Doctrine of the Trinity

Reviews the historical origins and principal elements of Karl Rahner's critique of Thomas Aquinas and Bernard Lonergan. Argues that Rahner's critique fails to come to terms with the basic problematic of Trinitarian theology, and misunderstands the significance of Thomas Aquinas's achievement.

This essay was published in The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, edited by Christopher A. Beeley and Mark E. Weedman, for the CUAP Studies in Early Christianity (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018); this is the uncorrected proofs. Exploring the humanity and divinity of Jesus, the Son's relation to the Father, and the agency of the Holy Spirit, it is one of five essays suggesting Johannine contributions to trinitarian discussions in the early church.

현대의 많은 학자들이 오웬의 신학을 삼위일체적이라고 규정했다. 대표적으로 싱클레어 퍼거슨, 칼 트루먼, 켈리 캐픽, 브라이언 키, 피터 드 프리스 등은 삼위일체론이야말로 오웬 신학의 핵심이라고 주장한다.

퍼거슨은 오웬을 가리켜 “깊이 있는 삼위일체론적 신학자”라고 부른다. 트루먼은 “오웬의 작품을 통틀어 –그 작품들이 신론이나 구원론, 혹은 칭의론을 다루든 상관없이- 삼위일체론은 언제나 근본적이다.”라고 주장한다.

오웬 자신도 다음과 같이 쓴 적이 있다. “삼위일체론을 제거해 보라. 다음과 같은 두 가지가 사라져 버릴 것이다. 성자 안에서 성부에 의해 주어지는 은혜의 목적이 있을 수 없게 되어, 그 목적에 따라 실행이 이뤄지는 언약이 없어진다. 또한 사랑과 선의 모든 열매의 근거가 영혼으로부터 박탈된다.”

삼위일체론은 오웬의 전체 작품에 두루 나타난다. 그의 주요 작품 중에 하나인 『그리스도의 죽음 안에서 죽음의 죽음』(1647)이라는 작품은 삼위일체론에 근거하여 제한속죄 교리를 설명하고 있다. 『복음의 변호들』(1655)이라는 작품에서 오웬은 초기 잉글랜드 유니테리언이었던 존 비들(John Biddle)을 비판하는데, 그때에도 역시 다양한 성경 구절을 근거로 삼위일체론을 옹호한다. 오웬은 『성부, 성자, 성령 하나님, 구별된 각 위격과의 교제에 관하여』(1657)라는 책도 썼다. 대작(大作), 『히브리서 주석』(1668-84)에서도 오웬은 삼위일체론을 여러 곳에서 다루었다. 오웬은 삼위일체론을 지지하는 소품, 『삼위일체론에 대한 짧은 선언과 옹호』(1669)을 남기기도 했다. 그 외에도 오웬의 다양한 작품들이 삼위일체론과 연관되는데, 예를 들어 『그리스도의 위격에 관하여』, 『그리스도의 영광에 대한 묵상들과 설교들』, 『성령에 대한 설교』, 『기도 안에서 성령의 사역에 관하여』, 『성령과 그분의 사역에 관하여』라는 작품들이 그러하다. 『이신칭의 교리』라는 작품에서도 역시 오웬은 그리스도의 의의 전가 교리를 삼위일체론과 연관시켜서 설명한다.

이 글에서는 이상과 같은 오웬의 주요 작품들에 나타난 삼위일체론을 다룰 것이다. 하지만 오웬의 삼위일체론이 가지는 모든 측면들을 다룰 수는 없으므로, 현재 이슈가 되고 있는 하나의 논의를 중심으로 접근하면서 그의 삼위일체론을 설명하겠다. 특히 오웬의 삼위일체론에 핵심적으로 등장하는 두 교리, “삼위의 분리불가적인 작용에 대한 교리(Doctrine of Inseparable Operations)”와 “작용의 종단에 대한 교리(Doctrine of Terminus Operationis)”를 중심으로 하여 그의 삼위일체론의 특징을 설명하겠다.

Contrary to much of the recent literature on the trinitarian theology of John Owen, which often ascribes radical personal distinction to his account of triune relations and actions, this paper argues that Owen's account of distinct divine persons and trinitarian actions ought not to be contrasted with his theological forebears: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Calvin. Instead, his account of trinitarian ontology and operation is thoroughly consistent with (and dependent upon) the Augustinian principles that these interpreters suspect Owen is rejecting. The argument unfolds by presenting four putative points of strong personal distinction in John Owen's trinitarian theology and then reinterpreting each of the themes and passages that these four points are supposedly rooted in, evidencing his Augustinian account of trinitarian unity and distinction.

This articles engages the theology of Robert Jenson with three questions in mind: What is the doctrine of the Trinity for? Is it a practical doctrine? If so, how, and with what implications? It seeks, on the one hand, to identify whether Jenson's trinitarian theology ought to count as a " social " doctrine of the Trinity, and to what extent he puts it to work for human socio-practical purposes. On the other hand, in light of Jenson's career-long worries about Feuerbach and projection onto a God behind or above the triune God revealed in the economy, the article interrogates his thought with a view to recent critiques of social trinitarianism. The irony is that, in constructing his account of the Trinity as both wholly determined in and by the economy and maximally relevant for practical human needs and interests, precisely in order to avoid the errors of Feuerbachian " religion, " Jenson ends up engaging in a full-scale project of projection. Observation of the human is retrojected into the immanent life of the Trinity as the prior condition of the possibility for the human; upon this " discovery, " this or that feature of God's being is proposed as a resolution to a human problem, bearing ostensibly profound socio-practical import. The article is intended, first, as a contribution to the work, only now beginning, of critically receiving Jenson's theology; and, second , as an extension of general critiques of practical uses of trinitarian doctrine, such as Karen Kilby's or Kathryn Tanner's, by way of close engagement with a specific theologian.

This article will research the philosophical system known as Thomism to ascertain whether it will support the Doctrine of the Trinity in light of God’s simplicity. An emphasis will be made on what kinds of distinctions and relations are possible among the Divine Persons as stated by Thomism without violating God’s simplicity.

Christians, more than ever, need a basic introduction to Bible doctrine that is systematic and true to Scripture. This book is a popular introduction to the study of Bible doctrine firmly in the evangelical tradition. Each chapter covers a biblical doctrine, stresses its doctrinal importance and inter-connectedness to formulating a Christian worldview. The study questions provided help reinforce the material and make it usable even for a formal study of Bible doctrine. It is ideal for personal study and in groups for the home, church, school or ministry environment.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1518707378

http://bastionbooks.com/shop/survey-of-bible-doctrine/

This paper has long been in my mind and on my heart, and I was finally compelled to work on it and bring it to completion.

The length of the work is largely due to the fact that:
1) The Godhood glory of our Lord has been demonstrated book by book throughout the New Testament (and often in connection with Old Testament prophecy). As such, proofs from one NT book are often seen repeated in others.
2) Extensive comparisons with other scriptures have generally been made for each scripture passage cited in proof of the absolute Deity of Christ—with scripture thus buttressing scripture.
3) Each main text cited in proof of the fact that our Saviour is Jehovah-Jesus has almost always been cited in full and unedited (for all to read for themselves without comment) before citing it again with interspersed remarks bearing on its meaning and unavoidable implications.
4) Commentary other than my own remarks has often been added where it was deemed warranted and helpful.
5) Even scriptures were taken up that are, or may be, twisted and misused by wicked, deluded men to our Lord’s dishonor, and shown that they in fact necessarily redound to His blessed everlasting glory.

In keeping with the above, I have also emphasized the abundant scriptural testimony to our Lord’s unoriginated, underived, eternal Divine Sonship.

One of my objectives, which influenced the structure of this work, was to permit no escape-hatch, if you will, to deceivers or poor, lost deniers of our Saviour's absolute Divine glory. And one of my prayers is that the Holy Spirit would use this paper to shed the light of His scriptures with overwhelming force, such that there is no other recourse than to bow to His Word in true worship of our true God and Saviour Jesus Christ, or to otherwise outright reject His Word with no pretense of submitting to it. May it be the former!

Before delving into the main body of this work, I would also encourage readers to take the time to digest the “Introductory Remarks” which follow this Preface, and which set the framework, context and all-importance of “The Triunity of God and the Person and Work of Christ.” The time invested will pay off in great spiritual dividends—including grounding one in the truth and facilitating avoidance of pitfalls and
traps set by the enemy.

I should also note that I have intentionally not provided full citations of other works or commentaries that have been quoted, but almost always only the names of authors (and then simply their initials after the
first time citing from their works in a given section of the paper). I did not want the remarks cited to be about certain "authorities"; but solely about elucidating the truth (while at the same time not taking false "credit" for such wonderful and helpful comments).

May God use this paper to bless those who belong everlastingly to the Son—to cause their hearts to overflow endlessly in love, adoration, worship of Jehovah-Jesus, He who is their Life and Blessed Hope!—and to reveal, unto salvation, the eternal Godhood glory of the Son of His love to those who are perishing.

Chrysostom has often been regarded as a member of the School of Antioch and disciple of Diodore of Tarsus. In this paper (well outline), I propose instead that we should pay careful attention to Chrysostom's relationships with his friends and those whom he perceive as enemies to assess his theological allegiance. Based on his Trinitarian teachings in Baptistmal Instructions (given here) and in his Homilies against the Anomeans (hopefully by the final paper), it will be seen that there are far more theological continuities between Meletius (his Bishop and mentor) and Chrysostom. Both affirm the primacy of faith before understanding, a doctrine of incomprehensibility, a Neo-Nicene cum Eusebian understanding of Begottenness, and adoption of hypostasis as a safeguard against Sabellianism. More intriguingly, his unitive Christology sharply contradicts that of Diodore and calls into question the influence of the Bishop of Tarsus on him.

The article is now published at: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/18177565-00141p05

This thesis loactes a Christian rationale for human well-being in relation to the doctrine of the triune God. Specifically, this theological inquiry examines the triune God’s work in, and for, creation with a view to identifying the characteristics and dynamics of divine well-being through the intra-trinitarian movement of gift and receipt. This gifting and receiving within the Godhead is identified as ‘Divine self-enrichment’ — defined as God enriching God in the perfection and fullness of God. The mode through which Divine self-enrichment occurs is essentially kenotic. The thesis provides an extended inquiry into the theological logic of kenotic-enrichment, and its implications for human well-being. In particular, the thesis argues that the pattern of kenotic-enrichment is to be discerned in the dynamic economy of God in creation and human life. When humanity exhibits characteristics of kenotic-enrichment identified in the economic Trinity, there we see intimations of the work of God. In this sense, the archetype of divine enrichment is antecedently operative in the creation; where kenotic-enrichment conditions created well-being. The thesis, therefore, argues that a theology of triune self-enrichment provides an alternate, and complementary, theological paradigm for Christian rationale and praxis of international development and humanitarian aid.

This book explores how first- and second-century Christians read the Old Testament in order to differentiate the one God as multiple persons. The earliest Christians felt they could metaphorically “overhear” divine conversations between the Father, Son, and Spirit when reading the Old Testament. When these snatches of dialogue are connected and joined, they form a narrative about the unfolding interior divine life as understood by the nascent church. What emerges is not a static portrait of the triune God, but a developing story of divine persons enacting mutual esteem, voiced praise, collaborative strategy, and self-sacrificial love. This conversational divine story is explored as it ebbs and flows across the cosmos and through time. The result is a Trinitarian biblical and early Christian theology. While tracing this story, it is simultaneously argued that a new historical model is required for the New Testament and other early sources to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity first emerged—a model rooted in a little-known person-based ancient reading technique called prosopological exegesis. It is shown that prosopological exegesis is present throughout the earliest strata of Christian literature. This calls into question proposals that suggest Christology developed over time in the earliest church from low—Jesus as merely a messianic claimant—to high—Jesus as the preexistent Son of God. To the contrary, in agreement with Richard Bauckham’s Christology of Divine Identity (but simultaneously taking a different approach), it is argued that the earliest Christology was the highest.  Keywords:  Trinity, Christology, Christology of Divine Identity, prosopological exegesis, person, dialogue, Son of God, New Testament, Old Testament, early Christian

Cyril of Alexandria left to posterity a sizable body of exegetical literature. This monograph attempts to reconstruct his theology of Scripture in order to suggest that his exegetical practice is inseparable from, and must be interpreted in light of, his overarching theological vision. I argue that the most important intellectual factor shaping his exegesis is his Christologically focused, pro-Nicene Trinitarianism, an inheritance that he received from fourth-century authors. Cyril’s appropriation of pro-Nicene thought is evident in his theology of revelation and his theology of exegesis. Revelation, in his understanding, proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, following the order of Trinitarian relations. Moreover, within this Trinitarian scheme, the incarnate Son functions as the central agent and content of divine revelation, a status that further implies the centrality of the gospels in the canon of Scripture. Corresponding to this movement of God towards humanity in revelation is humanity’s appropriation of divine life according to a reverse pattern—in the Spirit, through the Son, unto the Father. This scheme applies broadly to Cyril’s soteriology, but also to his understanding of exegesis, since he regards biblical interpretation as a means of participating in the divine life. More specifically, this Trinitarian pattern implies that the Spirit is required to read Scripture properly, and that in the act of interpretation the Spirit directs the reader to a Christological reading of Scripture, through which the believer beholds the incarnate Son, the exemplar of virtue and the perfect image of the Father, and accordingly advances in both virtue and knowledge. This process continues until the final eschatological vision when the types and riddles of Scripture will be done away with in light of the overwhelming clarity of the Trinitarian vision.

This book contributes to the theory and practice of Biblical interpretation by engaging in an interpretation of Psalm 24 inspired by a particular understanding of Brevard Childs' "canonical approach": an understanding centred on the concept of "theological substance."

Sumpter shows how the literary, historical, and theological dimensions of Psalm 24 cohere into a single vision by reading the text according to the a dialectic between "witness" and "reality." An initial "synchronic" analysis of the psalm's poetic structure is then related to a "diachronic" reconstruction of the tradition history that lead to the final form. The question is then posed concerning the primary forces at work in this history of composition, a question which leads to reflection on the Trinity, first in se and then pro nobis. This latter dimension takes us back to the text, as its "Davidic" nature is further analysed in relation to the books of Samuel, the Psalter, and Isaiah. Finally, a contemporary actualization of the Psalm by Eberhard Jüngel is compared to its interpretation in Patristic exegesisin order to probe deeper into the mysterious subject matter of the text.

This is a sort of Venn diagram I devised in conjunction with my paper, "Key Themes in Orthodox Theology and Spirituality."  It attempts to represent, graphically, the inter-relationship of three key aspects of Orthodox theology:  the nature of the Trinity, theosis, and the energies / essence distinction.  As with all such graphical simplifications, it produces helpful clarity in some areas at the possible expense of glossing over important distinctions in others!

The Nicene–Constantinopolitan profession that the Son of God is begotten, not made, presents the tension that the Son is caused by God but not created. This claim was a point of controversy in the semi-Arian and Eunomian/Anomean disputes of the fourth century. The latter argued that unoriginateness is central to divinity. Hence, the Son, being originate, cannot be of the same nature as the Father. Some philosophers of religion today echo this same conclusion. In this article, I show, contrary to both ancient and modern critics of the begotten-not-made distinction, that the Eastern fathers offer clear differences between begetting and creating, which clarify why the distinction is cogent and necessary within their metaphysics.

NOTE: The attached PDF is of the author MS, not the journal proofs. However, the author has formatted the MS to ensure that its pagination coincides with the supplied proofs of the published version. The published essay appears in Religious Studies in 2018.

Erasmus's 1516 Latin–Greek New Testament edition differed from the Latin Vulgate in several ways. A small number of textual variants with doctrinal implications involved Erasmus in considerable controversy. Medieval Western theologians had often relied on the " Johannine Comma " (the long reading of 1 John 5.7-8), established in the Latin Vulgate during the late Middle Ages, as an important scriptural foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity. However, when Erasmus showed that this variant was not present in the Greek manuscript tradition, he was accused of promoting Arianism. Eras-mus's debates with the cleric Edward Lee and the textual critic Jacobus Stunica exposed tensions between theologians, jealous of their authority in scriptural interpretation, and humanists, who claimed to understand the Bible better than theologians by virtue of their philological skills. This article concludes by exploring the Inquisition's failed attempt to find a consensus on this issue in 1527.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

There are some who see art as a supplement to our lives; art is considered the activity of the wealthy. History, however, shows the contrary: it shows that since the time of the first primitive cultures, humans needed art–especially visual art–even before they developed a written language. Human needs to see in order to understand, and they want their senses to witness all the ideas in their minds. The divinity has never been far from these attempts; all cultures try to picture the god that they believe in; even Moses wanted to see the God who talks to him.
Christianity did not deactivate this desire in human beings but rather used it in a brilliant way to aid the faithful to worship the unseen God. In his “Letter to Artists,” his holiness Pope John Paul II says that the Church needs art, and art needs the Church: art makes the invisible world of God visible through the attractiveness of beauty.2 During the rise of Christianity, early Christians tried to present their faith by writing and through signs and symbols, as exemplified by the art of the catacombs.
First, this paper will briefly discuss the early attempts to represent the Trinity with all their theological successes and failures: from the symbolic representation to the anthropomorphic representation, which may be separated into the vertical and the horizontal and which was highly developed through the centuries. Finally, the vertical representation of the Throne of Grace will be discussed from a theological viewpoint in order to show that it may be theologically considered as the most accurate representation of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity was articulated by the Church fathers in the councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), which penned the Nicene Creed. We will see that Nicene Trinitarianism teaches that the Trinity is three hypostases and one ousia, terms often translated as three persons and one essence, substance, or being. These terms, in their ancient Greek context, indicate that the Trinity is three subjects who share a single nature. However, this formulation naturally raises the question whether Nicene Trinitarianism is monotheistic. In affirmation of Nicea’s monotheism, we will see that all three uses of the word “God” in Christian theology are singular, despite the Trinitarian plurality of subjects. Hence, Nicene Trinitarianism is rightly labeled monotheistic, even though it is a unique type of monotheism. We will then look at three important differences between God and creatures that must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of Nicene Trinitarianism. These are (1) the divine subjects are not spatially or materially separated the way created individuals are; (2) the divine subjects, unlike created individuals, are distinguished by their relations to one another and not by material accidents of size, color, or location; and (3) because the divine subjects are differentiated by their relations, they, unlike created individuals, have no autonomous existence apart from one another.

*Preview doesn't work, press download*

This is a translation of a small section from Imam al-Sanusi's work ''Sharh al-Aqida al-Wusta.'' I have translated a page dedicated to proving the impossibility of unification of multiple beings whilst remaining as is - and by extension the Trinity. This is a refutation of the understanding ''3=1 and 1=3.''

The last forty years have witnessed a burgeoning interest in the rhetorical aspects of Tertullian’s various compositions, including strong interest in the structures present in Adversus Praxean. And yet a straightforward and convincing analysis of the architecture of this piece has proven elusive, though not for lack of proposals. What has yet to be articulated is that Tertullian has provided the key to unlocking the overarching scheme in the opening words of the document’s body. By examining the Son’s existence utilizing standard rhetorical bases recognized by Cicero and Quintilian, Tertullian answers the questions of ‘whether the Son exists’, ‘who he is’, and ‘how he exists’. The body of this treatise is spent on these enquiries, and the resulting answers advance Tertullian’s theological affirmations of how the Son (and Spirit) relate to the Father in such a way that the monotheistic Trinity affirmed by the rule of faith is to be understood. This essay provides an outline of Adversus Praxean drawn from the structural elements Tertullian the rhetor used to win a sympathetic hearing from his readership, to secure a favorable disposition toward his theological agenda, and to articulate his own trinitarian vision. We shall see that Adversus Praxean is an attempt to provide an adequate articulation of a divine monarchy which maintains the unity of God (against polytheism) while upholding necessary distinctions (against Praxean modalism), all in accord with Scriptural and confessional data.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

Analytic theologians have proposed numerous "solutions" to the Logical Problem of the Trinity (LPT), mostly versions of Social Trinitarianism (ST) and Relative Identity Trinitarianism (RI). Both types of solution are controversial, but many hold out hope that further "Trinitarian theorizing" may yield some as yet unimagined, and somehow importantly different, solution to the LPT. I first give a precise definition of the LPT and of what would count as a solution to it. I then show how, though there are infinitely many possible solutions, all solutions can be grouped together into a finite, exhaustive taxonomy, based precisely on those features which make them either controversial, heretical, or inconsistent. The taxonomy reveals why ST and RI have been the major proposed solutions, and also proves that there can be no importantly different, new solutions to the LPT.

The Kindergarten Sabbath School teacher may have done thorough preparation to teach the lesson that Sabbath; but, she was probably at a loss for words, when, right after she had talked about Jesus, one of the children interjected: "Jesus is not God; He is only 'the son of God'!" This hyper-literalistic perspective should not surprise any Seventh-day Adventist who is cognizant of the view of some early pioneers of this denomination. Even that foremost Bible scholar, John Nevins Andrews, who served as editor of the official church paper, the Review and Herald, wrote against the trinity notion. In an article regarding the identity of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7, he argued that the words "having neither beginning of days" (vs. 3) cannot be taken as literal, since every being in the universe except for God the Father has a beginning. Ironically, it is in this very context that Andrews himself, taking the phrase "Son of God" as extremely literal, wrote: "And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have [a] beginning of days." It is the overly-literal perspective of that kindergartener and even some early Adventist pioneers, as well as the more recent challenges raised by other non- and anti-trinitarians, that have inadvertently provided an impetus for this research.

The idea of church is misunderstood by most, abused by some, and usually somewhat imbalanced by the rest. What we believe and confess about Theology Proper, as well as other doctrines, informs and shapes our ecclesiology, not merely in theory but also in practice. This paper seeks to defend a particularly baptist  (as opposed to paedobaptist, as well as presbyterian, catholic, or orthodox) ecclesiology stemming from a Trinitarian view of Theology Proper.

Christology is the foundation and center of Christianity. This paper begins a clear and unambiguous presentation of who Christ was in eternity past, whom Christ was when he walked the Earth, and what Christ came to do. Christ’s incarnational life, death, resurrection, and ascension are the foundation of Christology. Without these four events Christology looses its universal reconciliation (Gk. aποκατάστασις πάντως) for all of creation, and Christianity falls into ruin.
The claim that Christ died to reconcile the world rests upon who Christ is. That is, Christology will inform Christian beliefs regarding the all-important work, acceptance, status, and accessibility of aποκατάστασις πάντως as provided by Christ. To be wrong here is to miss the mark and to believe an invention or myth.
Although human words are inadequate, divine revelation in the Bible, as debated and establish by councils, creeds, and doctrine, make great, progressive attempts. As discussed here these include Jesus Christ as the second person of the Trinity, the Messiah, pre-existence, and co-equality with the Father and Spirit, incarnation, fully God and fully man (the God-man). Jesus lived as a man in every way except that he was without sin. By living without sin, Jesus became the victor to reconcile the world. His resurrection was a seal of God’s acceptance of that victory. He ascended to the right hand of God the Father, and he will soon return to receive his redeemed and have all put under his feet and made right. 
The following is a small survey. Full listing and consideration of all Christology has filled thousands of books, lectures, and fueled multitudinous debates. Christology has occupied the greatest Christian minds for millennia and will continue to do so until Christ returns.