THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: A CLASSICAL OR SOCIAL APPROACH? 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY:

A CLASSICAL OR SOCIAL APPROACH? 

By: Daniel McMillin

Abstract: In this paper, I will evaluate two approaches to the Trinity: classical and social. I will offer three ways in which social Trinitarianism is theologically incompatible with Nicaea. First, I will demonstrate the various ways that some proponents of social Trinitarianism use this model of the Trinity for their social agendas. Secondly, I will discuss the differences between how classical and social Trinitarians define the term perichoresis. I will then provide some criticism concerning he problem with social Trinitarians’ Monothelitism and discuss whether God has one or three will(s). Finally, I have offered an alternative way of reconciling the oneness and threeness of the triune God through the classical doctrine of divine simplicity.

THE TRINITY PARADOX: HOW CAN GOD BE THREE AND ONE?

There is possibly nothing more important to discuss as finite creatures than to talk about the high things of God. The doctrine of the Triune God, theology proper, is vital to the Christian faith.[1] However, there has been much debate and confusion surrounding the confession of the threeness or triunity of God. Many Christians are puzzled by the confession of the Trinity, especially since it seems paradoxical to say that God is simultaneously one and three.[2] 

Davis and Yang note three essential claims about the Trinity that must be affirmed in order to address this “logical problem of the Trinity” or “threeness-oneness problem.” They are: (1) the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (2) the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Father is not the Holy Spirit; and (3) there is one and only one God.[3] In sum, every Christian must affirm that (1) each person of the Trinity is divine;[4] (2) each person of the Trinity must be distinguished from the other persons;[5] and (3) any doctrine of the Trinity must maintain the unity or oneness of God.[6]

It appears as though there has been a type of resurgence concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. However, this vision of the Trinity appears very different from the Trinity in history. As Holmes notes, “The explosion of theological work claiming to recapture the doctrine of the Trinity that we have witnessed in recent decades in fact misunderstands and distorts the traditional doctrine so badly that it is unrecognizable.” As a result, this “twentieth-century renewal of Trinitarian theology” appears to depend upon “concepts and ideas that cannot be found in patristic, medieval, or Reformation accounts of the doctrine of the Trinity.” [7] Some of the most prominent theologians of the twentieth century were social Trinitarians, and their work has heavily influenced many theologians in the twenty-first century. It was not until recently that these theologians “have faced significant challenges from more classically oriented theologians.”[8] It is for that reason that most recent theological works are oriented towards retrieving classical Trinitarian theism that returns to Scripture and Nicaea for guidance.[9] Thus, “in order to grasp trinitarian doctrine creatively in our own setting, we must retrieve Nicaea.”[10]

THE SOCIAL TRINITY: IS THE MODERN APPROACH BETTER?

Social Trinitarians argue that being is to be viewed as an interpersonal love relationship where the divine persons are in communion with one another. Jurgen Moltmann proposed “a social doctrine of the Trinity,” in which the Triune God is now viewed as “a community of Father, Son, and Spirit, whose unity is constituted by mutual indwelling and reciprocal interpretation.”[11] Similarly, Richard Swinburne understands the Trinity as a “collective” of three “individuals, whose unity consists in the fact that each of them are members of a genus (kind) named ‘divine.’”[12] According to Swinburne, the reason why God is minimally three is because “if there are three divine persons, they can exhibit within the Godhead that characteristic of God which Christians have always regarded as so important – love.”[13] Thomas H. McCall views the Trinity as something similar to a “society or family of three human persons.”[14] Cornelius Plantinga Jr. views the divine persons as “distinct centers of knowledge, will, love, and action.”[15] Stephen T. Davis suggests that each person of the Trinity has a will because “God is like a community” where the Father, Son, and Spirit come together to share a perichoretic unity.[16] Within this social trinitarian approach, each person of the trinity experiences a “unity of purpose, fellowship, communion, transparency, self-deference, or just simply the love among Father, Son, and Spirit.”[17] Stanley Grenz emphatically suggests that it is this cooperative, societal love that unites the divine persons.[18] William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland define social trinitarianism by stating that “In God there are three distinct centers of self-consciousness, each with its proper intellect and will.”[19] Furthermore, “the divine persons are not identical to God, for God is triune, but the Father is not triune (and neither is the Son nor the Spirit). Rather, each divine person is a part of the one God.”[20] Craig and Moreland suggest that “we could think of the persons of the Trinity as divine because they are parts of the Trinity, that is, parts of God…it seems undeniable that there is some part-whole relation obtaining between the persons of the Trinity and the entire Godhead.”[21]

For the most part, social Trinitarianism seems to be the default position in academia. [22] So what makes social Trinitarianism so appealing? Stephen Wellum notes three reasons why social Trinitarianism is so attractive: (1) a social view is thought to warrant various social and political ideologies, (2) it is seen as a “better” way to read Scripture, and (3) it has perceived advantages for Christology given that the two doctrinal areas are inseparable.[23] Accordingly, there are two major versions of the social trinitarian view, namely, the social trinitarian-ontological kenotic christology view, [24] which redefines the classical definition of “essence” and person,” and the social trinitarian-functional kenotic christology view, [25] which locates the will in person and avoids distinguishing the divine essence with essential-accidentals. Matthew Barrett provides eight marks of social trinitarianism: (1) The starting point (or at least emphasis) is not simplicity but the three persons; some reject simplicity altogether; (2) Trinity is redefined as a society and community, analogous to human society; (3) Persons are redefined as three centers of consciousness and will; (4) Persons are redefined according to their relationships: focus on mutuality and societal interaction; (5) Unity is redefined as interpersonal relationships of love between persons (redefinition of perichoresis); (6) Large overlap (sometimes collapse) of eminent and economic Trinity; (7) Sets East over against West, appealing to Eastern fathers; and (8) Social Trinity is a paradigm for social theory (ecclesiology, politics, gender, etc.). [26]

Most social Trinitarians propose that the historical approach to the Trinity requires some modifications or ought to be rejected altogether. [27]  However, those who do engage with the 4th-century controversies mistakenly interpret a division between a Western (Latin) model of the Trinity and an Eastern (Greek) understanding.[28] Social Trinitarians appeal to the Eastern, Cappadocian fathers for their model of the Trinity since they began with the threeness of God to the oneness of God, whereas the Western fathers started with the oneness or simplicity of God to the threeness of God.[29] As Jenson summarized, the East proposed divine unity through “sheer givenness,” while the West “posited utter simplicity of the divine ousia.”[30] This was first introduced during the 19th century by Theodore de Régnon,[31] was appealed to by Jurgen Moltman in the 20th century[32], and has been heavily promoted by Colin Gunton in the 21st century.[33] However, this thesis has been rejected by most patristic scholars. One of the most influential works against this Eastern vs. Western paradigm was Lewis Ayres’ Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. One of the major problems of this theory is that it is historically inaccurate. For starters, the Cappadocian fathers appealed to simplicity just as much as the Western fathers. [34]

THE TRINITY DRIFT: HOW DID WE GET HERE?

All doctrines are derived from the Bible. Most of the time, doctrines are discovered either within the comfort of the Christian home or community while reading the Scriptures. However, many times, our doctrines are refined and advanced in light of controversy to discover what we truly mean by what we say and clarify what we do not mean by what we say. In the fourth century, the Arian controversy created the need for the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, which set the standard for Trinitarian theology for centuries. Currently, Trinitarian theology poorly engages with pro-Nicene Trinitarian theology, “as a result,” as Lewis Ayres notes, “the legacy of Nicaea remains paradoxically the unnoticed ghost at the modern Trinitarian feast.”[35] Neglecting Nicaea leads to heresy, in this case, tritheism. A proper engagement with pro-Nicene theology does not require a redefinition of the Trinity. Instead, it deserves further retrieval. If Nicaea aligns with the Biblical image of the Trinity, then we should return to Nicaea, not run further away from it. It is for that reason, as Matthew Barrett suggests, that we are currently experiencing a “trinity drift” where “the Trinity of the Bible, our Trinity, has been manipulated beyond recognition. The guest of honor at the trinitarian feast is not the biblical, orthodox Trinity at all.”[36] 

HOW THE SOCIAL TRINITY HAS BEEN USED TO MEET OUR SOCIAL AGENDAS

To our demise, the holy Trinity has been redefined to meet our own agendas.[37] To list a few examples, we will examine how Boff and Moltmann’s social models of the Trinity fulfill their agendas. Leonardo Boff understands the trinity in terms of a society or community. As a result, he argues that the Trinity should be used as a prototype for the church, politics,[38] and liberation theology.[39]  Boff says, “Society is not just the sum total of the individuals that make it up, but has it's own being woven out of the threads of relationships among individuals, functions and institutions, which together make up the social and political community.” This leads Boff to conclude that the model for human society aids our understanding of the Trinity. He suggests that human society is a “pointer” to Trinity and, as a result, the Trinity becomes our model for human society.[40] Boff understands the union within the Trinity is made up of three subjects or persons who cooperate in a community when he said, “God is a community of Persons and not simply the One; God’s unity exists in the form of communion (common-union).”[41] 

Moltmann’s use of the social trinity leads to his understanding of the gospel, democracy, and the role of women in the Church. He essentially reinterprets the gospel by reinterpreting the Trinity. [42]  Moltmann holds what he calls a “Trinitarian theology of the cross” and argues that the Trinity is best understood in light of God’s passible love.[43] The Trinity is best understood in light of the cross. In this way, the Trinity is best understood as an event since God is fundamentally dependent upon the historical event of the cross. In essence, God is not God without the cross; thus, the Trinity is not the Trinity without the cross. Moltmann’s understanding differs fundamentally from others who may propose that God is revealed through the cross, whereas Moltmann suggests that God is wholistically known by the cross. Jordan Cooper offers two reasons why this understanding is historically and biblically without warrant.[44] First, in Scripture, God’s love is the cause of Christ's passion (John 3:16); it does not simply arise through passion. Second, this social model of the trinity is foreign to the Western and Eastern formulations of the Trinity. Additionally, Moltmann mistakenly conflates the immanent or ontological Trinity with the economic Trinity since he understands that the inner life of God is expressed in the event of the cross. [45] In essence, God is an event, namely, the cross.

In Moltmann’s model for the social Trinity, he sees that the divine persons are similar to a community of people who “are defined through their relations with one another and in their significance for one another, not in opposition to one another, in terms of power and possession.”[46] He then compares the Trinity with human society by saying, “We find the earthly reflection of this divine sociality, not in the autocracy of a single ruler but in the democratic community of free people, not in the lordship of the man over the woman but in their equal mutuality, not in an ecclesiastical hierarchy but in a fellowship church.”[47] Essentially, Moltmann’s use of the social Trinity leads to social and ecclesial equality since the hierarchy is finally deconstructed.[48] Many feminist theologians champion the equality of males and females in society and in the Church by using Moltmann’s definition of the Trinity. The triune God is no longer masculine but genderless (some may even say bisexual), and there is now no longer any room for the patriarchy. It is for that reason that theologians can now argue for an egalitarian approach to the role of women with the view of a social, egalitarian trinity.[49] The most problematic part concerning this approach “is that social Trinitarianism is not prescribing triune relations as informative for church life as much as it takes an ideal account of church life and projects it onto the Trinity.” As such, with this social approach, “the Trinity becomes a great place to get your ecclesiology validated because you can say that God is internally egalitarian or monarchial, free or ordered, living or disciplined, or whatever corresponds to your ideal vision of the church. It is not so much that God’s triune being is a model for church community, but more like the church community becomes a model for conceiving of God’s triune existence.”[50] 

The social trinity model allows the theologian, philosopher, and average Christian alike to argue whatever agenda we would like with the Trinity. As a result, the historical doctrine of the Trinity must be redefined to become more social. When we examine the social trinity and the classical trinity, we find that this model is not the same as the orthodox, pro-Nicene trinity. In fact, we find that many proponents of social Trinitarianism reject certain fundamental components of the creeds.[51] It is for that reason that if the social trinitarian model is accepted, then “we have not only drifted away from the biblical, orthodox Trinity, but we have manipulated the Trinity to meet our social agendas.”[52]

SOCIAL TRINITARIAN VS CLASSICAL TRINITARIAN DEFINITION OF “PERICHORESIS”

The doctrine of perichoresis is understood as a “mutual indwelling” of the divine persons. “The Father, Son, and Spirit “indwell each other, interpenetrate each other, fully contain each other, are fully open to each other, and so on.”[53] Normally, social Trinitarians who appeal to perichoresis are regarded as “perichoretic monotheists.” Moltmann understands personhood as a perichoretic fellowship of the three persons. “In respect of the Trinity’s inner life, the three Persons themselves form their unity, by virtue of their relation to one another and in the eternal perichoresis of their love.”[54] Similarly, Boff understands the Trinity in terms of “the union of the three Persons by virtue of their perichoresis and eternal communion.”[55] Plantinga defines personhood as a “distinct center of knowledge, will, love, and action.”[56] He further regards the “distinct centers of consciousness” where each person of “the Holy Trinity is a divine, transcendent society or community of three fully personal and fully divine entities.”[57] He argues that each person of the Trinity “must be regarded as tightly enough related to each other so as to render plausible the judgment that they constitute a particular social unit.”[58] As such, the Father, Son, and Spirit are now conceived as “members of the same family.”[59] In light of how social Trinitarians define personhood, “the modern notion of person is basically that of being-in-relationship; a person is a subject existing as a center of autonomy, gifted with consciousness and freedom.”[60] 

James Dolezal offers a classical Trinitarian definition for “perichoresis” as he says it is “the ancient teaching that argues that each of the three persons indwells and is interior to the others.”[61] Similarly, Thomas Joseph White says it is “the mutual inherence or indwelling of the three persons of the Holy Trinity in one another…not only do the persons proceed from one another; and not only does each of the persons have in himself all that pertains to the divine essence or being; in addition, each person is simultaneously within the others, and in a reciprocity of communion with the others, without ceasing to truly be himself.”[62] 

However, this definition differs from how social Trinitarians employ this doctrine. While many social Trinitarians argue that this model of the Trinity best maintains the threeness of God, this definition actually does not avoid tritheism.[63] The social Trinitarian's definition of the Trinity as three distinct centers of consciousness and will does not make one God but three. James Dolezal notes that these “appeals to perichoretic unity alone will not suffice to explain why God is one God inasmuch as classically speaking perichoretic unity itself follows from substantial unity.”[64] God is not one according to this model. There is unity in God since the three persons indwell in one another. As Dolezal writes, “The reason the Father, Son, and Spirit are so perfectly ‘in’ each other is that they are the one same substantial being.”[65] The divine persons enjoy their blessed unity because they share the divine essence. As Thomas Aquinas argues, “The Father is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own essence, and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on His part. Hence it follows that as the Father’s essence is in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own essence, it follows that he Himself is in the Father in Whom is His essence…and the same applies to the Holy Ghost.”[66]

SOCIAL TRINITARIANISM AND MONOTHELITISM: ARE THERE THREE WILLS IN GOD OR ONLY ONE?

Contrary to the social trinitarian approach, Scripture’s presentation of the Trinity shows that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25) and one will (Matt. 6:10; Rom. 12:2; Eph. 5:17; 1 Thess. 5:18; Heb. 10:36; 1 Pet. 2:15).[67] As John Owen said, “The Father, Son, and Spirit have not distinct will. They are one God, and God’s will is one, as being an essential property nature.”[68] Scripture does not present the Triune God with multiple wills with each person of the Trinity.

Within the social trinitarian model, there are three distinct persons along with three distinct wills. The problem with this model is that there are three separate centers of consciousness within the Triune God. Each of these centers of consciousness does not act as one but as three. Within the community of the Trinity, all three persons of the Godhead cannot act as one unless they cooperate with one another. This approach is similar to the Arians, who argued for a unity of wills rather than a unity of essence. This creates another problem where instead of one divine will within the ontological Trinity, there are three divine wills. As a result, when the Logos became incarnate, there were not two wills, a human and divine (Dyothelitism), but there was only one will in Christ (Monothelitism) since the will is within the person.[69]

One of the easily distinguishable doctrines that help separate classical Trinitarians from social Trinitarians is “inseparable operations.” According to Adonis Vidu, the “doctrine of inseparable operations” teaches that the three divine persons “share the divine agency of the one God.”[70] The works of the Father, Son, and Spirit are unified because they act inseparably. Classically, God’s activity has been understood in terms of opera ad intra (work within the Trinity) and ad extra (work outside the Trinity). Each person of the Trinity acts inseparably in the works of creation to redemption (ad extra) as well as in how they inseparably relate to one another through their eternal relations of origin. “The doctrine of the Trinity and that of the inseparable operations mutually reinforce each other.”[71]

CLASSICAL TRINTIARINISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY: HOW IS GOD ONE AND NOT THREE?

Social Trinitarians locate the oneness of the Trinity through their sharing of a generic divine essence. As such, each divine person cooperates with one another through an I-Thou relationship.[72] As Thomas H. McCall defines these terms, he suggests, “the divine persons are fully personal in the sense that they exist together as what may be called distinct speech-agents in what are sometimes referred to as ‘I-Thou relationships,’ and they exist only within their mutual relationships.” [73] As Moreland and Craig write, “The divine persons of the Trinity are not divine in virtue of instantiating the divine nature.”[74] Rather, they are one because of how they relate to one another. Each person of the Trinity, according to Moreland and Craig, are parts of God that come together as a whole to make one God. As such, “it is the Trinity as a whole that is properly God.”[75] This understanding of the Trinity is contrary to the pro-Nicene tradition. As noted, “the pro-Nicene tradition did not understand the divine persons as distinct, psycho-volitional centers of self-consciousness, engaged in I-Thou relationships with one another.” Instead, it “affirmed numerically one divine mind and will in the Godhead.”[76]

In contrast, classical Trinitarian theists find the doctrine of divine simplicity incredibly valuable for understanding the triunity of God since it explains how God is necessarily one. Many social Trinitarians are heavily critical of the classic doctrine of simplicity.[77] Classical theists, however, find that the doctrine of divine simplicity “is clearly a controlling centerpiece of classical Christian grammar, shaping even the articulation of the Trinity.”[78] Simplicity is why we can say that God is three in persons and one in essence rather than three in persons with three separate natures, which is tritheism. That is why Barrett suggests that “simplicity is not only consistent with a God who is triune, but simplicity is the reason we can affirm a God who is triune.”[79] 

Throughout Church history, theologians began to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity by beginning with the divine attributes, especially with simplicity and the oneness of God and then went to the threeness of God. According to Ayres, “The deepest concern of pro-Nicene Trinitarian theology is shaping our attention to the union of the irreducible persons in the simple and unitary godhead.”[80] However, as Dolezal notes, “the recent trend has been to begin with a study of the trinitarian relations and persons and then to proceed to a consideration of the divine nature.”[81] When social Trinitarians begin with the threeness of God, they then subject the divine attributes to their understanding of the Trinity. As a result, divine simplicity becomes irrelevant, and many of the other divine attributes become irrelevant.[82] It is for that reason that, as Glenn Butner says, “Without simplicity, the classical doctrine of the Trinity must be dramatically modified.”[83]  Unfortunately, without the doctrine of divine simplicity, there are no safeguards for affirming the singularity and unity of God, where the Trinity is ultimately mutilated and divided into various pieces.[84] This is why we can affirm what Herman Bavinck said, “The divine being is not composed of three persons, nor is each person composed of the being and personal attributes of that person, but the one uncompounded (simple) being exists in three persons.”[85]

COMING BACK TO SHORE: IS THERE ANY HOPE OF CLASSICAL TRINITARIAN RETRIEVAL?

While we may be experiencing a “trinity drift,” there is an effort of retrieval. As such, social Trinitarianism has received heavy criticism recently from many notable theologians[86] and philosophers[87] alike. The major criticism against the social trinity is that it is ultimately contrary to pro-Nicene trinitarian theology by redefining the divine nature and persons.[88] Stephen Holmes suggests that social Trinitarianism is not practically and ethically useful; it deviates from the Eastern and Western Church fathers, and it is without a biblical warrant.[89] My hope is that this paper not only sheds light on the reality of this trinity drift but that it also brings us back to shore. It is possible that this subject has stirred some interest in the doctrine of the Trinity that will not only be beneficial for scholars but also laypeople. Certainly, there are those who suppose that the doctrine of the Trinity is impractical or too intellectual for the Church, so we ought to leave it in the academy and out of the pulpit. But, if we were to reclaim a Biblical understanding of the Triune God, then our proclamation of the Scriptures will become more clear as we see God for who He truly is.[90]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Michael, and Matthew Barrett. “Social or Classical? A Theological Dialogue” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Edited by Matthew Barrett. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024.

Ambrose of Milan. The Faith.

Anatolios, Khaled. Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Against the Heathen.

Letter on the Council of Nicaea.

Augustine of Hippo. The Trinity.

Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford Press University, 2004.

Barrett, Matthew. On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024.

Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, And Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 2021.

Barrett, Matthew, Ronni Kurtz, Samuel G. Parkison, and Joseph Lanier, Proclaiming the Triune God: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Life of the Church. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024.

Basil of Caesarea. Three Books Against Eunomius.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, Vol. II. Edited by John Bold. Translated by John Vriend.  Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Boff, Leonardo. Trinity and Society. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1988.

Butner Jr., D. Glenn. “For and Against de Régnon: Trinitarianism East and West” IJST 17:4 (2015): 399-412.

Trinitarian Dogmatics: Exploring the Grammar of the Chrisitan Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022.

Carter, Craig A. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.

Coakley, Sarah. “‘Persons’ in the ‘Social’ Doctrine of the Trinity: A Critique of Current Analytic Discussion.” Pages 123-144 in The Trinity. Edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins. Oxford: Oxford University, Press, 1994.

Cooper, Jordan. The Doctrine of God: A Defense of Classical Christian Theism. Ithaca, NY: Weidner Institute, 2023.

Craig, William L., and J.P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.

Davis, Stephen T. “A Somewhat Playful Proof of the Social Trinity in Five Easy Steps,” Philosphia Christi 1 (1999): 103-105.

“Perichoretic Monotheism: A Defense of a Social Theory of the Trinity,” in The Trinity: East/West Dialogue. Edited by Melville Y. Stewart. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2003.

“Perichoretic Monotheism,” in Christian Philosophical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Davis, Stephen T. Daniel Kendall, SJ, and Gerald O’Collins, SJ, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); C. Stephans Evans, Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Davis, Stephen T. and Eric T. Yang, An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology: Faith Seeking Understanding. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

de Régnon, Theodore. Études de Théologie Positive sur la Sainte Trinité: Première Série – Exposé du Dogme. Paris: Victor Retaux et Fils, 1892.

DeWeese, Garrett J. “One Person, Two Natures: Two metaphysical Models of the Incarnation.” Pages 114-153 in Jesus in Trinitarian perspective. Edited by Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2007.

Dukeman, Jeffrey A. Mutual Hierarchy: A New Approach to Social Trinitarianism. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2019.

Emerson, Matthew Y. and Luke Stamps. “On Trinitarian Theological Method.” Pages 157-174 in Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application. Edited by Keith S. Whitfield. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2019.

Franke, John R. “God Is Love: The Social Trinity and the Mission of God.” Pages 105-119 in Trinitarian Theology for the Church: Scripture, Community, Worship. Edited by Daniel J. Treier and David Lauber. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Furey, Daniel R. “Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity Supports Egalitarianism.” MA Thesis, 2020.

Gregory Nazianzus. Oration. 

Gregory of Nyssa, Against Enomius.

 “An Answer to Ablabius: That We Should Not Think of Saying There Are Three Gods.” 

On Not Three Gods.

Hilary of Poitiers. The Trinity.

Gunton, Colin. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003.Grenz, Brian J. Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.

Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

The Named God and the Question for Being: A Trinitarian Theo-Ontology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Hasker, William. Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

“Objections to Social Trinitarianism,” Religious Studies 46.4 (2010): 421-439.

Hawthrone, Gerald F. The Presence and the Power. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003.

Hollingsworth, Andrew. “On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism: Problems with a Recent Attempt.” JBTS 7.2 (2023): 195-213.

Holmes, Stephen R. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

“Three Versus One? Some Problems with Social Trinitarianism” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Edited by Matthew Barrett. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024.

Husbands, Mark. “The Trinity Is Not Our Social Program: Volf, Gregory of Nyssa and Barth.” Pages 120-141 in Trinitarian Theology for the Chruch: Scripture, Community, Worship. Edited by Daniel J. Treier and David Lauber. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies.

Issler, Klaus. Living into the Life of Jesus: The Formation of Christian Character. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012.

Jenson, Robert W. Systematic Theology: The Triune God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

McCall, Thomas H. Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Moltmann, Jurgen. Crucified God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015.

The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. London: SCM Press, 1981.

Ortlund, Gavin. “Divine Simplicity in Historical Perspective: Resourcing a Contemporary Discussion.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 16, 2014.

Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019.

Owen, John. Works of John Owen.

Parkison, Samuel G. “On Critiquing ‘On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism’: A Response to Andrew Hollingsworth.” JBTS 7.2 (2023): 215-226.

“The Trinity Is Still Not our Social Program: The Trinity and Gender Roles.” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Edited by Matthew Barrett. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024.

Plantinga Jr., Cornelius. “Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity,” The Thomist 50, 1986.

“Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement. Edited by Feenstra, Ronald J. and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.

“Social Trinity and Tritheism” in A Reader in Contemporary Philosophical Theology. Ed. Oliver D. Crisp. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity. Oxford: Oxford Academic Books, 2009.

Sanders, Fred. “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology.” Southwestern Journal of Theology, 47.2 (2005): 153-176.

Sanders, Fred, and Scott R. Swain, Retrieving Eternal Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Christian Faith. London: Bloomsbury, 2016.

Sexton Jason S. “Beyond Social Trinitarianism: The Baptist, Trinitarian Innovation of Stanley J. Grenz.” Baptist Quarterly 44 (2012): 473-486.

Two Views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014.

Stamps, Robert Lucas. “‘Thy Will Be Done’: A Dogmatic Defense of Dyothelitism in Light of Recent Monothelite Proposal.” Louisville, KY: SBTS, 2014.

Swinburne, Richard, The Christian God. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

“The social theory of the Trinity.” Religious Studies, 2018.

Tanner, Kathryn. “Social Trinitarianism and Its Critics.” Pages 368-386 in Rethinking Trinitarian Theology: Disputed Questions and Contemporary Issues in Trinitarian Theology. Edited by Giulio Maspero and Robert J. Wozniak. New York: T&T Clark, 2012.

Tertullian. Against Marcion.

Thompson, Thomas R. and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. “Trinity and Kenosis.” Pages 183-184in Exploring Kenotic Christology. Edited by C. Stephen Evans. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2009.

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992.

van Inwagen, Peter. “Three Persons in One Being.” In The Trinity: East/West Dialogue. Edited by Melville Y. Stewart. Translated by Eugene Grushetsky and Xenia Grushetsky. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, 2003.

Vidu, Adonis. The Same God Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021.

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998)

“The Trinity Is Our Social Program: The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Shape of Social Engagement.” Modern Theology 14. (1998): 403-423.

Wellum, Stephen. Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1. Brentwood, TN: B&H Publishing, 2024.

“Three Persons One Will” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Edited by Matthew Barrett. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024.

White, Thomas Joseph. The Trinity: On the Nature and Mystery of the One God. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022.

END NOTES

[1] Contra, Friedrich Schleiermacher, who said that there was “no use in Christian doctrine” for the Trinity in The Christian Faith (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 741. Schleiermacher deemphasized the doctrine of the Trinity because he argued for an experiential approach to theology.

[2] It is not a contradiction to say God is three and one. However, there is a need for clarification on what is meant by “one” and “three.” God is one in one way and three in another way. He is three distinct persons, one simple divine essence.

[3] Stephen T. Davis and Eric T. Yang, An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology: Faith Seeking Understanding (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 57.

[4] The Apostles Creed reads: “I believe in God, the Father almighty… I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord…I believe in the Holy Spirit.”

[5] The Athanasian Creed reads: “That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal… the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God…accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers; there is one Son, not three sons; there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirit.”

[6] The Nicene Creed reads: “We believe in one God, the Father… We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… We believe in the Holy Spirit.”

[7] Stephen R. Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), xv, 2.

[8] Jordan Cooper, The Doctrine of God: A Defense of Classical Christian Theism (Ithaca, NY: Weidner Institute, 2023), 200. Craig A. Carter and Adonis Vidu are a few examples of theologians who once embraced social Trinitarianism and have since abandoned it after retrieving pro-Nicene Trinitarian theology.

[9] For example, Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011); Matthew Barrett, On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024); Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain, Retrieving Eternal Generation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017); Gavin Ortlund, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

[10] Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 1.

[11] Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (London: SCM Press, 1981), viii. See esp. 19-69, 191-222.

[12] Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 180-181.

[13] Richard Swinburne, “The Social theory of the Trinity.” Religious Studies (2018), 12. See, John R. Franke, “God Is Love: The Social Trinity and the Mission of God” in Trinitarian Theology for the Church: Scripture, Community, Worship. Ed. Daniel J. Treier and David Lauber (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 105-119.

[14] Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 28, esp. 11-55.

[15] Cornelius Plantinga Jr., “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement. Ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 22. See an updated version of this: “Social Trinity and Tritheism” in A Reader in Contemporary Philosophical Theology. Ed. Oliver D. Crisp (London: T&T Clark, 2009.

[16] Stephen T. Davis, “Perichoretic Monotheism: A Defense of a Social Theory of the Trinity,” in The Trinity: East/West Dialogue. Ed. Melville Y. Stewart (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2003); or “Perichoretic Monotheism,” in Christian Philosophical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); “A Somewhat Playful Proof of the Social Trinity in Five Easy Steps,” Philosphia Christi 1 (1999): 103-105.

[17] Thompson and Plantinga, “Trinity and Kenosis,” in Exploring Kenotic Christology. Ed. C. Stephen Evans (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2009), 183-184.

[18] Brian J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004); Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000); The Named God and the Question for Being: A Trinitarian Theo-Ontology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005); The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004). Jason S. Sexton suggests that Grenz’s view ought to be categorized as a “trinitarian innovator” rather than a “social trinitarian” in “Beyond Social Trinitarianism: The Baptist, Trinitarian Innovation of Stanley J. Grenz” Baptist Quarterly 44 (2012): 473-486.

[19] William L. Craig and J.P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), see esp. 575-614.

[20] Davis and Young, Christian Philosophical Theological, 70.

[21] Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations, 591.

[22] Sarah Coakley, “‘Persons’ in the ‘Social’ Doctrine of the Trinity: A Critique of Current Analytic Discussion,” in The Trinity. Ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University, Press, 1994), 123-144; Garrett J. DeWeese, “One Person, Two Natures: Two metaphysical Models of the Incarnation,” in Jesus in Trinitarian perspective. Ed. Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2007), 114-153; Jeffrey A. Dukeman, Mutual Hierarchy: A New Approach to Social Trinitarianism (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2019); Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, SJ, and Gerald O’Collins, SJ, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); C. Stephans Evans, Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); William Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 19-25; Gerald F. Hawthrone, The Presence and the Power (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003); Klaus Issler, Living into the Life of Jesus: The Formation of Christian Character (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012); Kathryn Tanner, “Social Trinitarianism and Its Critics,” in Rethinking Trinitarian Theology: Disputed Questions and Contemporary Issues in Trinitarian Theology. Ed. Giulio Maspero and Robert J. Wozniak (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 368-386.

[23] Stephen Wellum, Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Publishing, 2024), 707.

[24] Proponents of this view are Stephen T. Davis, William Hasker, and Cornelius Plantinga Jr.

[25] Proponents of this view are William L. Craig, Garrett J. DeWeese, Gerald F. Hawthorne, Klaus Isslar, and J.P. Moreland.

[26] Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, And Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 2021), 68.

[27] According to Craig A. Carter, there are three major ways that modern theology has drifted away from pro-Nicene theology. “First, modern theology tends to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity separately from the doctrine of the attributes of God…second, modern theology often is far too impatient with mystery and much too quick to declare a contradiction when, in fact, it is only confronting a paradox…third, modern theology tries to jump over the history of theology and interpret the Bible in modern terms without realizing when it is just repeating old mistakes all over again.” (Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021), 22.

[28] Peter van Inwagen, “Three Persons in One Being,” in The Trinity: East/West Dialogue. Ed. Melville Y. Stewart. Trans. Eugene Grushetsky and Xenia Grushetsky (Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, 2003).

[29] Cornelius Plantinga Jr. suggests that social trinitarianism is “respectably, even if distantly, of the house and lineage of Gregory of Nyssa.” (“Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity,” The Thomist 50. 1986), 341 However, as Lewis Ayres demonstrates in his treatment of Gregory of Nyssa in chapter 14 of Nicaea and Its Legacy, he is surely mistaken in his interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa’s “An Answer to Ablabius: That We Should Not Think of Saying There Are Three Gods.”  

[30] Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology: The Triune God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), I:115-116.

[31] Theodore de Régnon, Études de Théologie Positive sur la Sainte Trinité: Première Série – Exposé du Dogme (Paris: Victor Retaux et Fils, 1892). For a recent critique of this approach see, D. Glenn Butner Jr., “For and Against de Régnon: Trinitarianism East and West” IJST 17:4 (2015): 399-412.

[32] Jurgen Moltmann, Crucified God. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015).

[33] Colin Gunton, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003).

[34] Eastern fathers: Basil of Caesarea, Three Books Against Eunomius; Gregory Nazianzus, Oration; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Enomius; On Not Three Gods; see also Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity (Oxford: Oxford Academic Books, 2009). Western fathers: Ambrose of Milan, The Faith; Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Heathen; Letter on the Council of Nicaea; Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity; Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity; Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies; Tertullian, Against Marcion.

[35] Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford Press University, 2004), 7. For more on the current state of Trinitarian theology, see Fred Sanders, “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology,” Southwestern Journal of Theology, 47.2 (2005): 153-176.

[36] Barrett, Simply Trinity, 70-71. For recent criticism against Barrett’s presentation on social Trinitarianism, see Andrew Hollingsworth, “On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism: Problems with a Recent Attempt,” JBTS 7.2 (2023): 195-213. For a response to these criticisms, see Samuel G. Parkison, “On Critiquing ‘On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism’: A Response to Andrew Hollingsworth,” JBTS 7.2 (2023): 215-226.

[37] See Mark Husbands “The Trinity Is Not Our Social Program: Volf, Gregory of Nyssa and Barth” in Trinitarian Theology for the Chruch: Scripture, Community, Worship. Ed. Daniel J. Treier and David Lauber (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 120-141.

[38] Boff critiques capitalist societies with his model of the trinity and claims that the “capitalist regimes contradict the challenges and invitations of trinitarian communion.” He then argues that “societies with a socialist regime are founded on a right principle, that of communion between all and the involvement of all in the means of production.” (Boff, Trinity and Society, 150) In sum, since the Trinity is socialist, human societies ideally ought to be socialist.

[39] Boff states that this model of the Trinity is “our liberation program” (Trinity and Society, 163) To make the gospel fit into his view of liberation theology, Boff goes so far as to argue that “the incarnate Son died as a protest against the slaveries imposed on God’s sons and daughters.” (Trinity and Society, 229)

[40] Boff, Trinity and Society, 119.

[41] Boff, Trinity and Society, 119. This view differs from the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, being three persons who share the one divine nature.

[42] Robert W. Jenson goes so far as to argue that we must “reinterpret” the divine essence or being to “accommodate the gospel.” (Systematic Theology, 1:212).

[43] Moltmann introduces the idea of the suffering or passible God. He suggests that “The theology of the divine passion is founded on the biblical tenet, ‘God is love.’” (Trinity and the Kingdom, 57) He understands God’s love as something that can only be real if it is vulnerable and causes suffering thus, “the one who cannot suffer cannot love.” (Crucified God, 222) As such, “the suffering of Christ is the suffering of the passionate God.” (Trinity and the Kingdom, 22) The cross is the expression of God’s suffering love that, according to Moltmann, illuminates our understanding of the triunity of God when he said, “We can only talk about God’s suffering in trinitarian terms” (Trinity and the Kingdom, 25)

[44] Cooper, The Doctrine of God, 206, 208.

[45] Karl Rahner was the first theologian to introduce this conflation between who God is in relation to Himself and in relation to creation when he wrote, “the ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity.” (Karl Rahner, The Trinity. New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 22.

[46] Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, 198.

[47] Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, viii.

[48] Interestingly, Mirsolav Volf uses this model of the Trinity to argue for hierarchy within the church and society. (Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) He argues that the Trinity ought to be viewed as the pattern for our social program. (Miroslav Volf, “The Trinity Is Our Social Program: The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Shape of Social Engagement,” Modern Theology 14. 1998: 403-423.

[49] Daniel R. Furey, “Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity Supports Egalitarianism.” MA Thesis, 2020; Samuel G. Parkison, “The Trinity Is Still Not our Social Program: The Trinity and Gender Roles” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Ed. Matthew Barrett (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024).

[50] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 170.

[51] For example, Moltmann rejects the belief in God the Father as “Almighty.” He argues that God should be understood in terms of love, not power. (The Trinity and the Kingdom, 108)

[52] Barrett, Simply Trinity, 93.

[53] Davis and Young, Christian Philosophical Theological, 71. According to Davis and Yang, this approach is not meant to explain how the Trinity works but how to think about the Trinity. (Christian Philosophical Theological, 72) While this approach appears to avoid contradiction, it sacrifices intelligibility (Christian Philosophical Theological, 73)

[54] Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, 177.

[55] Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1988), 235.

[56] Plantinga, “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” 22.

[57] Plantinga, “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” 27.

[58] Plantinga, “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” 68.

[59] Plantinga, “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” 73.

[60] Boff, Trinity and Society, 115. Boff admittedly notes that his definition of personhood departs from the historical understanding and is willing run the risk of his words being understood “in a heretical sense.” (117).

[61] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 125.

[62] Thomas Joseph White, The Trinity: On the Nature and Mystery of the One God (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022), 507-508.

[63] “Tritheism” is the belief in three deities.

[64] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 128.

[65] Dolezal, 129. Gavin Ortlund argues that perichoresis may make “oneness among the three persons possible” but suggests that “divine simplicity makes it necessary.” (“Divine Simplicity in Historical Perspective: Resourcing a Contemporary Discussion,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 16. 2014: 452)

[66] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.42.5.

[67] Stephen J. Wellum, “Three Persons One Will” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Ed. Matthew Barrett (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024).

[68] John Owen, Works, 19:87.

[69] Chalcedonian Creed reads: “our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body.” For a defense of dyothelitisim, Robert Lucas Stamps, “‘Thy Will Be Done’: A Dogmatic Defense of Dyothelitism in Light of Recent Monothelite Proposal” (Louisville, KY: SBTS, 2014).

[70] Adonis Vidu. The Same God Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021), 1.

[71] Vidu, The Same God Works All Things, 123.

[72] The notion of “I and Thou” is drawn from Martin Buber’s work.

[73] Thomas H. McCall, “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective” in Two Views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Ed. Jason S. Sexton (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 117.

[74] Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations, 590.

[75] Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations, 589.

[76] Matthew Y. Emerson and Luke Stamps, “On Trinitarian Theological Method” in Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application. Ed. Keith S. Whitfield (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), 112.

[77] For more on this subject, see Daniel McMillin’s “Divine Simplicity: Is There a Biblical Warrant for the Thomistic Doctrine of Divine Simplicity?” (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2022).

[78] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 42.

[79] Barrett, Simply Trinity, 145. “Simplicity and triplicity are so mutually opposed that they cannot subsist at the same time (but not simplicity and Trinity because they are said in different respects): simplicity in respect to essence, but Trinity in respect to persons. In this sense, nothing hinders God (who is one in essence) from being three persons.” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992), II.193.

[80] Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 301.

[81] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 130.

[82] Some of the divine attributes that have become victims to this new trend are divine aseity, immutability, impassibility, and eternality, which have either been rejected or modified.

[83] D. Glenn Butner Jr., Trinitarian Dogmatics: Exploring the Grammar of the Chrisitan Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 76.

[84] Butner, Trinitarian Dogmatics, 92.

[85] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation. Ed. John Bold. Trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), II:177.

[86] Matthew Barrett, Craig A. Carter, Jordan Cooper, James E. Dolezal, Stephen R. Holmes, Adonis Vidu, Stephen Wellum.

[87] Jeffery Brower, Sarah Coakley, Brian Leftow, Michael Rae, Daniel Howard-Snyder, and Keith Yandell.

[88] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 711-713. For a response to the criticisms offered against social Trinitarianism, see William Hasker, “Objections to Social Trinitarianism,” Religious Studies 46.4 (2010): 421-439.

[89] Michael Allen and Matthew Barrett, “Social or Classical? A Theological Dialogue” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Ed. Matthew Barrett (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024); Stephen R. Holmes, “Three Versus One? Some Problems of Social Trinitarianism,” Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009). For a revision of this article see “Three Versus One? Some Problems with Social Trinitarianism” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God. Ed. Matthew Barrett (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024).

[90] An excellent resource that encourages readers to preach the Trinity is Matthew Barrett, Ronni Kurtz, Samuel G. Parkison, and Joseph Lanier, Proclaiming the Triune God: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Life of the Church (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024).