James White’s Definition of the Trinity
The excerpt in this post is taken from Dr. James R. White’s, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, published by Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 1998, pp. 26-30.
A BASIC DEFINITION
It is time to lay down a basic, fundamental definition of the Trinity. At the end of our study we will look a little closer at this definition, expand upon it some, and examine a few of the issues it raises.
But we need a short, succinct, accurate definition to start with. Here it is:
Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You would think that a belief that can be expressed in one sentence would be fairly simple as a result, but such would be a mistake. I have chosen my words very carefully. Each is very important, each has a specific function. More importantly, I have avoided certain words, too. Let’s look briefly at some of the major issues presented by this definition.
First, the doctrine rests completely upon the truth of the first clause: there is only one God. “The one Being that is God” carries within it a tremendous amount of information. It not only asserts that there is only one God-the historic belief, shared by Christians and Jews known as monotheism-but it also insists that God’s “Being” (capitalized so as to contrast it with the term “persons” found in the next clause) is one, unique, undivided, indivisible. As you can see already, there is a lot packed into each phrase. We will “unpack” all of this in time. But for now, the emphasis of the first clause is monotheism and the assertion that there is only one true God.
Second, the definition insists that there are three divine persons. Note immediately that we are not saying there are three Beings that are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be self-contradictory. I emphasize this because, most often, this is the misrepresentation of the doctrine that is commonly found in the literature of various religions that deny the Trinity. The second clause speaks of three divine persons, not three divine Beings. As I warned before, we must not succumb to the temptation to read the term “person” as if we are talking about finite, self-contained human beings. What “person” means when we speak of the Trinity is quite different than when we speak of creatures such as ourselves. These divine persons are identified in the last clause as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), has often expressed this point in a wonderfully simple and clear way: when speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who’s. The one what is the Being or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mix up the what’s and who’s regarding the Trinity.
Thirdly, we are told that the relationship among these divine persons is eternal. They have eternally existed in this unique relationship. Each of the persons is said to be eternal, each is said to be coequal with the others as to their divine nature. Each fully shares the one Being that is God. The Father is not 1/3 of God, the Son 1/3 of God, the Spirit 1/3 of God. Each is fully God, coequal with the others, and that eternally. There never was a time when the Father was not the Father; never a time when the Son was not the Son; never a time when the Spirit was not the Spirit. Their relationship is eternal, not in the sense of having been for a long time, but existing, in fact, outside the realm of time itself.
The three foundations of the Trinity, then, are already clearly visible. Here they are:
| Foundation One: | Monotheism: There Is Only One God |
| Foundation Two: | There Are Three Divine Persons |
| Foundation Three: | The Persons Are Coequal And Coeternal |
These three foundations not only provide the grounds upon which the Trinity is based, they explain to us why Christians who accept all of the Bible believe this doctrine. This is very important. Often the discussions Christians have with others about the Trinity flounder and go in circles because we do not identify these three truths as biblical teachings. When someone says, “How can you claim to only believe the Bible, when you use terms like `Trinity’ that don’t appear in the Bible?” we must be quick to point out that we are forced to do so by the teaching of the Bible itself on these three points. Every error and heresy on this doctrine will find its origin in a denial of one or more of these truths.
THE THREE FOUNDATIONS AND THE BIBLE
This book is based upon establishing, as divine truths, plainly revealed in Scripture, the three foundations listed above. I do not approach the Trinity as a philosophical issue or a theological speculation that may interest a person for a while. I approach the Trinity as a revealed truth. I do not believe in the Trinity because it is “traditional” to do so. I believe in it for the same reason Athanasius’ did so long ago: the Scriptures compel me to this conclusion. I cannot hold the Bible in my hand while denying the Trinity. There is a fundamental contradiction there. The Trinity is a doctrine for Bible-believing people.
It is quite common for those who deny the Trinity to make Christians feel as if they are somehow inconsistent in believing in a doctrine that is not “biblical.” “Where do you find the word `Trinity’ in the Bible?” they ask. Yet just the opposite is the case. The only folks who are truly biblical are those who believe all the Bible has to say on a given topic. If I believe everything the Bible says about topic X and use a term not found in the Bible to describe the full teaching of Scripture on that point, am I not being more truthful to the Word than someone who limits themselves to only biblical terms, but rejects some aspect of God’s revelation? Christians believe in the Trinity not because the term itself is given in some creedlike form in the text of Scripture. Instead, they believe in the Trinity because the Bible, taken in its completeness, accepted as a self-consistent revelation of God, teaches that there is one Being of God (Foundation One) that is shared fully (Foundation Three) by three divine persons (Foundation Two), the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is, therefore, no contradiction between being a “Bible believer” and holding to the Trinity. The one leads naturally, and inevitably, to the other.
The majority of this work will demonstrate from the text of Scripture each of the three foundational truths that lead us inexorably to the historic doctrine of the Trinity. After we have established these truths, we will briefly expand upon our definition. While it is sufficient to explain the doctrine in broad terms, Christian theologians over the centuries have found it necessary to carefully explain various elements of the doctrine in greater depth. Most of this more technical discussion has been to safeguard each of the three foundations from subtle, yet destructive, erosion and redefinition. These technical definitions are generally negative; that is, they tell us more about what the Trinity isn’t than what it is. This shouldn’t be surprising, however. We must always remember that we are trying to define and describe something that is absolutely, universally unique. It is far easier to say, “I don’t mean this,” than it is to say, “Well, it’s like this,” since there is nothing in the created universe that really, fully is like an absolutely unique thing. That’s what makes it unique in the first place! Consequently, theologians have had much more success at saying, “The Trinity is not this,” than positively saying, “The Trinity is this.”
WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING–
The errors that result from denying, or misunderstanding, any one of the foundational truths presented above can be graphically illustrated through the use of the following triangle diagram:
Each of the three sides represents a foundational truth. When any one of these truths is denied, the other two sides form an arrow that point to the resultant error. For example, if one denies monotheism, the other two sides of the triangle point to “polytheism.” If one denies the equality of the persons, the result is “subordination ism.” And if one denies the existence of three persons, the result is “modalism.” This diagram also points out how balanced we must be in our study of this important subject. Failing to believe one fundamental element of God’s revelation will lead us into grave danger and error.
The large majority of people with whom I have spoken who insisted they did not believe in the Trinity actually did not believe in a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the doctrine itself. Most often people confuse modalism, the belief that God exists in three “modes” (Father, Son, and Spirit), but is only one person, with the real doctrine of the Trinity. “But Jesus prayed to the Father! How could He be the Father?” is what I often hear. It is important to emphasize that we are not saying that the Father is the Son, nor that the Son is the Spirit. That is not the doctrine of the Trinity, despite how many people in honest ignorance think otherwise. No true Trinitarian believes the Father was a “ventriloquist” at the baptism of Jesus, nor that Jesus was praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Further Reading