The One and the Many: Devoted to the Universal and the Particulars

Historians of Christian doctrine are able to describe the development of the Trinity into what is known as “Trinitarian Orthodoxy.”[1]  It was during the first four centuries of the Christian Church that the description of the Trinity was officially defined and binding to the Christian faith.  These creeds are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed and Chalcedonian Creed.  Overall, what these creeds needed to express was that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally one God, without sacrificing a “commitment to the monotheism of the Old Testament.”[2]  At the same time, the catholic creeds all assume that “the divine authority of the scriptural teaching underlies all the creedal statements of the church; all of which are formally based upon the Scriptures.”[3] The Athanasian Creed describes the doctrine of God in the following: “And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.  For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal…”

A catholic description of God has these marks: the existence of one God who is of one essence, substance, or being, but also subsists in three persons, namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  When dealing with the being of God, or what is referred to as the ontological Trinity, orthodox descriptions of the Trinity must affirm the existence of one God, who is of one substance, yet of three subsistences.[4] 

According to A. A. Hodge the word subsistence is “used to signify that mode of existence which distinguishes one individual thing from every other individual thing… [S]ubsistence is that mode of existence which is peculiar to each of the divine persons, and which in each constitutes the essence a distinct person.”[5] John Calvin said, “Person, therefore, I call a ‘subsistence’ in God’s essence, which, while related to the others, is distinguished by an incommunicable quality.  By the term ‘subsistence’ we would understand something different from ‘essence.’[6] 

With this definition of subsistence it is now important to understand the personal attributes of the three subsistences and distinguish between the subsistences in themselves and the subsistence towards creatures.  Zacharias Ursinus referred to this distinction as “ad intra” and “ad extra.”  The former refers to the internal relationships of the ontological Trinity and Ursinus states:

“By these internal works or properties, therefore, the persons are first distinguished from each other.  For the Father is, and exists of himself, not from another.  The Son is begotten eternally from the Father, that is, he hath his divine essence communicated to him from the Father…The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, and the Son, that is, has the same divine essence communicated to him from the Father and the Son…”[7]

Here we see that the internal relations are distinct in name and that the three persons are “distinguished among themselves not essentially (according to the esse common to them all) but nevertheless really; because one persona is produced by another.  And at once they differ in their incommunicable attribute, i.e., according to the subsistence to each persona.”[8] The personal attributes of the Father are that he is “not made, not begotten, but begetting the Son” and these attributes are incommunicable.  It is from this attribute that the Father is referred to as the fons totius divinitatis.[9]  The Son is eternally generated from the Father and “receives and has in himself his whole and complete essence from the Father.”[10]  The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son and has the same essence as the Father and the Son.[11]  Due to the fact that the “Divine nature is God; therefore it is common to all three personae…”[12] 

The distinction “ad extra” refers to the three subsistences working in creation and redemption and these subsistences have been revealed by their works “exercised towards his creatures.”[13]  It is important to understand that the “ad intra” operations of the divinity embrace “those actions which they exercise out of themselves, towards their creatures…”[14] In summary, the three persons of the Trinity have been revealed in Scriptures by their function.  Thus, it can be concluded that the Father is creator of the Heavens and Earth, the Son is redeemer and the way of salvation, and the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier and illuminates faith in the hearts of mankind.  At the same time, these three subsistences work harmoniously together in creation and redemption and the divine works are ultimately common to each.

The internal relationships of the three subsistences are distinguished by incommunicable attributes and each subsistence is of the same substance.  The Father is un-begotten, the Son is eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.  The three subsistences are made known by their works towards creatures, thus they are all revealed within the Biblical narrative of creation and redemption.  Each of the subsistences have a particular function, but “they work together in a perfectly harmonious economy of operations upon the creation;–the Father creating and sitting supreme in the general administration; the Son becoming incarnate in human nature, and, as the Theanthropos, discharging the functions of mediatorial prophet, priest, and king…”[15] 

The orthodox description of the Trinity is to affirm that God is of one substance and subsists in three persons.  At the same time, the three subsistences have been revealed within the context of salvation.  It is important to understand that there are important distinctions to be made concerning the Trinity, but at the same time, important applications.  These applications have been revealed within the Biblical narrative of creation and human redemption. 

[1] See, J.N.D Kelly Early Christian Doctrines, (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978), 223-279; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971),172-223; Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 133-151.

[2] Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993),153.

[3] B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Phillipsburg: 1948), 110.

[4] The Trinitarian language used to describe the being and persons of God has changed throughout history.  Sometimes the being of God is referred to as essence, being, substance, or remains in the Greek word: ousia.  The subsistences are sometime referred to as persons or persona.  The terms homoousios and hypostasis have also been used in Trinitarian language, but have been used differently throughout history. For this development see: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1, XII, 4-6; also see: Johannes Wollebius, Reformed Dogmatics ed. & trans. John. W. Beardslee III, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965),39-42; also see: Heinrich Heppe Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. GT Thomson. (Elm Grove London: Wakemen Great Reprints), 110-116; A. A Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: The Banner of Truth, 1972),164-168.

[5] A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, (London: The Banner of Truth, 1972),165.

[6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), I, XIII, 6.

[7] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company),135.

[8] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernest Bizer, trans. GT Thomson (London: Wakeman Reprints, 1950),112.

[9] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernest Bizer, trans. GT Thomson (London: Wakeman Reprints, 1950),115.

[10] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernest Bizer, trans. GT Thomson (London: Wakeman Reprints, 1950),115.

[11] Throughout the history of Christianity, there has been a long debate over the procession of the Holy Spirit even to the point of helping cause the Eastern and Western Church split.  The nature of the debate revolved around the phrase “and the Son” within the Nicene Creed, in which Reformed Confession were influenced.  The Eastern Church, centered at Constantinople, claimed that the word filioque was added to the creed without the use of an ecumenical council, thus this doctrine was not a universal doctrine and not binding upon the universal Church.   The Western Church, centered at Rome, believed this to be an essential doctrine of the Trinity.  After the Reformation, we can see that the Reformed Church affirmed the position of the Western Church be placing the filioque into their confessions. 

[12] Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernest Bizer, trans. GT Thomson (London: Wakeman Reprints, 1950),113.

[13] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard. (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company),135.

[14] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard. (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company),137.

[15] A. A. Hodge, The Westminster Confession. (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002),59.