Most critiques of the doctrine of the Trinity are superficial, for they don’t know the reality of the doctrine. Generally they’ll hear the basic doctrine formulated as such:

1. The Father is God;
2. The Son is God;
3. The Holy Spirit is God;
4. There’s only One God;
5. The Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit;
6. The Son is not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit;
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Son, nor the Father,

and they’ll immediately notice that there seems to be a contradiction: if there’s only One God, how can three persons be called “God” and, yet, be distinct individuals?

To make the simplest critique of the doctrine requires that one understands the doctrine beyond its basics, so it is not misrepresented when making an argument against it. It is not a simple subject, for many terms need to be qualified before one can start to formulated an argument. Refusing to consider what is being said only accounts for dishonesty, for there’s no interest in truth, but only in disagreement. That said, I feel these are the main subjects to be understood:

• How the word “God” is used;
• Issues discussed in the Council of Nicea;
• The nature of debate;
• Main questions that should be asked;
• In what way it is a Mystery.

How the word “God” is used

Many try to argue that the word “God” is a exclusive name to the Father. If it is, then John 20:28 should be identified Christ as the Father, which is nonsensical taking the rest of the Gospel into consideration: Christ is clearly distinct from the Father. Trinitarian theology knows it well, and that’s why that is why it can’t agree that “God” always identifies the Father. If so, you would fall into Modalism (Also known as Sabellianism), which is a clear heresy condemned by the Church as early as the 3rd century.

In the original Greek there are some nuances that I’m not fully capable of explaining, but the basic idea is that the NT uses two forms when your translation renders the word “God”: “ὁ θεός”, (e.g., used in John 20:28.) which literally “the God”, since it contains the definite article, and “θεὸς”, (e.g., used in John 1:1.) which could be analagous to the english form “a god”, though Greek only has definite articles. It could also be translated just as “god”, to identify it lacks the definite article. (Some translations do this. Check David Bentley Hart’s NT translation.¹) It can also be used as a form of predication, to mean something as vague as “divine”.

Thus, it’s clear that it’s not so simple to affirm that everytime your Bible renders the word “God” it’s referencing the Father. When doing any kind of exegesis, noting these subtle differences is key to understand orthodox trinitarian theology. Otherwise, without the required nuance, the result is, indeed, a contradiction. If the doctrine was ignorant of it, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed — the fundamental creed recited by every believer, which, among other things, states the divinity of the three Persons — wouldn’t be able to say: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty […] And in one Lord Jesus Christ […] very God of very God […] And in the Holy Ghost […] who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified”. Trinitarian theology’s main goal is to harmonize these nuances into a coherent formulation of the nature and unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Issues discussed in the Council of Nicea

The Council of Nicea happened in response to the Arian controversy. Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, thought that Christ was the first and greatest creation of the Father. The Council gathered bishops from all places to settle the question about Christ’s nature.

The Nicene Creed, which was formulated as the result of the Council, states:

We belive […] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father

Notice that it states that Christ is “begotten of the Father”, which clearly identifies that they are separate persons, something that some don’t seem to understand. As said, the very issue was about Christ’s nature: had He the same nature as the Father? (i.e., “ὁμοούσιον”.) Or was He — as the Arians said — of a similar nature? (i.e., (i.e., “ὁμοιούσιος”.)) It’s an interesting fact to note that Arians didn’t have any issues on calling Christ God and worshiping Him. Their issue was with saying that Christ was Divine as the Father is. Thus, to condemn the Arians, the following clauses were included in the Nicene Creed:

But those who say: ‘There was a time when he [the Son] was not’; and ‘He was not before he was made’; and ‘He was made out of nothing’, or ‘He is of another substance’ or ’essence’, or ‘The Son of God is created’, or ‘changeable’, or ‘alterable’ — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

It makes the main points of discussion clear: Arians believed that Christ was “created”, “made” and “of another substance” than that of the Father, while the pro-Nicene belived that Christ was eternal, begotten of the Father and of the consubstancial with Him.

Another interesting fact is that the Nicene Creed says that Christ is “begotten” of the Father. Some try to use John 1:14 to say that Jesus was created when, in fact, it says “only-begotten”, which is not problem for trinitarians. A distinction is made by trinitarians: “begotten” only means that Christ is originated from the Father, i.e., He is “ab alio”, which means “from another”, while the Father is the only “a se” being, i.e., the only “originated from itself”. For them, to say Christ was “created” means that Christ wasn’t a necessary being. It is assumed that the Divine nature requires a being to be necessary. Thus, if Christ had the Divine nature, in no way He could be a creature. This is an important distinction to be made, since most don’t understand the difference between having an origin and being created.

Main questions that should be asked

Though not limited to, I feel these are the main questions that should be considered when discussing the doctrine of the Trinity:

• Was Christ preexistent?: this might be an often overlooked question for most, but “Biblical Unitarians” are a group of a considerable size. If Christ didn’t exist before the Incarnation, then the Trinity cannot be true, since it states that all three Persons are Eternal, i.e., have no begginning and end. I believe the question is the easiest, but, nonetheless, shouldn’t be ignored;
• Did Christ possess the Divine nature?: this is where one the greatest misconceptions about the Trinity is made: the assertion that Christ is God is not one of identity with the Father — often in the NT referred simply as “the God” —, but of nature. If Christ has the Divine nature, then he can be called God by predication. Most people won’t recognize this problem, even though it was the main issue discussed in the Council of Nicea. The overlook of this question is the reason why John of Damascus said that all heresies arise from a confusion between nature and person;
• Do angels possess the Divine nature?: this is the next obvious question, for the angels are called “sons of God”, and, some times, called “gods” — also, it isn’t limited to angels, for Satan is called “god”, also. This brings a similar question: is Jesus a mere angel? If so, the assertion that only three persons have the Divine nature would be false;
• Was Jesus eternal/created?: I formulated the question including both terms, “eternal” and “created”, as interchangable, since most might see this question as two separate ones, but, in fact, they’re not. In the definition used trinitarian theology, eternal means not contigent, i.e., necessary. Something which is eternal, i.e., had no beginning, cannot be created for it’s necessary; a created thing is always contingent. Thus, if Christ is eternal, He can’t be created. These are the main assertions present in the Nicene Creed about the Divine nature, thus making them key to prove the coherence of the doctrine;
• Is it being “a se” predicated by the Divine nature?: “a se” is a latin expression which means “from itself” and indicates that a being has no cause. It’s clear that the Son and Holy Spirit have are cause by the Father: it is stated in the Creed that the Son is “begotten of the Father”, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”. Thus, the Father is the only “uncaused cause”, or — as the Church Fathers say — the “mono arche”, which means “the one source”. The problem is of the philosophical nature, but simple to understand: if to have the Divine nature it is needed to be “from itself”, how can the Son and Holy Spirit, beings caused by the Father, be Divine?;
• Is the Holy Spirit a person?: though less discussed, discussing the personhood and divinity of the Holy Spirit is key to the doctrine. If the Holy Spirit is only a force, then you have a form of binitarianism, at most. Answering this question is often enough, since most people would agree that when the Holy Spirit acts, it actually is God. There are really strong statements about the Spirit too, e.g., that those who blaspheme He won’t be forgiven, etc.

In what way it is a Mystery

In philosophical debates, to argue that a position is a “mystery” is begging the question: you need to defend exactly how your position is coherent and corresponds to reality. Of course, when arguing about metaphysics, some concessions can be made, since the questions are foundational. Still, that doesn’t mean that when your conclusion contradicts your premises you can resort to “mystery”.

The Church Fathers never assumed that nothing can be said about the Trinity. In reality, they formulated the causal relationship between the Persons, stated that all three Preson have the Divine nature and that it makes all of them necessary Beings. They said that the Three are united in Will, Eternal and Almighty. They distinguish each Person by their hypostatic properties, (i.e., individual attributes that makes each Person unique and different from the other two.) which is key to affirm the multiplicity of Persons. They also talk about Christ’s human nature, and how it does not make Him not Divine.

In truth, much is affirmed to call it pure “mystery”. Yet, sometimes some questions are not really able to be explained, such as: How can three persons have the same will? How can they all perform the same act? etc. These are not explained in its details, but assumed to be something special to the Divine nature, and, thus, not able to be fully comprehended by humans. Nonetheless, the important note is that it should never be incoherent, but only refuse to explain questions beyond what is humanly capable.

The nature of debate

I think there are three important points that should be touched in a debate about the Trinity:

1. The evidence in the Holy Scriptures;
2. The coherence of statements made;
3. The historical background.

First and foremost the doctrine is concerned with the special revelation contained in the Bible. This is an important detail to be observed for those who are looking for proving the faith as a whole. This might be overlooked by some for, you may have a coherent model that describes the Trinity, but it is not supported by Scriptures. (e.g., what I’d happens with Social Trinitarianism.) All statements should be backed by Holy Scriptures, and not by personal preference.

Where Scripture is not clear and interpretations can go either way, generally that’s where philosophy comes in, for the main critique is about the doctrine’s coherence. Thus, discussion on metaphysical concepts often become the focus of debate. When this is the case, I feel it’s important to know two things that bear no weight in the truth value of the doctrine: 1) Its argued origin; 2) The moral status of people who formulated it.

I’m trying to state the obvious, though these points might be missed by some: in a debate, the focus should be on formulating arguments to demonstrate why a position is coherent (in the case of the defense.) or incoherent. (in the case of the critique.) To argue that the Trinity has pagan origins is not a good argument for two reasons:

1. To argue that something is not true for it has a certain origin is known as a “genetic fallacy”. The origin of a thing has no bearing on weather it is true or not;
2. People assume the religion of the jews was totally different of the ones practiced by the sorrounding pagan nations, when, in reality, it had much more similarities than most would like to admit. Some of Psalms and other passages are also a direct response to stories about the gods of Israel’s neighbors.² Generally, they state why Yahweh, the Most High God, is Sovereign over all other gods, which assumes that some of the metaphysics is shared between the pagan religions and the religion believed and practiced by the jews of that time. That is not to say that everything that is said should be equal, but the overlapping is obvious. The most known example is the narrative of the Flood, which is present in a lot of ancient cultures. Even Plato talks about it! Of course, that’s not to say that it requires no previous precedent for the doctrine in the OT and earlier periods before Christianity, but it should be recognized that it shouldn’t be the strongest argument available.³

To argue against the doctrine, stating that people who formulated it were morally questionable is known as an “ad hominem” attack, which tries to diminish their credibility, though it shouldn’t imply anything about the truth that they defend.

Another point that should be noted is that anachronisms shouldn’t be valid critiques, and attention must be paid to not commit this kind of mistake. To redefine old terms to carry comtemporary meanings is a misrepresentation of a position. Arguments should always care to use terms in their context, with their attributed meaning. This is important, for, sometimes, Church Fathers altered the meaning of common used terms to mean specific concepts.

The last topic is history. Much is argued that the doctrine was developed in the 4th century, and there was no precedent of it, neither in the pre-Christian period, which includes the OT period and the intertestamental period known as the “Second Temple period”, nor in the first Christians’ writtings, including those of the NT and those among the Apostolic Fathers. The subject is wide, and there’s a lot of material to be considered in this area. Yet, it should be said that historical evidence is not necessarily proof of truth on the matter, since it’s always possible to quote “heretics” etc. Nevertheless, it’s strengh is in showing that the doctrine was not an inovation, but was always present in essence before it was formally stated.

Resources for further investigation

I only exposed the questions at stake superficially. Though it might seem a lot, there’s much more to be explored about the subject — after all, it’s been more than 15 centuries since the first controversy which formally formulated the essence of the doctrine. These are some of the resources I’ve used to understand the doctrine and its nuances:⁴

• Is Jesus God? Is God a Trinity? (Jay Dyer.)
• 10 arguments against the Trinity refuted (Jay Dyer.)
• Unitarianism, Trinity & Monarchy of the Father (Dr. Beau Branson, Jay Dyer.)
• Does God have to have a Son? (Dr. Beau Branson.)
• Is the Trinity a coherent doctrine? (Dr. Beau Branson.)
• The Arian theological error (Dr. Beau Branson.)
• The importance of the Monarchia of the Father (Dr. Beau Branson, Jay Dyer, Lewis Brewer.)
• The Trinity & Monotheism: (Dr. Beau Branson.)
  • Part 1: Introduction and definitions
  • Part 2: Modern scholarship
  • Part 3: The Church Fathers
  • Part 4: Analytic philosophy
  • Part 5: The Unitarian problem
• Trinitarianism in Context: (Dr. Beau Branson, Lewis Brewer.)
  • Part 1: Interview with Dr. Beau Branson.
  • Part 2: Q&A and objections
  • Part 3: Unity of Will and Energy
• Eunomian premise debate review (Dr. Beau Branson, Lewis Brewer.)
• The Trinity in ancient jewish books (Michael Jones.)
• Is the Trinity pagan? (Michael Jones.)
• The Trinity in the Old Testament (Michael Jones.)
• The New Testament on Jesus’ Divinity (Lewis Brewer, Seraphim Hamilton, Fr. Stephen De Young, Dr. Beau Branson.)
• Lord the Spirits: (Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, Fr. Stephen De Young.)
  • The Angel of the Lord
  • The Word of the Lord
  • Who is the Son of Man?
  • Is the Heavenly Man the Man from Heaven?