1. The Trinity What issues make believing in the Trinity difficult?
To understand why there is a doctrine of the Trinity
How it shows that:
- God is one
- who God is
- the relationships of the Son to the Father
- the relationships of the Holy Spirit, to the Son & Father
What issues make believing in the Trinity difficult?

2. Contradicting statements?
God is BOTH one AND three?
The Father is God?
Jesus is God?
the Holy Spirit is God?
Co-equal ?
Distinct persons?
Jesus is physical?
1+1+1=3 ??

3. Why should God even be thought of, as three?
Explain how the doctrine of the Trinity is monotheistic.

4. The Jewish God (of the OT)
How do the quotes show hints that there are more than one god?
Jews are monotheistic:
The Shema “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One…”
1st Commandment
Hints of God ‘in the plural’
“Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God almighty” (Isa 6:3)
Abraham saw three men and he bowed down low and said “O Lord, if I have found favour in your sight..” (Gen 18:3)
Wisdom (personified) speaks “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High” (Ecc.24:3-5) “was with Him before all his works” (Prov 8:22) “by God’s side, a master craftsman, ever at play, delighting to be with the Sons of men” (8:30)
“Let us create man in our own image” (Gen 1:26)
The earth was a formless void, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen 1:1-2)

5. Jews and Christians strongly believed in God as one. (Monotheism)
Jews and Christians strongly believed in God as one. (Monotheism). But the first Christians experienced Jesus and the Spirit as also being God - and so they became convinced that God is somehow three.
Give a heading to each group of quotes, to show what they are saying about the Trinity & relationships in the Trinity.
Jesus claimed, and showed, he did things only God can do
the Spirit was experienced as the presence and power of Jesus, and God
Then God could not longer be thought of only as “Father”, or “Lord” in a simple way.
1. Explain in your own words
The relationship Jesus has with the Father
Jesus’ relationship to the Spirit
2. How persuasive is this evidence, that God can not longer be thought of in a simple way, as just “one” God?

6. The Trinity: How to Explain it
There is only one God
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each God.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same.
The first Christians becoming convinced of each of these statements, needed to find a way of affirming all three of them at the same time.
1: To say there are 3 gods = heresy of TRITHEISM
2: To say the Son is not truly equal to God, but subordinate = heresy of ARIANISM
(belief that Son is truly divine but not really human= Sabellianism)
2: To say the Son was not pre-existing but made God’s son at his baptism = heresy of ADOPTIONISM
3: to say the Persons are not really different from each other (same God in different modes) = heresy of MODALISM

7. Some attempts to give an analogy of how God is three but ONE: do they work?
The letter A (anon. Welsh) – each part of letter needed for whole letter
…but each person IS fully God, not “parts” of God
Augustine’s preferred “one essence, three persons” instead of the greek ousia/ hypostases. 2 analogies:
In terms of relationship: God as lover, beloved, and the love
…but “love” does not seem very much like a person
psychological analogy – humans reflect God as images of God: what distinguishes us from beasts: memory (knowledge), understanding, will. So Father is the originating source (knowledge), the Son is the understanding (application), the Spirit is the loving will (effecting action). “When the mind knows and loves itself, there is a Trinity of mind, love and knowledge”
Tertullian: God is the sun, the Son is the ray of the sun, the Spirit as heat.
….but MODALISM? Same God,different modes, not real differences.

8. if the F, the S and the HS are all God, why are there not three gods?
Heresy of Tritheism:
if the F, the S and the HS are all God, why are there not three gods?
There are three items.
They all share the same gold substance. They have the same gold nature.
There are not “many golds”.
Here are Peter, James and John. Each shares in the nature of “being human”. Just because there are three of them, does not mean there are 3 human natures.
Each man “instantiates” the ONE human nature in three particular, individual ways. So “There are three men” does not mean “There are three human natures”.
F, S and HS is each God. This does not mean there are three gods. Scripture refers to both Father and Son as God, but never that there are 2 gods.(Jn 1)
So when we talk about God, we are talking about the God-nature, of which there is one. Jesus, the Father, the HS are one God-nature. Only one such “being” of God-nature exists.

9. Ousia =the nature of something eg gold
Ousia =the nature of something eg gold. The ousia of God, is his divine nature. (=substance)
Hypostases =Person: the particular instantiations of that nature. eg golden ring. The hypostases in God are three…three what? we say three persons – distinct, but not “itemised” as different beings.
There is only one God
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each God.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same.
The F, S and HS constitute 3 distinct hypostases of the same divine ousia.
Gold: There are only “three golden objects”.
God: There are only “three divine…”
Rings can be seen as different items from each other. But God is not a spatio-temporal “thing” that exists in its own “space”. So with God, the difference between the three “persons” is not spatio-temporal difference – 3 “persons” in our world would appear as three different items.
Trinitas – trias-in-unas (Tertullian first coined the term)
Tritheism: the heresy that there are 3 gods.

10. How do you respond to Tritheism
How do you respond to Tritheism? (How is the doctrine of the Trinity still monotheistic?)
3-sentence formula of Trinity
Tritheism is the heresy that…
Response to tritheism:
- OT/ NT/ Church perception of God is that God is one… ….but plural (examples of quotes)
Greek terms ousia/ hypostases
Explanation of the greek formulation, with examples
Conclusion
Although only the Father is unoriginated (the son is begotten, & the Spirit is sent) - yet God is not three gods because…
However the distinctions between them are still real, or we fall into the heresy of…

12. Distinctiveness in the Trinity
We saw how the Trinity is monotheistic.
Christians, like Jews, believe in One God.
BUT
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is each God.
and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same.
This raised the problem of Tritheism.
So we argued that all three are in fact one nature. They are not separate beings, with individual mind and will. They are 3 “hypostases” (translated as “persons”) of the same thing. They act as one.
What could the difference between the “persons” be, without implying they are different beings?

13. Their inner trinitarian relationships – ad intra
IMMANENT trinity (how God is in himself)
Their outward actions Roles - ad extra
ECONOMIC trinity – how God is towards us/ creation
Complete the sentences, to describe God as immanent and economic trinity
Explain the difference between the 2 terms
Father is…
Son is…
Spirit…
Father is the…
Son is the ….
Spirit is the ….
Creator, source and origin of the world.
Sanctifier, dwelling within Creation and acting to unite it back with God
Exemplar, Redeemer: everything is created in him and through him, and through him God restores creation back to himself (the relational, outward face of God)
Begotten, originating from the Father
Proceeds from the Father, communicated through the Son
Source & origin of the Trinity Unknowable, transcendent.

14. Do you need the Trinity, to understand the God of Christianity?
Think about:
What sort of things does the doctrine help you to understand about
each of the Persons in themselves (immanent)
and in how their relations to us (economic)
Does it provide a complete or sufficient understanding of God?
There is only one God
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each God.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same.

15. Filioque Controversy
The Father, as source and origin of the Trinity, must also be the source and origin of the Spirit. NOT the son.
But, as the Western Church insisted, the Son, communicates the spirit together with the Father. The Spirit is sent by the Father AND the Son.
(look at your NT quotes)
Filioque – literally "and from the Son”
is a Latin term added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (NCC) which is not in the original version.
It has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity.

16. Was the Roman church wrong in adding the filioque clause?
1st ECUMENICAL Council
of Nicea (325AD)
2nd ECUMENICAL Council
of Constantinople (381AD) & Chalcedon (451AD)
The Athanasian Creed 6th century
routinely being used in Western Church, under influence of Augustine’s teaching. Even the Pope saying Mass in 1014 uses it.
The Council of Toledo (589AD)
Not an ecumenical council.
This council defined the Doctrine of the Trinity, asserting co-equality of the Son with the Father.
stated that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” and that this definitive Nicean formulation of the Creed is binding on all Churches for all time. All Churches agreed to this.
  It includes the filioque clause (ignoring the decision of the 2nd and 4th councils to only use the designated version of the Nicean Creed).
The Eastern Church does not accept Augustine’s teaching (psychological analogy)
Says addition goes against what previous councils had agreed. Beginning of East/ West split.
 Held in Spain, it formally included the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed.
Roman Church says it is not changing the meaning, only the wording – still agree the origin of the Spirit is the Father.
Eastern Church -not present - said that the West had no right to make the change.
Early Nicean Creed:
“…And in the Holy Spirit.”
Nicean Creed:
“…And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”
Nicene Creed (West)
“…And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and from the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”
Was the Roman church wrong in adding the filioque clause?
2 groups:
Argue to defend the Catholic Church (NT quotes, Augustine, not a change in meaning)
Argue on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox Church. (betrayal of ecumenic.council, changing meaning, bringing Aug.in)

17. No Real Conflict
Maximus the Confessor wrote a letter in defence of the Pope. (c. 580):
"They [the Romans] …have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but they have manifested the procession through him, thus showing the unity and identity of the essence.
They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them.
The Eastern Fathers were aware that the filioque was taught in the West, and they did not generally regard it as heretical. Authoritative Christian saints, from BOTH East and West spoke of the Spirit as coming from the Father and the Son
Maximus the Confessor – Eastern monk – defended Pope saying Western version is legitimate as while it states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son it does also hold that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit
Opposition of Churches on the basis of the Filioque exaggerated, in response to political disagreement: 10th Century crusaders sacked Constantinople, capital of Eastern Church. Later centuries, when Ottoman turks attacked, the West did not send military aid as promised.
Roman Church oppositional: declared the Eastern Church heretical in middle ages, for not accepting the filioque.

18. Joint Statement of Orthodox and RC 2009
No-one knows for sure the inner life of God
Neither side call the other heretical
The Catholic Church takes back the medieval condemnation of against the Orthodox as heretics for not accepting the filioque
The Catholic Church will use the Greek translation of Nicean Creed, which does not suggest the Spirit “proceeds” (in the sense of originating) from the Son
 No longer a Church dividing issue

19. Modern Developments of the Trinity
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made: without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” Jn 1:1
Modern Developments of the Trinity
Enlightenment (18th Century) – rationalism & the sciences, overshadow theology.
Sidelining of Doctrine of Trinity – Schleiermacher dismissed it to a few pages at the very end of his book on God.
Karl Barth (swiss Prot.theologian), however, writing in C20th: “The doctrine of the Trinity is what basically distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God as Christian”.
Read the two quotes. Do they emphasise a distinction in God?
Is it OK to ignore this?
“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth”. Jn 1:14

20. Modern Developments: Barth
Any action of God, is always the act of the entire Trinity, but some actions ad extra, as more properly seen as done in one of the modes of God eg Son (saving death) or Spirit (leading us to God).
Speaks of Jesus as logos asarkos – his pre-existence with God, as God-without-flesh. Jesus as logos asarkos is one with God as the very “decision of God”
Eternal repetition – the Trinity is a timeless succession of the three modes to each other, revealer, revelation and revealedness
The Economic Trinity (God as Trinity acting ad extra) enables us to receive an objective revelation of God (The Word made flesh as Jesus) subjectively to recognize this (by the Spirit)
Revealer, revelation revealedness

21. Problems with Barth Orthodox: Moltmann: modalism
deducing immanent from econiomic Trinity, invalid.
filioque.
Moltmann: modalism
Eternal Repetition: successive…

22. Other modern developments
Barth – seinsweise. Jesus as logos asarkos, decision of God. Eternal Repetition. Revealer/ revelation/ revealedness
Moltmann – Social Trinity
Feminist Theologians – Trinity and Feminism
Catherine LaCugna – Trinity and Salvation.
Read the 3 other modern developments of the Trinity.
Which of them would you think a doctrine of the Trinity should include?

23. Explain the Filioque Controversy.
How does the doctrine of the Trinity contribute to our understanding of God ?
How do modern developments of the doctrine of the Trinity contribute to our understanding of God?