Editing Trinity (section)

== Theology ==
{{redirect2|Trinitarian|Trinitarianism}}
=== Baptismal formula ===
{{Main|Trinitarian formula}}
[[File:Piero, battesimo di cristo 04.jpg|thumb|left|''[[The Baptism of Christ (Piero della Francesca)|The Baptism of Christ]]'', by [[Piero della Francesca]], 15th century]]
Baptism is generally conferred with the [[Trinitarian formula]], "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".<ref>{{bibleverse|Mt|28:19|esv}}</ref> Trinitarians identify this name with the Christian faith into which baptism is an initiation, as seen, for example, in the statement of [[Basil the Great]] (330–379): "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized." The [[First Council of Constantinople]] (381) also says, "This is the Faith of our baptism that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."<ref>{{bibleref2|Matthew|28:19|esv}}</ref> This may be taken to indicate that baptism was associated with this formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence. Other Trinitarian formulas found in the New Testament include 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Corinthians 12:4–6, Ephesians 4:4–6, 1 Peter 1:2, and Revelation 1:4–5.{{sfn|Januariy|2013|p=99}}{{sfn|Fee|2002|p=52}}

[[Oneness Pentecostals]] demur from the Trinitarian view of baptism and emphasize baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" only, what they hold to be the original apostolic formula.{{sfn|Vondey|2012|p=78}} For this reason, they often focus on the baptisms in Acts. Those who place great emphasis on the baptisms in Acts often likewise question the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 in its present form.<ref>Wilson, Jake. (2021). The Supersessionist Forgery of Matthew 28:19.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Finnegan |first=Sean |date=2018-01-01 |title=Is Matthew 28:19 Authentic or a Forgery? |url=https://www.academia.edu/51163779 |journal=Restitutio}}</ref> Most scholars of New Testament [[textual criticism]] accept the authenticity of the passage since there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula,{{sfn|Ferguson|2009|pp=134–135}} and the extant form of the passage is attested in the [[Didache]]<ref name="patristics" /> and other [[patristic]] works of the 1st and 2nd centuries: [[Ignatius of Antioch|Ignatius]],<ref name="patristics1" /> [[Tertullian]],<ref name="patristics2" /> [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]],<ref name="patristics3" /> [[Cyprian]],<ref name="patristics4" /> and [[Gregory Thaumaturgus]].<ref name="patristics5" />

Commenting on Matthew 28:19, [[Gerhard Kittel]] states:

{{blockquote|This threefold relation [of Father, Son and Spirit] soon found fixed expression in the triadic formulae in 2 Corinthians 13:14<ref>{{bibleref2|2 Cor.|13:14|esv}}</ref> and in 1 Corinthians 12:4–6.<ref>{{bibleref2|1Cor|12:4–6|esv}}</ref> The form is first found in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 Did., 7. 1 and 3.&nbsp;... [I]t is self-evident that Father, Son and Spirit are here linked in an indissoluble threefold relationship.<ref>Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (Eds.). (1985). ''Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: abridged in one volume'' (Vol. 1). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.</ref>}}

=== Economic and immanent Trinity ===
The term "immanent Trinity" focuses on who God is; the term "economic Trinity" focuses on what God does. According to the [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]]:

{{blockquote|The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology ({{lang|grc-Latn|theologia}}) and economy ({{lang|grc-Latn|oikonomia}}). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the {{lang|grc-Latn|oikonomia}} the {{lang|grc-Latn|theologia}} is revealed to us; but conversely, the {{lang|grc-Latn|theologia}} illuminates the whole {{lang|grc-Latn|oikonomia}}. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM ''CCC'' §&nbsp;236] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003725/https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM |date=3 March 2013 }}.</ref>}}

{{blockquote|The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle." However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, "one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are". It is above all the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM ''CCC'' §&nbsp;258] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003725/https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM |date=3 March 2013 }}.</ref>}}

The ancient [[Nicene Christianity|Nicene theologians]] argued that everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working in unity with one will. The three persons of the Trinity always work inseparably, for their work is always the work of the one God. The Son's will cannot be different from the Father's because it is the Father's. They have but one will as they have but one being. Otherwise, they would not be one God. On this point [[St. Basil]] said:

{{blockquote|When then He says, "I have not spoken of myself", and again, "As the Father said unto me, so I speak", and "The word which ye hear is not mine, but [the Father's] which sent me", and in another place, "As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do", it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a "commandment" a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.<ref name="despiritu" />}}

According to [[Thomas Aquinas]] the Son prayed to the Father, became a minor to the angels, became incarnate, obeyed the Father as to his human nature; as to his divine nature the Son remained God: "Thus, then, the fact that the Father glorifies, raises up, and exalts the Son does not show that the Son is less than the Father, except in His human nature. For, in the divine nature by which He is equal to the Father, the power of the Father and the Son is the same and their operation is the same."<ref name="dhspriory.org" /> Aquinas stated that the mystery of the Son cannot be explicitly believed to be true without faith in the Trinity (''ST'' IIa IIae, 2.7 resp. and 8 resp.).<ref>{{cite book |first=John |last=Took |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z4XhDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA66 |title=Conversations with Kenelm: Essays on the Theology of the Commedia |page=66 |publisher=[[Ubiquity Press]] |date=15 May 2016 |isbn=978-1-909188-08-2 |oclc=1054304886}} Quote (in [[Latin]]): "mysterium Christi explicite credi non potest sine fide Trinitatis..."</ref>

[[File:Hierarch panagia episcopi cropped.jpg|thumb|A Greek [[fresco]] of Athanasius of Alexandria, the chief architect of the Nicene Creed, formulated at Nicaea]]
[[Athanasius of Alexandria]] explained that the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry.<ref name="athanasius3" /> Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity. Likewise, the [[Cappadocian Fathers]] also insisted there was no economic inequality present within the Trinity. As Basil wrote: "We perceive the operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and the same, in no respect showing differences or variation; from this identity of operation we necessarily infer the unity of nature."<ref name="basil" />

The traditional theory of "appropriation" consists in attributing certain names, qualities, or operations to one of the Persons of the Trinity, not, however, to the exclusion of the others, but in preference to the others. This theory was established by the Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, especially by [[Hilary of Poitiers]], [[Augustine]], and [[Leo the Great]]. In the Middle Ages, the theory was systematically taught by the [[Schoolmen]] such as [[Bonaventure]].{{sfn|Sauvage|1907}}

=== Love ===
Augustine "coupled the doctrine of the Trinity with [[Christian anthropology|anthropology]]. Proceeding from the idea that humans are created by God according to the divine image, he attempted to explain the mystery of the Trinity by uncovering traces of the Trinity in the human personality".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Stefon |first=Matt |title=Christianity – The Holy Trinity |at=Attempts to define the Trinity |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-Holy-Trinity#ref67486 |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |date=10 December 2015}}</ref> The first key of his exegesis is an interpersonal analogy of mutual love. In {{lang|la|[[De trinitate]]}} (399–419) he wrote:

{{blockquote|We are now eager to see whether that most excellent love is proper to the Holy Spirit, and if it is not so, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Trinity itself is love, since we cannot contradict the most certain faith and the most weighty authority of Scripture which says: "God is love".{{efn|name=Augustine1}}{{sfn|Augustine of Hippo|2002|p=25}} }}

One must, therefore, ask if love itself is triune. Augustine found that it is, and consists of "three: the lover, the beloved, and the love".{{efn|name=Augustine2}}{{sfn|Augustine of Hippo|2002|p=26}}

Reaffirming the [[theopaschite formula]] {{lang|la|unus de trinitate passus est carne}} (meaning "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh"),{{sfn|Pool|2011|p=398}} Thomas Aquinas wrote that Jesus suffered and died as to his human nature, as to his divine nature he could not suffer or die. "But the commandment to suffer clearly pertains to the Son only in His human nature. ... And the way in which Christ was raised up is like the way He suffered and died, that is, in the flesh. For it says in 1 Peter (4:1): 'Christ having suffered in the flesh' ... then, the fact that the Father glorifies, raises up, and exalts the Son does not show that the Son is less than the Father, except in His human nature. For, in the divine nature by which He is equal to the Father."{{sfn|Aquinas|1975|p=91}}

In the 1900s the recovery of a substantially different formula of [[theopaschism]] took place: at least {{lang|la|unus de Trinitate passus est}} (meaning "not only in the flesh").<ref>{{in lang|la}} ''DS'' [http://catho.org/9.php?d=bxo#bew 401] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250120023000/http://www.catho.org/9.php?d=bxo#bew |date=20 January 2025 }} ([[Pope John II]], letter ''Olim quidem'' addressed to the senators of Constantinople, March 534).</ref> More specifically, [[World War II]] had an impact not only on the [[theodicy]] of [[Judaism]] with the [[Holocaust theology]], but also on that of Christianity with a profound rethinking of its [[dogmatic theology]]. Deeply affected by the [[atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|atomic bomb event]],{{sfn|Yewangoe|1987|p=273}} as early as 1946 the [[Lutheran]] theologian [[Kazoh Kitamori]] published ''Theology of the Pain of God'',{{sfn|Kitamori|2005|p=v}} a [[theology of the Cross]] pushed up to the immanent Trinity. This concept was later taken by both [[Reformed churches|Reformed]] and [[Catholic theology]]: in 1971 by [[Jürgen Moltmann]]'s ''The Crucified God''; in the 1972 "Preface to the Second Edition" of his 1969 [[German language|German]] book {{lang|de|italic=yes|Theologie der drei Tage}} (English translation: {{lang|la|italic=yes|[[Mysterium Paschale|The Mystery of Easter]]}}) by [[Hans Urs von Balthasar]], who took a cue from [[Book of Revelation|Revelation]] 13:8 ([[Vulgate]]: {{lang|la|agni qui occisus est ab origine mundi}}, [[NIV]]: "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world") to explore the "God is love" idea as an "[[eternal super-kenosis]]".{{sfn|von Balthasar|2000|p=vii}} In the words of von Balthasar: "At this point, where the subject undergoing the 'hour' is the Son speaking with the Father, the controversial 'Theopaschist formula' has its proper place: 'One of the Trinity has suffered.' The formula can already be found in [[Gregory Nazianzen]]: 'We needed a&nbsp;... crucified God'."{{sfn|von Balthasar|1992|p=55}} But if theopaschism indicates only a Christological kenosis (or kenotic Christology), instead von Balthasar supports a Trinitarian kenosis:{{sfn|Mobley|2021|p=202}} "The persons of the Trinity constitute themselves as who they are through the very act of pouring themselves out for each other".{{sfn|Dimech|2019|p=103}} This allows to clearly distinguish his idea from [[Subordinationism]].

Furthermore, following the concepts developed by [[Scholasticism]], the underlying question is whether the three Persons of the Trinity can experience [[self-love]] ({{lang|la|amor sui}}), as well as whether for them, with the conciliar dogmatic formulation in terms that today we would call [[ontotheological]], it is possible for [[aseity]] ({{lang|la|[[causa sui]]}}) to be valid. If the Father is not the Son or the Spirit since the generator/begetter is not the generated/begotten nor the generation/generative process and vice versa, and since the lover is neither the beloved nor the love dynamic between them and vice versa. As a response, Christianity has provided an [[oblation|oblative]], sacrificial, martyrizing, crucifying, and precisely kenotic concept of divine ontology.{{sfn|Carson |2000|loc=chpt. 9}}<ref>Also published in {{cite journal |title=On Distorting the Love of God |url=https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/documents/carson/1999_distorting_the_love_of_God.pdf |journal=[[Bibliotheca Sacra]] |volume=156 |issue=January–March 1999 |pages=3–12 |access-date=September 9, 2024 |archive-date=26 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240926062802/https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/documents/carson/1999_distorting_the_love_of_God.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== One God in three persons === <!--Linked from [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]-->
In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one being, having a single divine [[Physis (Christian theology)|nature]].{{sfn|Grudem|1994|p=226}} The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the [[Athanasian Creed]], the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning.<ref name="athanasian-creed" /> "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God, but one name for God{{sfn|Barth|1975|pp=348–349}} because three persons exist in God as one entity.{{sfn|Pegis|1997|pp=307–309}} They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.{{sfn|De Smet|2010|p=}}

According to the [[Eleventh Council of Toledo]] (675) "For, when we say: He who is the Father is not the Son, we refer to the distinction of persons; but when we say: the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, and the Holy Spirit that which the Father is and the Son is, this clearly refers to the nature or substance".<ref>{{cite book |title=The Eleventh Council of Toledo (675) |url=https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TOLEDO.HTM |access-date=11 January 2019 |archive-date=6 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190106235622/http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TOLEDO.HTM |url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[Fourth Lateran Council]] (1215) adds: "Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality—that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial. "<ref>{{cite book |title=Fourth Lateran Council (1215) List of Constitutions: 2. On the error of abbot Joachim |url=https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190707222231/https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm |access-date=7 July 2019 |archive-date=7 July 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Fathers |first1=Council |title=Fourth Lateran Council: 1215 Council Fathers |date=11 November 1215 |url=https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm |access-date=24 December 2022 |archive-date=24 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221224233054/https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>

Clarification of the relationships among the three Trinitarian Persons (divine persons, different from the sense of a "human self") advanced in the Magisterial statement promulgated by the [[Council of Florence]] (1431–1449), though its formulation precedes the council: "These three persons are one God and not three gods, for the three are one substance, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one infinity, one eternity, and everything (in them) is one
where there is no opposition of relationship [{{lang|la|relationis oppositio}}]".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Denzinger |first=Heinrich |url=https://archive.org/details/enchiridionsymbo00denz/page/n5/mode/2up |title=Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum |date=1911 |publisher=Herder |location=Friburg |language=la |others=PIMS – University of Toronto}}</ref>

=== ''Perichoresis'' ===
{{Main|Perichoresis}}
[[File:THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA.jpg|thumb|A depiction of the [[First Council of Nicaea|Council of Nicaea]] in AD&nbsp;325, at which the Deity of Christ was declared orthodox and [[Arianism]] condemned|left]]
{{lang|grc-Latn|Perichoresis}} (from [[Greek language|Greek]], 'going around', 'envelopment') is a term used by some scholars to describe the relationship among the members of the Trinity. The Latin equivalent for this term is {{lang|la|circumincessio}}. This concept refers for its basis to John 10:38,14:11,14:20,<ref>{{bibleref2|John|10:38,14:11,14:20|esv}}</ref> where Jesus is instructing the disciples concerning the meaning of his departure. His going to the Father, he says, is for their sake; so that he might come to them when the "other comforter" is given to them. Then, he says, his disciples will dwell in him, as he dwells in the Father, and the Father dwells in him, and the Father will dwell in them. This is so, according to the theory of {{lang|grc-Latn|perichoresis}}, because the persons of the Trinity "reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes" ([[Hilary of Poitiers]], ''Concerning the Trinity'' 3:1).<ref name="hilary-john" /> The most prominent exponent of {{lang|grc-Latn|perichoresis}} was [[John of Damascus]] (d. 749) who employed the concept as a technical term to describe both the interpenetration of the divine and human natures of Christ and the relationship between the hypostases of the Trinity.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |editor-last=Cross |editor-first=F. L. |title=Cicumincession |dictionary=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church |edition=2nd |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1974}}</ref>

{{lang|grc-Latn|Perichoresis}} effectively excludes the idea that God has parts, but rather is a [[divine simplicity|simple being]]. It also harmonizes well with the doctrine that the Christian's union with the Son in his humanity brings him into union with one who contains in himself, in Paul's words, "all the fullness of deity" and not a part.{{efn|See also [[Divinization (Christian)]]}} {{lang|grc-Latn|Perichoresis}} provides an intuitive figure of what this might mean. The Son, the eternal Word, is from all eternity the dwelling place of God; he is the "Father's house", just as the Son dwells in the Father and the Spirit; so that, when the Spirit is "given", then it happens as Jesus said, "I will not leave you as orphans; for I will come to you."<ref>{{bibleverse|John|14:18|esv}}</ref>

=== Relationship between the persons ===
Although all Trinitarians agree that there exists one God in three persons, Trinitarian theologians have differed on how to explain the relationships of the persons of the Trinity, among them are the [[eternal generation of the Son]],<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Giles |first=Kevin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lo42zEOKobwC&dq=eternal+generation+wayne+grudem&pg=PA147 |title=The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology |date=2012-05-07 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-3965-0 |language=en}}</ref> [[Eternal functional subordination|the functional subordination of the Son]],<ref>{{Cite book |last=Erickson |first=Millard J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lNVTBmnZTlUC&dq=J.+Oliver+Buswell+eternal+generation&pg=PA61 |title=Who's Tampering with the Trinity?: An Assessment of the Subordination Debate |date=2009 |publisher=Kregel Academic |isbn=978-0-8254-9918-0 |language=en}}</ref> the [[Eternal procession of the Holy Spirit|eternal procession of the Spirit]],<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ryrie |first=Charles C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F55Dx_kFcZIC |title=Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth |date=1999-01-11 |publisher=Moody Publishers |isbn=978-1-57567-498-8}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Waldron |first=Sam |date=2011-12-07 |title=Who's Tampering with the Trinity? (Part 17) The Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit Proved |url=https://cbtseminary.org/the-trinity-17/ |access-date=2024-10-16 |website=Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary |language=en-US |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161843/https://cbtseminary.org/the-trinity-17/ |url-status=live}}</ref> the [[Filioque]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Catholic Encyclopedia: Filioque |url=https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm |access-date=2024-12-25 |website=www.newadvent.org |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161847/https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> and the [[subordinationism]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Beisner |first=E. Calvin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cgFLAwAAQBAJ&dq=Subordinationism+and+Arianism&pg=PA107 |title=God in Three Persons |date=2004-02-10 |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |isbn=978-1-59244-545-5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Ramelli |first1=Ilaria L. E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yyJIEAAAQBAJ&dq=Origen+Subordinationism+and+Arianism&pg=PA435 |title=T&T Clark Handbook of the Early Church |last2=McGuckin |first2=J. A. |last3=Ashwin-Siejkowski |first3=Piotr |date=2021-12-16 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-567-68039-6}}</ref>
[[File:The church of SS Peter and Paul in Brockdish - stained glass - The Holy Trinity.png|thumb|The Holy Trinity on the stained glass windows of the Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in [[Brockdish]]|left]]
The doctrine of eternal generation is defined as a necessary and eternal act of [[God the Father]], in which he generates (or begets) [[God the Son]] by communicating the whole divine essence to the Son. Generation is not defined as an act of the will, but is by necessity of nature.<ref>{{Cite magazine |date=2019-12-01 |title=God the Son |url=https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2019/12/god-the-son/ |access-date=2023-11-20 |magazine=Tabletalk |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161843/https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2019/12/god-the-son/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Hodge |first=Charles |title=Outlines of Theology |quote=The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son}}</ref> This doctrine has been affirmed by the [[Athanasian creed]],<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=Catholic Encyclopedia |title=The Blessed Trinity |url=https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm |access-date=2023-11-20 |via=New Advent |archive-date=1 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191001144038/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> the [[Nicene creed]]<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Parkison |first=Samuel |title=The Only Begotten God |magazine=Credo |url=https://credomag.com/article/the-only-begotten-god/ |access-date=2023-11-20 |archive-date=28 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231128110542/https://credomag.com/article/the-only-begotten-god/ |url-status=live}}</ref> and by church fathers such as [[Athanasius of Alexandria]], [[Augustine]], and [[Basil of Caesarea]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective |first1=Keith E. |last1=Johnson |url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/trinitarian-agency-and-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-an-augustinian-perspective/ |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=The Gospel Coalition |archive-date=1 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230501100658/https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/trinitarian-agency-and-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-an-augustinian-perspective/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Wedgeworth |first=Steven |date=2020-04-15 |title=Athanasius on the Simple God And Eternal Generation |url=https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/athanasius-on-the-simple-god-and-eternal-generation/ |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=The Gospel Coalition |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161843/https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/athanasius-on-the-simple-god-and-eternal-generation/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Graham |first=Wyatt |date=2022-02-13 |title=Impassibility Makes Sense of Our Faith in the Father and Son |url=https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/impassibility-makes-sense-of-our-faith-in-father-and-son/ |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=The Gospel Coalition {{!}} Canada |language=en-US |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161843/https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/impassibility-makes-sense-of-our-faith-in-father-and-son/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Giles |first=Kevin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lo42zEOKobwC&dq=Eternal+generation+early+church&pg=PA87 |title=The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology |date=2012-05-07 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-3965-0 |language=en}}</ref> being mentioned explicitly first by [[Origen]] of Alexandria.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2014-08-28 |title=Bavinck On Eternal Generation |url=https://heidelblog.net/2014/08/bavinck-on-eternal-generation/ |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=[[The Heidelblog]] |language=en-US |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161844/https://heidelblog.net/2014/08/bavinck-on-eternal-generation/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Those who teach the traditional doctrine of eternal generation have often used biblical texts such as Proverbs 8:23,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Proverbs 8:23, the Eternal Generation of the Son and the History of Reformed Exegesis |url=https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/proverbs-823-the-eternal-gener.php |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=reformation21.org |language=en |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161843/https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/proverbs-823-the-eternal-gener.php |url-status=live}}</ref> Psalm 2:7, Micah 5:2, John 5:26, John 1:18, 3:16, Colossians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Hebrews 1:3 to establish their understanding of eternal generation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What is the Doctrine of Eternal Generation? |url=https://ps.edu/eternal-generation/ |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=Phoenix Seminary |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":22">{{Cite book |last1=Sanders |first1=Fred |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dGVDDgAAQBAJ&dq=Micah+5%3A2+eternal+generation&pg=PA73 |title=Retrieving Eternal Generation |last2=Swain |first2=Scott R. |date=2017-11-21 |publisher=Zondervan Academic |isbn=978-0-310-53788-5 |language=en |archive-date=19 January 2025 |access-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250119141627/https://books.google.com/books?id=dGVDDgAAQBAJ&dq=Micah%205%3A2%20eternal%20generation&pg=PA73 |url-status=live}}</ref> However, some modern theologians reject the doctrines of eternal generation and procession, disputing the idea that these texts teach the doctrine of eternal generation. To reject eternal generation, [[William Lane Craig]] has argued, is to introduce subordinationism into the Trinity.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Is God the Son Begotten in His Divine Nature? {{!}} Reasonable Faith |url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/is-god-the-son-begotten-in-his-divine-nature/ |access-date=2023-11-20 |website=reasonablefaith.org |language=en |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161910/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/is-god-the-son-begotten-in-his-divine-nature |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0" />

Among modern Trinitarian debates, the issue of [[Social trinitarianism|social Trinitarianism]] is often discussed.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Holmes |first1=Stephen R. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Pl9tAgAAQBAJ |title=Two Views on the Doctrine of the Trinity |last2=Molnar |first2=Paul D. |last3=McCall |first3=Thomas H. |last4=Fiddes |first4=Paul |date=2014-09-02 |publisher=Zondervan Academic |isbn=978-0-310-49813-1 |language=en |archive-date=19 January 2025 |access-date=1 January 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250119141849/https://books.google.com/books?id=Pl9tAgAAQBAJ |url-status=live}}</ref> Although it is a diverse theological movement, many of its advocates argue that each person of the Trinity has their own center of consciousness and own will united in a loving relationship.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Monothelitism and the Trinity {{!}} Reasonable Faith |url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P50/monothelitism-and-the-trinity |access-date=2024-12-25 |website=www.reasonablefaith.org |language=en |archive-date=25 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241225161843/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P50/monothelitism-and-the-trinity |url-status=live}}</ref> Critics argue it risks veering into tritheism (belief in three gods) by overemphasizing the distinctness of the persons, while proponents say it better reflects the biblical portrayal of the Trinity as relational and active in history. Social Trinitarianism is in contrast to what is often called "[[Classical trinitarianism|classical Trinitarianism]]" due to its association with many classical theologians such as Augustine, which instead distinguishes the persons by their eternal relations of begetting and procession.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barrett |first=Matthew |title=Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, and Spirit |publisher=Baker Books |year=2021 |isbn=978-1-5409-0007-4 |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |pages=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Barrett |first=Matthew |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d-n2EAAAQBAJ&dq=classical+vs+social+trinitarianism&pg=PP438 |title=On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God |date=2024-10-01 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-1-5140-0035-9 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Nontrinitarianism ===
{{Main|Nontrinitarianism}}
[[Nontrinitarianism]] (or antitrinitarianism) refers to Christian belief systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity as found in the Nicene Creed as not having a scriptural origin. Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. 

Various nontrinitarian views, such as [[Adoptionism]] and [[Arianism]], existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in AD&nbsp;325, 360, and 431 at the Councils of [[First Council of Nicaea|Nicaea]], [[Council of Constantinople (360)|Constantinople]], and [[Council of Ephesus|Ephesus]], respectively.<ref name="vonharnack" /> Adoptionists believed that Jesus Christ only became divine at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Coonrad |first=Sharon Watters |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5hrIHAAACAAJ |title=Adoptionism: The History of a Doctrine |date=1999 |publisher=University of Iowa |language=en}}</ref> Adherents of Arianism postulated that only God is independent of his existence. Since the Son is dependent, he should, therefore, be called a creature.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Gregg |first=Robert C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z8d6GQAACAAJ |title=Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments: Papers from The Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies |date=2006-10-19 |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |isbn=978-1-59752-961-7 |language=en}}</ref>

Arianism was condemned as [[Heresy#Christianity|heretical]] by the [[First Council of Nicaea#Arian controversy#Result of the debate|First Council of Nicaea]] and, lastly, with [[Sabellianism]] by the [[Second Ecumenical Council]].{{sfn|Olson|1999|p=173}} Adoptionism was declared as heretical by the Ecumenical Council of Frankfurt, convened by the Emperor Charlemagne in 794 for the Latin West Church.{{sfn|Meens|2016|p=64}} Following the adoption of trinitarianism at [[First Council of Constantinople|Constantinople in 381]], [[Arianism]] was driven from the Empire, retaining a foothold amongst the Germanic tribes. When the [[Franks]] converted to Catholicism in 496, however, it gradually faded out.{{sfn|Cross|Livingstone|2005|p=100}} Nontrinitarianism was later renewed in the [[Gnosticism]] of the [[Cathars]] in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the [[Age of Enlightenment]] of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the [[Second Great Awakening]] of the 19th century.{{efn|See also [[Binitarianism]]}}

=== Judaism ===
While [[Judaism]] traditionally rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, certain Jewish mystical texts have expressed ideas that bear a resemblance to trinitarian concepts. For example, the ''[[Zohar]]'' (AD 1286), a foundational work of [[Jewish mysticism]], states that "God is they, and they are it." This passage has been interpreted by some as referencing a kind of "kabbalistic trinity," describing "three hidden lights" within "the root of all roots"—a unified essence and origin. The parallels between these mystical notions and Christian Trinitarianism were striking enough that some medieval Jewish thinkers suggested the Christian Trinity may have arisen from a misinterpretation of Kabbalistic teachings. However, some recent Jewish scholars instead view the Zohar as being influenced by Christian trinitarianism. Nevertheless, we also find some later Jewish Aristotelians borrow from the trinitarian analogies of [[Augustine of Hippo]], making the claim that God is thinker, thinking and thought.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Trinity > Judaic and Islamic Objections (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/judaic-islamic-trinity.html |access-date=2025-04-12 |website=plato.stanford.edu |language=en}}</ref>

According to [[Philo|Philo of Alexandria]] (20 BC – c.&nbsp;AD 50), the Logos—or divine reason—was the instrument through which God created the world. For Philo, the ultimate Being possesses two primary attributes: goodness and authority. The Logos represents the union of these two powers. As pure being, this ultimate source is called the Father; in relation to goodness, he is called God; and in his rule over creation, he is called Lord. The Logos is sometimes portrayed not only as the combination of goodness and authority within the Father but also as existing above and between them, thereby being identified with the Supreme Being itself. In this way, Philo presents a kind of trinitarian view of the divine, though it differs from the Christian concept of the Trinity. Scholars continue to debate whether Philo viewed the Logos as a distinct person or as an impersonal force.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WSMIAQAAIAAJ&dq=Philo+the+Jew+trinity&pg=PA614 |title=The Jewish Quarterly Review |date=1895 |publisher=Macmillan |language=en}}</ref>