated phenomenon481.

3. Modalist monarchianism

Modalist monarchianism, on the contrary, was a widespread, popular doctrine. Dynamic monarchianism seemed to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, while modalism, on the contrary, affirmed it. Both types of monarchianism sought to preserve the doctrine of the unity of God. But modalism held firmly to the doctrine of the full divinity of Jesus. The term Father was commonly used to designate the Deity, and medalists rejected any assertion that the Word or Son was in any way different from the Father. They considered such views as bitheism.

Names associated with modeling include Noetius of Smyrna, who was active at the end of the 2nd century, Praxeus (that is, “busy man”; perhaps this is just a nickname for some church leader), whom Tertullian opposed at the beginning of the 3rd century,482 and Sabellius, who developed this doctrinal concept in its most complete and orderly form.

The basic idea of ​​this school is that there is one Deity Who can be called Father, Son and Spirit. These names do not reflect any real differences, they simply refer to and apply to different times. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same; they are successive manifestations of one Person. Thus, according to the modalist solution to the paradox of trinity and unity, there are not three Persons, but one Person with different names, tasks and deeds483.

Another idea of ​​modalism was the assertion that the Father suffered with Christ, since He was present in the Son and was one with Him. This idea, called patripassianism, was considered heretical and became one of the factors leading to the rejection of modalism. (It is likely that the main reason for the rejection of patripassianism was its contradiction not with biblical revelation, but with the Greek philosophical concept of impassibility484.)

It must be admitted that in modalist monarchianism we see a truly unique, original and creative concept, in a certain sense representing a brilliant breakthrough. It preserves both the unity of the Godhead and the Divinity of the three Persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But when assessing this theological teaching, the church found in it significant shortcomings. In particular, the main stumbling block was the fact that in the biblical revelation in in some cases all three Faces appear simultaneously. Some of the Trinity texts mentioned above pose serious problems. Examples of this are the baptism scene, in which the Father speaks to the Son and the Spirit descends on the Son, as well as all those places where Jesus talks about the coming of the Spirit, talks about the Father, or addresses Him. If one takes a modalist view, Jesus' words and deeds in these passages become meaningless. Therefore, the church, although some of its hierarchs and even popes Zephyrinus and Callistus I were for some time carried away by the ideas of modalism, ultimately rejected it as insufficient to explain all biblical data.

4. Orthodox formulation

The orthodox view of the Trinity was expressed in various discussions and councils, which were convened in large part because of the disagreements generated by such movements as Monarchianism and Arianism. The final formulation, in which the church clearly expressed everything that had been implied up to that time, appeared at the Council of Constantinople (381). It was based on the views of Athanasius (293 - 373), developed and refined by the Cappadocian theologians - Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa.

The position of the Council of Constantinople is expressed by the formula “one  in three ”. The emphasis is often placed more on the second part of the formula, that is, on the independent existence of three persons, rather than on one indivisible Deity. The One Deity exists simultaneously in three Persons, or hypostases. The idea of ​​“coexistence,” later called perichoresis, of the Persons of the Trinity is emphasized. The Deity exists "inseparably in individual Persons." In the three hypostases there is a “unity of essence.” Vasily writes:

For whatever is in the Father is also in the Son, whatever the Son has is also in the Father; the whole Son is in the Father, and the whole Father is in Him. So, the hypostasis of the Son becomes, as it were, the form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, but at the same time, the observable inherent qualities remain the distinctive aspects of the hypostases485.

The Cappadocians tried to explain the concept of a common essence and individual Persons by analogy with the universal and its particulars - the Persons of the Trinity are connected with the divine essence in the same way as individual people are connected with man in general (humanity). Each individual hypostasis is an ousia of the Divine with certain characteristics and properties inherent to it, just as individual people have unique characteristics that distinguish them from other individuals. Basil defines these qualities of divine Persons as fatherhood, sonship and sanctifying power, or consecration486.

It is clear that the orthodox formula protects the doctrine of the Trinity from the danger of modelism. But isn't this paid at the cost of an error of the opposite nature - tritheism? At first glance, the danger looks quite serious. However, to protect the doctrine of the Trinity from tritheism, two barriers were put in place.

First, it was pointed out that if there are any works of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, nothing different Persons The Trinity is not different, we can conclude that they have a single essence. And we see such unity in divine revelation. Revelation comes from the Father, continues in the Son, and is completed in the Spirit. These are not three different things, but one action in which all three Persons participate.

Secondly, the concreteness and inseparability of the divine essence were especially emphasized. The criticism of the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity was largely aimed at the analogy with the universal manifested in particulars. In response to the accusation that the plurality of Gods in the Divinity is derived from the plurality of people in humanity, Gregory of Nyssa noted that, strictly speaking, we should not be talking about the plurality of people, but about the plurality of one universal person. Thus, the Cappadocians emphasized that although the individual Persons of the Trinity can be distinguished, They are nevertheless indistinguishable in Their essence or substance. They can be distinguished as Persons, but They are inseparable in Their essence.

It bears repeating that ousia is not an abstract concept, but a concrete reality. Moreover, this divine essence is indivisible and indivisible. In accordance with Aristotle's teaching that only material things are subject to quantitative division, the Cappadocians sometimes practically denied that the quantitative category was generally applicable to the Divine. God is indivisible and indivisible. Therefore, although there are Persons, They cannot be put together as if they were three separate beings.

Recorded by

Quote

C. Basic Elements of the Doctrine of the Trinity

To begin to develop the modern doctrine of the Trinity, it is first necessary to identify essential elements that should be included in it.

1. Let's start with the unity of God. In the Judeo- Christian tradition a deeply rooted monotheistic view. There is one God, there are not several Gods. The unity of God can be compared to the unity of husband and wife, but we must not forget that we are dealing with one God, and not with a being united from different parts.

2. It is necessary to proclaim the Divinity of each of the three Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are all equal. The Son is divine in exactly the same way and to the same degree as the Father. The same applies to the Holy Spirit."

3. The trinity and unity of God are manifested differently. The Trinity in the orthodox understanding looks contradictory (God is one and at the same time threefold), but the contradiction is only external. A contradiction arises when we say that A and not A are the same thing at the same time and in the same sense. Modalism tried to solve the problem of external contradiction by asserting that the three images or manifestations of God belong to different times, that in each specific situation only one of them is revealed. According to the orthodox view, God is three Persons at any given time. As for unity, this problem is solved in orthodoxy by the assumption that trinity manifests itself differently from unity. Fourth-century thinkers spoke of one ousia and three hypostases. But the problem arises of determining what these two terms mean or, more generally, what is the difference between the nature or position of God's unity and His trinity.

4. The Trinity is eternal. Three Persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - have always been, and all of them have always been divine. The appearance or acceptance of the Divinity of any of Them cannot be attributed to any specific time. There has never been any change in the nature of the triune God. He is and will be the same as he always was.

5. The function of one member of the Trinity may temporarily become subordinate to the functions of another or other members, but this does not mean that this Person of the Trinity is inferior in His essence. Each of the Persons of the Trinity at certain periods had special functions peculiar only to Him. This should be understood as the performance of a temporary role to achieve a specific goal, and not as a change in status or essence. Functional subordination also occurs in human relationships. For example, several equal businessmen or entrepreneurs may elect someone from their ranks to be the leader of a special task force or the chairman of a temporary committee, but there is no change in position. The same applies to the military field. During a bombing mission, the pilot of the aircraft, although he is higher in rank, follows the instructions of the bombardier. Likewise, the Son, during his earthly incarnation, did not become inferior to the Father, although he functionally subordinated Himself to the will of the Father. For His part, the Holy Spirit is now subject to the ministry of the Son (see John 14 - 16) and the will of the Father, but this does not mean that He has become inferior to Them.

6. The Trinity is incomprehensible. We are not able to fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. When one day we stand before God, we will see Him as He is and understand Him better. But even then we cannot fully comprehend Him. God is limitless, but we are limited in our abilities to know and understand, so He will always go beyond our knowledge and our understanding. We will always remain human beings, although we will become more perfect. We will never become God. Those aspects of God that we can never fully comprehend should be seen as mysteries that transcend our minds, rather than as paradoxes that defy reason.

In recent years, some theologians, pointing out the difference between unity and trinity, have begun to use the methods of analytical philosophy and resort to the help of “violation of the structure of grammatical categories” and “logically absurd qualifiers.” Examples of their attempts at clarification are statements such as: "God is equal to one" or: "They are equal to three." But such techniques rather raise the question rather than solve it.

One of the most creative minds in the history of Christian theology was Augustine. In De trinitate (On the Trinity), perhaps his most significant work, he turned his extraordinary intellect to the nature of the Trinity. He reflected on this teaching throughout his entire Christian life and wrote this treatise over twenty years (399 - 419). In keeping with the Western or Latin tradition, his views place greater emphasis on the unity of God rather than on the trinity. The three persons of the Trinity are not separate Persons in the sense that this distinction applies to human persons. Each member of the Trinity is essentially identical with the others and possesses divine substance. They differ in their relationship in the Godhead.

Augustine's most important contribution to the understanding of the Trinity lies in the analogies that he derived from the sphere of the human person. According to him, since man is created in the image of the triune God, it is quite logical to expect that when analyzing human nature, a reflection, even a weak one, of the triune God will be revealed. Beginning with the biblical statement that God is love, Augustine notes that love has three necessary components: the one who loves, the one who is loved, and the love that unites them. This analogy has already attracted a lot of attention, but for Augustine it was only a starting point, as if a bridge for the transition to a more significant analogy associated with the inner man and, in particular, with his mental activity directed towards himself and God. Already in the Confession we see an analogy associated with the inner man, in the triad of being, knowledge and will488. In De trinitate, the analogy associated with mental activity is presented in three planes or in three trinities: 1) the mind, its knowledge of itself and its love for itself489; 2) memory, understanding and will490; 3) memory of God, knowledge of God and love of God491. Each of these analogies gives us a clearer understanding of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity, but at the same time, according to Augustine, the third is the most useful among them, for when a person consciously concentrates his attention on God, he most fully bears the image of the Creator.

In practice, even orthodox Christians find it difficult to adhere to all components of the doctrine simultaneously. Our understanding of these analogies suggests that perhaps, in practice or in our widely unpublicized theological views, none of us truly believe in the Trinity. We oscillate between tritheism, the belief in three equal Gods closely related to Himself, and modelism, the belief in one God playing three different roles or revealing Himself in three different ways.

Of great importance is Augustine's thought about the possibility of drawing an analogy between the Trinity and the sphere of the human personality. In our search for a theoretical model or conceptual basis for constructing the doctrine of the Trinity, we have found that the sphere of individual and social relationships should be considered a more acceptable basis compared to the sphere of material objects. There are two reasons for this. First, God is spirit, so the realm of social and personal relationships is closer to His nature than the realm of material objects. Secondly, nowadays there is more interest in humanitarian and social issues than in the field of physical phenomena. Based on this, let us consider two analogies related to the field of human relations.

The first analogy relates to the sphere of individual human psychology. As a self-aware individual, I can have an internal dialogue with myself. I can accept different points of view and defend them. I can even argue with myself. Moreover, I am a complex human person with various functions and responsibilities that are in dynamic relationship. When I consider what to do in a certain situation, the husband, father, seminary teacher, and United States citizen who make up my whole coordinate each other.

However, this analogy in human experience is most clearly manifested in situations where there is tension and contradiction between states and functions, and not when they are in harmony. Psychopathology shows us extreme examples where the various elements that make up the human personality are practically at war with each other. In God they are constantly in harmony, communication and love.

The second analogy is related to interpersonal human relationships. Consider the case of identical twins. In a certain sense they have the same essence - one genetic code. Transplantation of organs from one to another does not cause any particular difficulties, since the recipient does not reject the donor's organ as foreign, but accepts it as his own. Identical twins are very close in other ways too. They have the same interests and tastes. They have different families and different places work, but they share very close ties. And yet this is not the same person. There are two of them.

These two analogies show different aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity. The first emphasizes unity above all. The second highlights the trinity more clearly. Just a few years ago I was more inclined to the first analogy, reflecting the modal (but not modalist) view. But then I came to the conclusion that both of them have equal value. Equally important are the Greek (Cappadocian) emphasis on the three Persons and the Latin (Western) emphasis on the unity of God. Each of these movements highlights one of the necessary facets of truth. And yet, from a logical point of view, both of them cannot be true at the same time, at least in our understanding, but could there not be a mystery here? We need to take both points into account, even if we do not see a clear connection between them.

Perhaps this mystery, which we must take for granted so as not to lose anything of it, is “incomprehensible,” in the words of Augustus Strong. But it is not only the theologian who has to consider polar opposite views. Physicists, for example, have not yet come to a final and unanimous solution to the question of the nature of light. According to one theory, these are waves. Other scientists claim that these are quanta, small beams of energy. Logically, these views are incompatible. But when assessing all available information, both of these theories must be taken into account. As one famous physicist said, "On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays we think of light as waves; on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays we think of it as particles of energy." On Sundays, physicists apparently don’t think about the nature of light at all. A person cannot explain a mystery, he can only realize its existence.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the most important component of our faith. All three Persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - must be worshiped, since this is the triune God. And, given the special functions of each of them, prayers of thanksgiving and intercession should be directed both to each member of the Trinity and to all together. Furthermore, perfect love and unity within the Godhead should serve as an example for us of unity and love in our relationships within the body of Christ.