The Trinity

2025 by Ben

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Early Formulations
• 2.1 Diversity of Early Views
• 2.2 Divinity of Christ
• 3. Official Formulations
• 3.1 History
• 3.1.1 General
• 3.1.2 East
• 3.1.3 West
• 3.1.4 Filioque
• 3.2 How do we actually talk about God
• 4. Scriptural Defenses
• 4.1 Deductive
• 4.2 Best Explanation
• 4.2.1 General Formulas
• 4.2.2 Divinity of the Son
• 4.2.2.1 Affirmative
• 4.2.2.2 Negative
• 4.2.3 Divinity of the Spirit/ Misc Verses
• 5. Bibliography

"in no other subject [besides the Trinity] is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable."

St. Augustine

Introduction

I want to know God. Of course we can know Him through experience. A relationship with God through Christ is the most beautiful reality in the universe, and we can supernaturally experience fellowship with God through faith and repentance in Christ. But how do we talk about God? What has been the official declared and settled historical Christian views and how do we defend them? This article can hopefully help.

Earliest Formulations

The Trinity as we know it today is not explicit in either the New Testament or the Old Testament. There are certainly scriptures that lead us in that direction, but by no means is the Trinity clearly outlined in the scripture by itself (see the article on the Necessity of the Church  here). Understanding this can help us not to overstate our case when defending our faith by saying "The Trinity is clear in scripture" or "There was no confusion in the early Church about the Trinity". We will briefly go over early formulations of the Triune God here before we get into any official teachings.

Diversity of Early Views

In the apostolic era, we did NOT have a clear definition or understanding of the Triune God as we understand it today. We had all sorts of different beliefs about who God was and how he related to the Spirit and the Son. But, what we do see is a clear development of doctrine eventually leading to official and dogmatic teachings of the Trinity in the third century.

One of the earliest extrabiblical documents we have is Justin Martyr's First Apology. In it, we see the formulation of a hierarchy of divine entities, split up as the Father, the Logos and the Spirit:

"And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, And the third around the third"  (First Apology 60)

And also in his famous "Dialogue with Trypho" he explicitly describes Jesus as God:

"this same One [Jesus], who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form" (Dialogue with Trypho 59)

The next view that would become the dominant competitor (in it's various forms) against what eventually will be understood by us as the Trinity, is an ontologically subordinationist view of God, the Son and the Spirit.

"For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." John 14:28" (Origen, Against Praxeas 9)

Within this view and the various forms it takes, God the Father is supreme over the Son and the Spirit, sometimes being described as "agents" of God, but these views almost always describe the Son/the Spirit as created.

Then, leading up to Nicea, Tertullian is an important transitional figure - he has a high view of the divinity of the Son and the Spirit (even though the divinity was not on the same level as God the Father Himself), although he believes they are created agents. Because he believes that Jesus is made up of the same matter/substance as the Father, he can still be called "god", although in a created sense. "There is no tripersonal God, only a tripersonal portion of matter."(Tuggy) This is important since it shows that while there are two more who can be called “God”, it does not introduce two more gods, which is important in the development of the Nicene trinitarian view. Tertullian used the word Trinitas - Which is where we get the Trinity from, even though in his model, he is not a Trinitarian as we understand it today. Although, he did codify the "3 persons in 1 substance" distinction in his letter "Against Praxeas":

"As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds." (Against Praxeas 2)

There were not just heretical views floating around at this time, there were other views floating around such as Monarchians who would be closer to a current trinitarian model, who "held that the divine element in Jesus was the Father himself. Some of these thought Jesus to be a man empowered and indwelt by God, while others thought that Jesus and the Father were one and the same—the same self and the same god"(Tuggy)

There was so much variety in the early Churches view of God and Jesus and the Spirit, but what we can see was that there was a great need for an ecumenical council, to convene the Church leaders to hammer out these important issues. Also, this section was so short, I only touched on a few different views and examples, this was by no means exhaustive.

Divinity of Christ

When looking into early formulations of the Trinity, each different view rested on how the Son was viewed. From what I can tell, Trinitarian properties of the Spirit were only applied after they were settled in discussion of the son. Early Christians spent huge amounts of time and energy discussing and debating different views of the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not enough to say He is divine (shoot the arians believed that), we must look into what sense He is divine. For views on specifically Christ's divinity, please see the article on Christology here.

Official Formulations

History

Arian Controversy and Nicea

As we saw before, there were many different competing views of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the early Church, but not all of them can be true at the same time. We needed an ecumenical council. What spawned the first Ecumenical Council - The Council of Nicea was a Alexandrian presbyter named Arius. Because of Arius' teachings, "a critical mass of bishops rallied around what eventually became standard language about the Trinity." (Tuggy) which is what happened at Nicea I.

"Arius taught, in accordance with an earlier subordinationist theological tradition, that the Son of God was a creature, made by God from nothing a finite time ago. Some time around 318–21 a controversy broke out, with Arius’ teaching opposed initially by his bishop Alexander of Alexandria (d. 326). Alexander examined and excommunicated Arius" (Tuggy) and his followers. It didn't end there, there was still debate into the next several centuries resulting in several more councils and with each side trying to win over the other. For a more detailed view of Christology and the councils please see the article here.

The Council of Nicea provides the dogmatic foundation of the orthodox view, by saying that Jesus and the Father are homoousios - meaning they are of the same substance or essence."

… the Son of God, only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, one in substance [homoousios] with the Father …

Niene Creed, A.D. 325

The Nicene Creed was an incredibly important unifying document – the creed identified the eternal generation of the Son – which says the Son exists from eternity and shares the same essence as the Father. It also affirmed the inseparability of operations between the persons which says that they work together and there is no division within them. The Nicene Creed is affirmed by all true Christians.  

Athanasius

We cannot discuss the Trinity or the defense of Nicene orthodoxy without discussing St. Athanasius. Athanasius attended Nicea as a deacon along with his bishop Alexander and Athanasius was instrumental in shaping the Nicene Creed, and defending the Nicene faith and setting the foundation for the future of Nicene orthodoxy. He was fiercely opposed to the Arians, even when they had swayed the mind of the emperor. Athanasius endured 5 different exiles for refusing to reinstate Arius, and was even falsely accused of murder.

Regardless of all of this, Athanasius systematically argued superiorly against the Arians in a few different areas. For one, he argued from scripture that the Son was uncreated and had to be uncreated, secondly, he argued that only God can redeem humanity, so the son must be God, and finally, he argued against the arian conception of the difference of substance between the Father and the Son. According to Athanasius, the Son was homoousios with the Father, the Son was uncreated alongside the Father and the Son, by necessity, needed to be God to redeem humanity.

“Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it ; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself. To provide against this also, He sends His own Son, and He becomes Son of Man, by taking created flesh; that, since all were under sentence of death, He, being other than them all, might Himself for all offer to death His own body" (Against the Arians 2.69)

Athanasius' influence endures to this day. His writing "On the Incarnation" is one of the most popular early Church writings today, and his theology is very incarnational, rooting everything within the incarnation of Christ - God becoming man. His thoughts, methods, and fight for the faith bear fruit to this day, the foundation of Trinitarian orthodoxy was largely due to the Holy Spirit's work through St. Athanasius. 

Constantinople

But there was still confusion surrounding the term Homoousion, which was settled at the second ecumenical council in 381, The Council of Constantinople when "homoousios was understood as asserting the Father and Son to not merely be similar beings, but in some sense one being" (Tuggy).

The Cappadocian Fathers were absolutely instrumental in the declarations of Constantinople and the development of Trinitarian doctrine between Nicea and Constantinople. Their writings directly contributed to the creed below and to condemning the heretics who did not believe the Spirit of God was divine. Please see their developments in the "East" section here.

The council was also involved in sorting out the controversy of the divinity of the Spirit. The "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" says the following regarding the Spirit:

"And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets"

Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, A.D. 381

This is incredibly significant since it gives the Spirit the title "Lord" and because He is made a person of worship alongside the Father and the Son. "Because this shared substance or essence is a divine one, this is understood to imply that all three named individuals are divine, and equally so. Yet the three in some sense “are” the one God of the Bible." (Tuggy)

After the pro-nicene consensus, the broad trinitarian philosophy was enforced throughout the empire and the Christian world, it is generally after this that we start seeing differences in trinitarian theology between the east and the west. This is not an exhaustive summary, we will briefly touch on the east and the west in this article.

The East

The Cappadocian Fathers

For the east, recently after the pro-Nicene consensus we have the Cappadocian Fathers: St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Basil of Caesarea. They helped fortify language for talking about the Trinity and they fleshed out the eastern view, while remaining orthodox.

They used Neo-Platonic distinctions between ousia (essence/substance) and hypostasis (person/substance). Ousia = the one divine nature shared by all three Persons. Hypostasis = the distinct mode of existence (Father, Son, Spirit). Key Idea: The Trinity is three hypostases in one ousia, with the Persons distinguished by their relations of origin (Father unbegotten, Son begotten, Spirit proceeding). They emphasized perichoresis - mutual indewlling of the distinct hypostases.

The Cappadocians were integral in the formulation of the revised creed at Constantinople, and their emphasis on the different hypostases was essential for combating modalism and arianism. But, their emphasis on hypostates was not without dispute. Critics argued that the emphasis on the distinct hypostases implied division within the Godhead. Augustine would later come to refine the balance between unity and distinction for the future Western view.

There is so much more to discuss regarding the Eastern view of the Trinity, such as the Essence-Energy distinction, but like the Western view, it is all wrapped up in the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Please see that article for the Eastern development.

The West

Augustine

In the West, we start with St. Augustine of Hippo, arguably one of the most influential Saints of all time. He approached the Trinity through Aristotelian psychology and the inner life of the mind. He saw the Persons as subsistent relations within one divine substance. Key Idea: The Trinity is one essence (substantia) with three persons (personae), where the Persons are defined by their mutual relations (Father as Lover, Son as Beloved, Spirit as Love).

This may sound similar to the Cappadocian view but there are specific nuances of each. While the Cappadocians saw the members as "distinct modes of existience", focusing on the distinction of the hypostases, Augustine emphasizes the persons as "relations within the divine essence", thus emphasizing the unity of God's divine essence.

1. Cappadocian hypostasis implies a concrete, individuated existence with unique relational properties. Divine actions are distinct roles rooted in hypostatic properties.
2. Augustinian persona denotes a subsistent relation within the divine essence, inseparable from the others. Divine actions are inseparable actions with relational order, this is the doctrine of the Unity of Operations

These terms definitely overlap in affirming the tri-personality of the Trinity, but, we cannot use them interchangeably. We must be careful in prefacing the way we talk about them. Additionally, Augustine's views significantly developed the doctrine of Divine Simplicity - since in Augustines view: God's essence is identical to His attributes, makings distinctions between the persons purely relational not ontological. This was different from the way the East would come to think about Divine Simplicity and the Trinity.

An incredibly important work which has been done on the Trinity is St. Augustine's "On the Trinity" in which he gives several "psychological analogies" for understanding the Trinity, but he is clear that these are only "images" of the Trinity in the created realm:

• lover, loved object, the lover’s love for that object (On the Trinity VII.10.14)
• the mind, its knowledge, its love (On the Trinity IX.4)
• memory, understanding, and will (On the Trinity X.11)
• existing, knowing that one exists, loving the fact that one exists (On the Trinity X.10-11)

There is so much more to talk about within the development of the Trinity in the Western view, but those discussions are almost fully part of a larger doctrine called Divine Simplicity. Please see that article for the western development.

The Filioque

The word "Filioque" literally means "and the son" this is in reference to the western doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This was an important doctrine that would eventually shape the Great Schism in 1054. This was a point of difference between the east and the west. On one hand - as we saw above, the western view of divine simplicity necessitated the essence of God be undivided - therefore the Spirit proceeds from both the Son and the Father. The East on the other hand, in emphasizing the distinct hypostases, saw the Father has having a unique monarchy, and therefore rejecting the Western view of a necessitated procession.

The East

Post-Nicea, when great lengths of works were being done in defending the Trinity. One of the Cappadocians, Gregory of Nazianzus writes:

"The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth from the Father indeed, but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but by Procession" (Oration on the Holy Lights 12)

The common scriptural basis for defending the sole procession from the Father can be found in John's gospel:

John 15:26

The view of the mutual processions of the Son would come to be a formal heresy within the Eastern churches and the addition of the Filioque and the adoption of the Filioque by Rome would be one of the tipping points that lead to the East and West split of the Church. We won't trace all of that out here, but what is important to remember is that the fundamental differences in the viewpoints of the Trinity in the east and the west necessitated a difference in how they would see the procession of the Spirit.

The West

Augustine writes in "On the Trinity" as follows regarding the Filioque:

"the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him." (On the Trinity XV.26.47)

Western Christians commonly use verses such as John 16:7 to show the Son's role within the Spirit's mission, although there are no verses that explicity say "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

John 16:7

The Filioque would later become dogmatic doctrine within the Western church, it was added to the Nicene creed around 589 in the Third Council of Toledo (although that is debated), and it would become a point of disagreement with the eastern traditions. The Western view of divine simplicity - which emphasized the homogeny of the Divine Essence - maintained divine unity and simplicity by declaring the Spirit's procession from both the Father and the Son.

How do we talk about God?

Below are the basics for understanding how we can talk about God. Everything in between these things have been disagreed upon and debated and are still being debated, but below are the basics of how we can talk about our great God.

• One God, 3 persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, and fully God.

• God is 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, united in one being. They are distinct in their persons, but share the divine nature, uniting them as one being: God
• There is not one God with 3 “parts” (modalism) or 3 gods (polytheism) - but the persons are distinct (Jesus was baptized, the Father spoke and the Spirit descended), not distinct through their substance.
• The safest way to talk about the Trinity is by sticking to creedal orthodoxy. Familiarize yourself with the words that are directly in the creeds to make sure you stick to orthodoxy.    
• The exact way that the 3 Persons are united in one Being is a mystery, there are thousands of philosophical and theological explanations, but it is safe to say that ultimately, it is a mystery.   



• Use analogies carefully

• No analogy perfectly captures the Trinity, but some (like light, radiance, and heat) can point to it without equating God with creation.
• We must avoid overly-simplistic analogies like water, ice and steam because they imply "parts" of God instead of persons. No human-made analogy can capture our infinite God, therefore be careful to say "analogies only point us towards understanding" never "this is what God is like: _____"



• Worship God!

• We are finite creatures trying to understand an infinite God - that is impossible! We can only know how to talk about God, but we can never "figure Him out".
• This is more than vain philosophy - worship Him! The most important thing about God is not our philosophical classifications of Him, but it is knowing and experiencing Him through worship!

Below is the Athanasian creed, produced in the 6th century, this creed is binding and dogmatic within the western tradition and accepted as correct within the eastern tradition (generally), attributed to an unknown 6th century author it has language explicit of Augustine. Please read:

Scriptural Defenses

Deductive

A deductive argument is a type of logical argument where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true. Please find a couple of arguments below which are valid for proving the Trinity. As seen above, the terms and premises mentioned below have been debated. The following deductive arguments can be used to show the "full divinity" of Christ and the Holy Spirit:

Example 1:

1. Christ/the Holy Spirit did action A.
2. For any x, if x does action A, x is fully divine.
3. Therefore, the Person of the Trinity is fully divine.

E.g., A = non-culpably pronouncing the forgiveness of sins, non-culpably receiving worship, raising the dead, truly saying “Before Abraham was, I am”, creating the cosmos, etc. (Tuggy)

Example 2:

1. The Bible applies title or description “F” to Christ
2. For any x, if the Bible applies title “F” to x, then x is fully divine.
3. Therefore, Christ is fully divine.

E.g., F = the first and the last, a god, the God, our savior. (Tuggy)

Example 3:

1. Christ/the Holy Spirit has quality Q.
2. For any x, if x has quality Q, then x is fully divine.
3. Christ/the Holy Spirit is fully divine.

E.g., Q = sinlessness, omniscience, the power to perform miracles, something Christians should be baptized in the name of. (Tuggy)

Best Explanation

In this section we will look at common scriptures used to defend the Trinity and expand upon them by defending the classical understanding of them, while refuting common objections.

General Formulas

There are several places in the New Testament where there is a "formula" in which the biblical authors outline the 3 distinct persons within one concise thought. Taking the witness of these together we see individual wills, divinity, and personhood of each and can make the easy connection to the trinitarian formula.

1. The Baptismal formula: ““Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19, NASB95)
• The word "name" in greek is in the singular tense, which shows both unity and distinction within the Godhead.
• "Baptizing into the name has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto, denoting object or purpose, as εἰς μετάνοιαν, unto repentance (Matt. 3:11); εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). 2. Into, denoting union or communion with, as Rom. 6:3, “baptized into Christ Jesus; into his death;” i.e., we are brought by baptism into fellowship with his death. Baptizing into the name of the Holy Trinity implies a spiritual and mystical union with him." (Vincent, p. 149)
• "When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter." (Vincent, p. 150)
• "the traditional reading of the verse, which includes the Trinitarian formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit," is supported by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts and early Christian writers. This reading is also consistent with the theological themes and emphasis found throughout Matthew's Gospel" (Hundu)
• Challenge to this verse: When using this verse to prove the Trinity against someone who does not affirm the Trinity, the likely pushback you will receive is that it is not an apostolic doctrine, it was added later: "some scholars argue that the Trinitarian formula was added later by the Church Fathers to support their developing doctrine of the Trinity. They point to the lack of early manuscript evidence and the variant reading found in Eusebius' writings as evidence against the authenticity of the verse" (Hundu) They will cite Eusebius, a reputable early Church father who quoted a shorter version of the formula which says "in my name".Refutation: Ultimately, with the litany of manuscript evidence, as well as the early citation in the Didache (Riddle, chapter 7), which is dated to the first century, shows earlier and more widespread attestation of the longer verse with the trinitarian formula.
2. Paul's farewell benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” (2 Corinthians 13:14, NASB95)
   • There are other threefold references to God based on their roles and relationships to believers in 2 Cor 1:21–22; Rom 8:9–11; Gal 4:4–6; 1 Cor 6:11; 12:4–6; Eph 1:3, 13–14; 2:18; 3:14–17; and 4:4–6. These other
   • From the early Church this was understood as a reference to the shared divine nature between the members of the Trinity. St. John Chrysostom in Homily number 15 on second Corinthians section lays this out clearly. Showing these threefold references put the 3 members of the Trinity on even. This idea is extremely patristic.
   • We see the distinctions in the Trinity highlighted in their relations to us. "First, there is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ which is encountered in the ‘message of reconciliation’ (5:19; 6:1) and through which we are made ‘rich’ (8:9). Then, as a consequence, we come to know the love of God from the one Paul has just described as ‘the God of love’ (verse 11). Finally, also as a consequence, we experience the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, which refers to the Spirit’s fellowship with our spirits and also the fellowship which exists between those in whom the Spirit of God dwells."(Barnett, pp. 187–88)
   • Challenge to this verse: Here is what a popular unitarian website says about this verse and verses like it: "Three different things are mentioned, but they are never said to be “one,” or “of one substance,” or “making up one God,” or anything like what would be needed for a Trinitarian formula. There are many times that three things are mentioned together in the Bible, yet Trinitarians do not make them “one” just because they are mentioned together" (Wierwille). Refutation: The unitarian is right to point out that things appearing together does not in and of itself imply "oneness". The Trinitarian element of these formulations comes from the connection and unique relations described together. Albert Barnes says this: "Paul, in the solemn close of the epistle, should at the same time invoke blessings from a mere creature, and from God, and from an attribute, surpasses belief. But that he should invoke blessings from him who was the equal with the Father, and from the Father himself, and from the sacred Spirit sustaining the same rank, and in like manner imparting important blessings, is in accordance with all that we should expect, and makes all harmonious and appropriate." (Barnes, section 5). Please see his commentary for a more detailed breakdown of his conclusion, but the basic argument is that it does not make sense for a supposed creature, force/attribute, and almighty God to be referenced in relation to believers right next to each other. A refutation which holds up given the rest of the witness of the scriptures

Divinity of the Son

Affirmative:

• Isaiah 9:6
• John 1:1
• John 5:18
• John 8:58
• John 10:30
• John 14:9
• John 17:5
• John 20:28
• Colossians 1:15
• Colossians 2:9
• Titus 2:13
• Hebrews 1:3
• Hebrews 1:8
• 2 Peter 1:1
• 1 John 5:20

Negative:

• John 1:18
• The invisibility of God points to His transcendent essence; the Son, as eternally one with the Father, makes God known in a way only God Himself can.
• This verse actually makes a claim to Christ’s unique role in His revelation and His divinity. As being described as not only “unique” or “only-begotten” he is described as “in the Father’s bosom” which is a unique claim to Divinity no human can make. He is the only person who has seen God’s fullness and is the only one who can make Him known because He is God Himself.
• Even with the wording “the only begotten Son” it was still used as a proof of Christ’s deity, but there is an ancient manuscript tradition of using “the only begotten God”. Which is an explicit reference to divinity. For the sake of this argument we wont be taking the position that we NEED to be reading the text with this minority variant, because even with the “Only Begotten Son” translation it does not make a difference for the meaning of the text. God can condescend to us while not revealing His essence.
• This text was seen early on by Christians as affirming His divinity, even when using the “Only-begotten Son” variant. "How then saith John, “No man hath seen God at any time”? It is to declare, that all these were instances of (His) condescension, not the vision of the Essence itself unveiled. For had they seen the very Nature, they would not have beheld It under different forms, since that is simple, without form, or parts, or bounding lines.” (Chrysostom pp. 51–52). John Chrysostom is saying that God can still condescend to Earth to reveal Himself, but we are not able to see God’s nature.
• John 14:28
• For discussing this verse we must break down the differences between subordinational schools of thought. There is ontological subordination which would say that the Son is subordinate to the Father in his very nature/substance, and ontologically different from the father. And economic subordinationism says that the Son submits to the father in role and relationship, while not being ontologically unique from the father.
• Lets dig into why orthodox trinitarians believe that this verse references economic, not ontological subordinationism:
• Context: The context of John 14 is Jesus before He is crucified, The context is the incarnation which is Jesus’ earthly ministry, where he voluntarily assumes a servant role. Jesus’ statement is made in the context of his mission to accomplish redemption, which involves submission to the Father’s will as part of the plan of salvation
• Supporting Verses: Other verses such as Phil 2 describe Jesus as “emptying Himself and taking the form of a servant” which shows that his humiliation in His incarnation is a state in which He is in, not a ontological inferiority. Jesus is temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry.
• John 20:17
• 1 Cor 15:28

Divinity of the Spirit/ Misc Verses:

• Acts 20:28

Bibliography

• Augustine. “CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity (St. Augustine).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm.
• Barnes, Albert. “Albert Barnes: Barnes’ New Testament Notes - Christian Classics Ethereal Library.” Ccel.org, 2025, ccel.org/ccel/barnes/ntnotes/ntnotes.xi.xiii.xiv.html?queryID=43386627&resultID=63031. Accessed 20 June 2025.
• Barnett, Paul. The Message of 2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness. InterVarsity Press, 1988
• Chrysostom, John. “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. John.” Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews, edited by Philip Schaff, translated by G. T. Stupart, vol. 14, Christian Literature Company, 1889, pp. 51–52.
• Gregory of Nazianzus. “Philip Schaff: NPNF2-07. Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen - Christian Classics Ethereal Library.” Ccel.org, 2025, www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxii.html. Accessed 2 June 2025.
• Hundu, Jacob. “Examining the Evidence: The Case for and against the Authenticity of Matthew 28:19.” The American Journal of Biblical Theology, vol. 25, no. 42, 2024, www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/HunduJT03.pdf.
• Martyr, Justin. “CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm.
• Martyr, Justin. “CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 55-68 (Justin Martyr).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm.
• Origen. “CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book IV (Origen).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm.
• Riddle, M.B. “CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache.” Www.newadvent.org, 2023, www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm.
• Tertullian. “CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm.
• Tuggy, Dale. “Trinity.” Stanford.edu, 23 July 2009, plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/trinity/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
• Vincent, Marvin Richardson. Word Studies in the New Testament. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887
• Wierwille, Jerry. “2 Corinthians 13:14 - BiblicalUnitarian.com.” BiblicalUnitarian.com - Sharing the Biblical Truth about God and His Human Messiah Jesus, 26 June 2011, www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/2-corinthians-13-14. Accessed 20 June 2025.