TH189X_X08048_Essay
John Shadlow – X08048
Master of Arts
Christian Worldview – TH189X
Lecturer: Dr Shane Clifton
Southern Cross College
Chester Hill Campus – Distance Education
Word Count: 3255 (with scripture excluding headings & Abstract)
Date Due: September 19, 2008
Handed in: September 19, 2008
Essay Question:
Discuss the reasoning and development (including heresies) behind the affirmation of the Tri-unity of God despite such belief developing from a strong monotheistic tradition. What relevance does an affirmation of the trinity have for us?
Declaration of Authorship
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to be best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institution of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in the acknowledgements.
Signed: __John Shadlow_________ Date: September 19, 2008
INDEX Page
Abstract 3
Essay. 4
Introduction. 4
God Revealed – Old Testament 5
God Revealed – New Testament 7
Development of Trinitarian Doctrine in Response to Heresies. 8
Relevance of Trinity for Us Today. 15
Conclusion. 17
Bibliography. 18
Abstract
God is revealed and worshipped in a strictly monotheistic manner within the Old Testament and yet there are subtle hints in the Old Testament that God is more than just God the Father and Creator. The Spirit was not unknown within the Old Testament but there is no evidence that the Jews saw any conflict with their monotheistic tradition.
However, it is when we encounter the person of Jesus Christ that we are forced to examine the concept of Trinity. The questions leap to mind; is Jesus God? Is He partially God? Is He not God? or alternatively, Is there not One God but three Gods? These questions were gradually resolved by the Church over the first four centuries as theologians put forward views that were then adopted or rejected as heresies by the Church.
Finally we shall examine what this concept of One God yet Three persons has to do with us and the effect it should have on our daily walk with our God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We can conclude that the examination of the triune God is not just a useless academic exercise that will extend our knowledge but a revelation that will enrich and enhance our relationship with the Almighty Three in One.
! Essay
Introduction
A belief in Jesus Christ as God will inevitably force our attention towards the study of God as Three in One (or Trinity). The doctrine is neatly summarised for us in the first part of the Athanasian Creed,
“That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance”[1].
However, the question remains, how do we reconcile this apparent dichotomy of One God yet Three Persons?
We shall begin by examining the Scriptures; even though this is like looking at the subject matter through a veil as there are only two verses in the whole Bible capable of direct Trinitarian interpretation (Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14). Despite this apparent lack of Biblical support the patterns of Trinity are pervasive throughout the Scriptures.[2]
The knowledge we have of the Trinity today has been gained only via Christian revelation together with the application of pure induction to Scriptures appertaining to the Godhead.[3] We will therefore next view the development of the doctrine through the heresies and finally, what does this mean for us?
!! God Revealed – Old Testament
The Old Testament witness is fundamentally to the oneness of God. In their daily prayer, Jews repeated the (Heb.) Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one”. In this they confessed the God of Israel to be the transcendent creator, without peer or rival.[4] Some early commentators up until recent times, such as for example, Hammond[5] and Horton[6] has sought proof of Trinity from the Old Testament in the fact that in the (Heb.) Shema the plural (Heb.) Elohim is used of God. They also reference the plural form in Genesis 1:26,”Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (and similar verses Genesis 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8). However, more recent commentators such as Berkhof[7] discount the use of plural as being poetical. Still other commentators such as Wainwright explain the plural form as a relic of polytheism or idiomatic speech common of the day when referring to a deity.[8] Further examination of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:27 also reveals that the use of the singular verb “create” (rather than the plural to match (Heb.) Elohim) in 1:26, does in fact, suggest that God worked alone in the creation of mankind[9]
Although the Old Testament portrays a monotheistic God there are veiled references that can only be correctly understood in light of a New Testament Trinitarian doctrine. Isaiah 48:16 “The Lord God and His Spirit”; Isaiah 61:1 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me”; The clearest indication of Trinity in the Old Testament is to be found in Zech 12:10”And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced.” In this verse we see God speaking in first person “I” with reference to pouring out the “Spirit” and talking about people looking on “Me” (Himself) who they pierced.
This leads us to consider the person of the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament the Spirit is described anthropomorphically as being “grieved” (Isaiah 63:10), having “guided men” (Psalm 143:10), “instructed men” (Nehemiah 9:20), and “caused them to rest” (Isaiah 63:14).
Within the Wisdom literature the wisdom and word of God are also portrayed personified. The attribute of Godly wisdom is treated as if it were a person (female); Wisdom is active within creation and fashioning the world with her imprint. (Proverbs 1:20-23; 9:1-6; Job 28; Ecclesiastes 24). The Word of God also is sometimes treated as an entity with an existence independent of God yet emanating from God. The Word is portrayed as going forth from God to confront people with the will and purpose of God bringing guidance, judgement and salvation (Psalm 119.89; 147:15-20; Isaiah 55:10-11).[10]
Even though the Jews described the Spirit, Wisdom and the Word with human characteristics there is no evidence that they thought of the Spirit in such persona terms as would compromise their monotheism.[11]
!! God Revealed – New Testament
A search of the New Testament for direct quotations that support the notion of Trinity will disappoint the enquirer as only the following two verses will be found; Matthew 28:19,
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.
And 2 Corinthians 13:14;
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.”
The main issue in this discussion is the divinity of Jesus Christ; if He is God then we are confronted with the problem of reconciling the nature of Trinity. It is quite evident from scripture that Jesus Christ is;
a) Spoken of as the Son of God from a pre-incarnation viewpoint (John 1:14),
b) Called the “only begotten” Son of the Father, something that could not be said of Him if He were not the Son of God (John3:16),
c) Called Himself Son of God which was taken by the Jews as being equal to God (John 5:18),
d) Addresses God as “Father” or “My Father” whereas He teaches the disciples to pray “Our Father” (Matthew 7:21, 6:9);
e) Claims unique knowledge of God (Matthew 11:27); and
f) The Jews understood the claim to be Son of God in a Messianic sense (Matthew 26:63). [12]
!! Development of Trinitarian Doctrine in Response to Heresies
Early Christians were aware of the triune nature of God “implicitly through their faith in Jesus, the closeness of the Father and the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world were revealed by Jesus”[13], However, as the early Christians personal memories of the experiences faded this implicit understanding needed explanation to defend against heresy and define beliefs. This led to the intense debate among theologians as to the nature of the Trinity which continues to this day.
The development of the doctrine of the Trinity initially started with patriarchs writing to dispute various heresies that arose over time. There followed a series of Church Councils meeting to determine the position of the Church in relation to heresies. We will now examine each of these heresies and responses in turn.
Docetism/ Apollinarism
Docetism
Docetism is the view that the body of Christ was not real but only seeming (Gk. dokein, ‘to seem’) to be real, and therefore either the sufferings were only apparent, or else the redeemer who could not suffer was separate from the man in whom he appeared. The premise of this syllogism was a tendency in the church from the start; the conclusion was a theory of most of the Gnostic sects of the second century. John’s reference to the ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’ (1 John. 4:2; 5:6) suggests that the view appeared early and is given apostolic repudiation.[14]
!!!! Apollinarism
Apollinarianism is the heresy of the mingled natures of the one Christ, called after Apollinarius, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria (361–90 C.E.) The mingled natures consisted of a human body and soul mingled with a Godly Spirit. This heresy is another form of Docetism. Apollinarius’ main concern was soteriological in that a Christ less than totally divine cannot save the world from sin; however, the death of a mere man has no redeeming efficacy. “But if Christ is totally divine his human nature must somehow be ‘taken up’ into his divinity and so become a right object of worship. Salvation consists in man partaking of Christ’s apotheosized flesh in the Eucharist”.[15]
The problem for us is that if Jesus only “seemed” to be human or there is a mingled nature then God did not truly take on our human nature then it follows that Jesus could not make an atoning sacrifice for our sins. This is well stated by Ignatius (circa 107-110 C.E.) writing to the Trallians while on the way to his death railing against Docetism and Gnosticism over their stance on the crucifixion, in that both groups saw as inconsistent the divinity of Christ and suffering:
“… Jesus Christ,…born of a Virgin… was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, before the eyes of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth;... But if it be, as some godless men, i.e. unbelievers, assert, that he suffered in phantom only… why am I in bonds… Then I die for naught.[16]
The Council of Constantinople (381 C.E.) condemned Apollinarism as a revival of Docetism. Apollinarius agreed that Jesus was altogether God but not really a man but ‘like’ a man. This view denied the incarnation and complete manhood of Jesus and considered a menace to Christianity.[17]
!!! Monarchianism: (from the Gk. mono-archē = “one-source”)
Two forms of monarchianism developed: adoptionist, or dynamic monarchianism, which understood Jesus as merely a prophet filled with the Spirit and thus “adopted” by God; and modalism (or Sabellianism), which viewed Jesus as one of the roles or modes through which the one God reveals himself to us.[18]
Adoptionism
Adoptionists believed that Jesus took on the divine nature at His baptism and to avoid the possibility of God suffering death, they believe that the divine nature left sometime before the crucifixion, probably in the Garden of Gethsemane. However, Jesus’ three stages of sonship are clearly portrayed in Hebrews and are distinguishable but vitally connected. Firstly, He was always the Son in the preexistent sense (Hebrews 1:1–3; 7:3). Secondly, He became the Son in earthly, incarnate terms as He learned obedience in suffering (Hebrews 2:5–18; 5:7–10; 6:6), and; Thirdly, He was exalted to a new stage of sonship (Hebrews 1:4–5; 5:5).
“He was already the Son before His exaltation. There is no indication in Hebrews that one who was not God’s Son at all has been exalted to that relationship because of earthly obedience. Jesus was appointed to a new stage of sonship, not made Son for the first time at His exaltation to this royal status”.[19]
Sabellianism
Named after Sabellius (circa. 215 C.E.) which viewed Jesus as one of the roles or modes through which the one God reveals himself to us.[20] This heresy also denied the distinct personality of the Spirit. This God is seen to act as Father to Create and give the Law, as the Son to save and as the Spirit to impart grace.
Ebionites
Ebionites were predominately a Jewish group that rejected the concept of virgin birth and consequently they denied the union of God and humanity and also failed to distinguish the parallel with the creation of Adam in which God-breathed life united with and vivified the human substance.[21] Christ is conceived as the subject of a special influence or ‘power’ (Gk. ‘dynamis’) of the one Gk. monarchia which came to reside in the man Jesus.[22]
The word ‘ebion’ means ‘poor’; and to the Ebionites it was the literal meaning that was the true one. Origen regarded the name as given them because of the poverty of their understanding or because of their poor and low opinions about Christ and His significance, or because of the poverty of their interpretation of the law.[23]
Irenaeus tells us that:
“those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law… they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and in their Judaic style of life” [24]
It is not surprising that both Irenaeus and Eusebius denounced the Ebionites. Eusebius asserted that “all Ebionites have an aberrant Christology”.[25] Irenaeus insisted that the process of salvation from creation to the final moment in history was the work of one and the same God that he termed the “economy of salvation” in which there were distinct but related roles for father, Son and Holy Spirit.[26]
The heresy of modalism was to again present itself in the twentieth century in the doctrine of Trinity as presented by both Barth[27] and Rahner that inevitably leads to a misunderstanding that there are three Persons with different consciousnesses, activities and so forth which is a tritheistic belief and therefore wrong.[28]
The heresy of Monarchianism while preserving the monotheistic traditions of the Old Testament totally denies the possibility of Trinity. It would be difficult to read the New Testament in light of this belief. For example, to whom did Jesus pray? Did Jesus raise Himself from the dead? As for the Adoptionist’s view, we again have the issue that if God did not truly take on our human nature then it follows that Jesus could not make an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Tertullian (circa 160-230 C.E.) presents a statement of belief that we believe that “God exists in three distinct Persons; Father Son, who sent by the Father into the Virgin and was born of her and so is both man and God, and Holy Spirit” – Trinity. Yet these tree ‘Persons’ are all one ‘substance’. By arguing the real person distinctions between the three Persons in the Trinity he sets up a barrier to Modalism in all of its forms (Docetism / Apollinarism). [29]
!!!! Arianism
Arius (circa 250-336 C.E.) taught that only One who is called God is eternal and, in fact, is incomprehensible. To suggest that Christ is eternal would be to affirm two Gods. Arius also taught that the Son had a beginning and therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. The Son was not of the “same substance” (Gk. homoousios) as the Father but rather of “similar substance” (Gk. homoiousios); the Son was created by the Father, Arius also refers to the Son as being “generated” by the Father. Arius further taught that Jesus Christ was created prior to all other creation, He being the medium through which God later created. As such, Christ is the highest ranking of all created beings; however Christ is subject to change because Christ is not God.[30]
The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.) was the first ecumenical council and was attended by 300 bishops to specifically address the issue of Aranisism and some other matters. The phrase homoousios caused much soul searching among the gathering as homoousios could not be directly supported by Scripture. In the end the Council supported homoousios and Arius and his supporters were expelled from the church. [31]
The Christology of Arianism cannot provide the basis for a redemption that makes possible complete fellowship with God; rather it can only offer “the basis for a new morality, for which Jesus provides the pattern and standard”.[32] This belief continues today in the form of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny that Jesus is God.
!!! Nestorianism / Monophysitsm
Nestorianism
Nestorianism is the heresy of the two persons, a divine and a human, existing in juxtaposition in the incarnate Christ called after Nestorius (428–451 C.E.), Patriarch of Constantinople. In his structure of Christ’s person a clear-cut distinction is made between the human and the divine natures (which he seems to have equated with ‘persons’) in Christ, denying any real organic union between the man Jesus and the indwelling divine Logos.[33]
Monophysitsm
Monophysitsm is almost the exact opposite of Nestorianism and is associated with Eutyches. Instead of emphasizing the double nature it emphasised a single nature in that Jesus’ human nature had been “deified”.
The Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.) formulated a doctrine of Jesus humanity in response to Nestorianism / Monophysitsm that recognised Jesus as “perfect in Manhood, Truly God and truly man consisting ... of the same substance as the Father in respect of His Godhead and at the same time the same substance as ourselves in respect of His manhood” [34]
The doctrine of the Trinity as held by western orthodox churches has remained virtually unaltered from the Council of Chalcedon to this day.
Relevance of Trinity for Us Today
Trinitarian Love
The doctrine of Trinity indicates that that God is love. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have existed for all eternity bound together in love, that is, self dedication and reciprocal love. Love requires both a subject and object. If God were not Triune God would require the world as an object of His love in order to be who He is, namely the Loving One. However, being Triune the divine reality already comprehends both love as a subject and object. Even as God; Father Son and Holy Spirit live in a community of Love so we should reflect that same community of love in our churches, homes and lives.[35]
Trinitarian Prayer
The doctrine of Trinity suggests that a mature Christian will address prays not to God but rather to the three Trinitarian persons in accordance with purpose of our prayer and the Person we are addressing. Jesus directs his disciples in the Lord’s Prayer to pray “Our Father”. We are reminded that the Father functions as the ground and source of both creation and salvation. Consequently, prayers to the Father are of praise for who He is, thanks for what He has done, and supplications in the face of our need because he is the good and wise supplier of what we need. We also ought to pray to the Son for what He has done and the intercession He makes on our behalf. Lastly it is proper to request the Father to send the Spirit to engage in His transforming work in the world[36]
!!! Trinitarian Freedom
The Trinitarian history of God reveals a concept of a kingdom of theological freedom. God has given His creation inexhaustible freedom to choose, freedom is a very real part of our God given human nature. When we choose to serve God and enter into relationship with the Son we achieve an access status that has the characteristics of children not servants. We are not God’s “property” but His beloved children and thus heirs and joint owners. We also have a direct relationship via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit assists us on our journey of freedom or growth; from servant to child to friend of God. This thirst for freedom knows no bounds and will not be quenched this side of heaven.[37]
Trinitarian Mission
The mission of the church may be understood in Trinitarian terms. John 20:2-22 “as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” The Father sent the Son, empowered by the Spirit, now the Son sends us empowered by the same Spirit. The church’s mission not only flows from God but also to God in that the Father seeks worshipers. The church’s mission is therefore to “reap a worldwide harvest of worshipers, gathered to the Son, through the Spirit to serve the Father”[38]
!! Conclusion
The doctrine of Trinity is really a summary of God’s dealings with his people. Trinity goes to the heart of creation and redemption, affirming that there is one God throughout. The Trinity is involved in all of the great moments in history where God was active and seen to be active. From the creation by the Father to the redemption by the Son and coming of the Holy Spirit we see God in action.[39] However, the Trinity is also a mystery in both the Biblical sense of a ‘truth that was hidden’ and in the colloquial sense in that we cannot truly comprehend it and make it intelligible until we see Him face to face[40].
The doctrine of Trinity also has a direct outworking in how we live our Christian lives, how we pray, how we view mission and how we view the unsaved. The discussion of Trinity is not merely an academic exercise but a journey of discovery of the nature of God.
! Bibliography
Barth, K. Church Dogmatics. London: Morison & Gibb, 1961.
Beisner, E.C. God in Three Persons. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1984.
Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976.
Bickersteth, E.H. The Trinity. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984.
Bruce, F.F. The Spreading Flame. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992.
Brumback, C. God in Three Persons. New York: Harper Brothers, 1959.
Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997, c1989.
Ferguson, S.B. New Dictionary of Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.
Grenz, S. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.
Grenz, S Guretzki, David and Nordling, Cherith Fee .Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999
Hammond, T.C. In Understanding Be Men, Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1968.
Hodge, C. Systematic Theology: Originally Published 1872. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
Horton, S.M. Systematic Theology. Springfield: Logion Press, 1994.
Kostenberger, A.J. and Swain, S.R.Father, Son and Holy Spirit – The Trinity and John’s Gospel
Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2008.
LaCugna, C.M. God for Us –The Trinity and the Christian Life. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1973.
Letham, R. The Holy Trinity. Phillipsburg: R&R Publishing, 2004.
Martin, P. and Davids, Peter. H. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its
Developments, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997).
Mason, Paul. “Trinity: Contemporary Experience of the One God”,
Australian EJournal of Theology, Issue 1, Online at
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/mason.htm
(Accessed August 2008)
McGrath, A.E. The Christian Theology, An Introduction .Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002.
McGrath, A.E. The Christian Theology Reader .Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002.
McGrath, A.E. Understanding the Trinity .Eastbourne: Kingsway Publishing, 1984.
Metzger, P.L. Trinitarian Soundings in Systematic Theology, London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Moltmann, J. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. London: SCM, 1997.
Olsen, R.E. & Hall, C.A. The Trinity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002.
Ryrie, C.C. A Survey of Bible Doctrine .Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
Stevenson, J. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337
London: SPCK, 1987.
Wainwright, A.W. The Trinity in the new Testament. London: S.P.C.K. 1962.
Wenham, G.J. Vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary
Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002
Wood, D.W.R. and Marshall, I.H. New Bible Dictionary, 3rd Ed.
Leicester: Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Zuck, R.B. A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, electronic Ed.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1994; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995.
----
[1] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Originally Published 1872. (Oak Harbor, WA:
Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 1:458.
[2] A.E. McGrath.The Christian Theology, An Introduction. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), 320.
[3] T.C. Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1968), 53.
[4] D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1209.
[5] T.C. Hammond, (In Understanding Be Men), 53.
[6] S.M. Horton, Systematic Theology. (Springfield: Logion Press, 1994.), 147.
[7] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 87.
[8] A. W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament. (London: S.P.C.K. 1962), 21.
[9]Gordon J. Wenham, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 28.
[10] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology – An Introduction, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 320.
[11] A. W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament, 21.
[12] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology. 92.
[13] Paul Mason, “Trinity: Contemporary Experience of the One God” ,Australian EJournal of Theology, Issue 1, Online at http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/mason.htm (Accessed August 2008)
[14] Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2000, c1988), 201.
[15] Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1988), 35.
[16] James Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337 (London: SPCK, 1987), 15.
[17] F.F. Bruce The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans1992).310.
[18]Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 80.
[19]Roy B. Zuck, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996), 385.
[20]Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 80.
[21] Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997).
[22]Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, 440.
[23] James Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337, 99.
[24] James Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337 (London: SPCK, 1987), 99.
[25]Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments.
[26] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology – An Introduction, 324.
[27] K. Barth. Church Dogmatics. (London: Morison & Gibb, 1961), 38.
[28] J. Moltmann. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. (London: SCM, 1997), 144.
[29] Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity – In scripture, History, Theology and Worship. (Phillipsburg: R&R Publishing, 2004), 99.
[30]Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1997, c1989), 420.
[31] F.F. Bruce The Spreading Flame. 306.
[32] J. Moltmann. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. (London: SCM, 1997), 134.
[33]Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1988), 457.
[34] F.F. Bruce The Spreading Flame., 313.
[35] Stanley J.Grenz, Theology for the Community of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1994), 71.
[36] Stanley J.Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, .75.
[37] J. Moltmann. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. (London: SCM, 1997), 222.
[38] A.J Kostenberger and S.R. Swain.Father, Son and Holy Spirit – The Trinity and John’s Gospel (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2008), 164.
[39] Alister E. McGrath, Understanding the Trinity (.Eastbourne: Kingsway Publishing, 1984.), 128.
[40] Louis Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 89.