Are there different views on the Trinity among Trinitarians?
Question 2002
Yes, absolutely. And this might surprise some people because we tend to think “Trinitarian” means everyone believes exactly the same thing. But whilst all Trinitarians agree on the fundamentals—that there is one God who exists eternally as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—there have been and continue to be different ways of understanding and explaining this great mystery.
Biblical Foundation
Before we get into the differences, let’s establish what Scripture teaches that all Trinitarians agree on. The Bible clearly teaches monotheism. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Yet we also see the Father called God (1 Peter 1:2), Jesus called God (John 1:1, 20:28, Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit identified as God (Acts 5:3-4). We see all three persons present at Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:16-17), and Jesus commanded baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)—notice it’s “name” (singular) not “names.”
Scripture presents this as a mystery we must accept even if we cannot fully comprehend it. Paul writes, “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16), and Isaiah reminds us, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD” (Isaiah 55:8).
The Great Divide: East and West
The most significant historical difference among Trinitarians emerged between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Church, and it centres on something called the Filioque—a Latin phrase meaning “and the Son.” This might sound technical, but bear with me because it actually matters.
The original Nicene Creed from AD 325, expanded at Constantinople in 381, said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” This was based on Jesus’ words in John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” The Eastern Church maintained this understanding—the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, though through or with the Son.
However, the Western Church, particularly as articulated by Augustine of Hippo (354-430), began teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father “and the Son” (Filioque). This was eventually added to the Western version of the Creed. By 1054, this became one of the major factors in the split between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, a division that remains to this day.
Now you might be thinking, “Does this really matter?” Well, it affects how we understand the relationships within the Godhead. The Eastern view emphasises the Father as the source and origin within the Trinity, with a kind of order or taxis. The Western view emphasises the unity and co-equality of Father and Son in relation to the Spirit. Both views maintain that all three persons are equally God, eternal, and share the same divine essence, but they differ on the eternal relations between the persons.
Classical Trinity vs Social Trinity
In more recent theological discussion, particularly over the last century, another distinction has emerged between what scholars call the “Classical Trinity” and the “Social Trinity.” These are not two different Trinities, but two different ways of emphasising aspects of the Trinity.
The Classical view, which dominated Christian thinking from the early church fathers through the Reformation, tends to emphasise the unity of God’s essence or being. When we think of God, we first think of His oneness, His single divine nature, and then consider how this one God exists as three persons. This view has been particularly concerned with avoiding anything that might sound like tritheism—belief in three gods.
The Social Trinity view, which gained prominence in the 20th century, tends to emphasise the three persons and their relationships with one another. It speaks of a divine community, a fellowship of love between Father, Son, and Spirit. Proponents argue this better reflects the personal, relational language Scripture uses and provides a better model for human community and relationships.
Both views affirm the full deity of each person and the unity of the Godhead, but they approach the mystery from different angles. The Classical view asks, “How can one God be three persons?” The Social view asks, “How can three persons be one God?”
Eternal Subordination Debates
Another area where Trinitarians have differed concerns what’s called “eternal functional subordination” or the “eternal relations of authority and submission.” This discussion centres on whether the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in role or function, even whilst being equal in essence and deity.
Some theologians point to passages like 1 Corinthians 11:3, “the head of Christ is God,” and 1 Corinthians 15:28, where Paul speaks of the Son being subjected to the Father. They argue this reflects an eternal order within the Trinity—the Son willingly and eternally submits to the Father’s authority, though both are equally God.
Others argue that any subordination of the Son is purely related to the incarnation and His earthly ministry, not His eternal nature. They point out that Philippians 2:6-11 describes Jesus “emptying himself” and taking the form of a servant—implying this was a temporary state for the purpose of redemption, not His eternal mode of existence. They worry that eternal subordination might compromise the full equality of the persons.
This debate has practical implications, particularly as it’s been applied to discussions about marriage roles and church leadership. But we need to be careful not to take analogies between the Trinity and human relationships too far. As Paul says, “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?” (Romans 11:34).
Different Ways of Speaking
Even the language we use about the Trinity has varied. Some prefer to speak of three “persons” (from the Latin persona), whilst acknowledging this doesn’t mean three separate individuals in the modern sense. The Greek fathers used hypostasis (ὑπόστασις), often translated as “person” or “substance.” Some modern theologians prefer “modes of being” or “ways of subsisting” to try to capture the mystery without misleading modern readers who might think “person” means three separate beings.
The Cappadocian Fathers—Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa—in the 4th century developed sophisticated language to help clarify things. They distinguished between ousia (οὐσία)—the one divine essence or being—and hypostasis—the three distinct persons. All three persons share the same ousia but are distinct hypostases. This helped combat both modalism (the idea that Father, Son, and Spirit are just modes or masks of one person) and tritheism (three gods).
Biblical Examples of Distinction
Scripture itself presents the persons of the Trinity in distinct ways that have led to different emphases. Jesus prays to the Father (John 17), showing they are distinct persons who relate to one another. Yet Jesus also says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). How do we hold both truths together?
The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the Son as “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3). Paul writes that “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). These passages emphasise both the distinction of persons and the unity of essence.
Historical Councils
The early church worked hard to articulate Trinitarian faith against various heresies. The Council of Nicaea (325) affirmed that the Son is “of one substance” (homoousios, ὁμοούσιος) with the Father, countering Arianism which taught Jesus was a created being. The Council of Constantinople (381) affirmed the deity of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Chalcedon (451) clarified how Jesus could be both fully God and fully man in one person.
But even with these clear boundaries set, there remained room for different emphases and explanations within orthodox Trinitarian belief. The councils told us what we must not say (Jesus is not a creature, the Spirit is not an impersonal force, there are not three gods), but they didn’t prescribe only one way of speaking about the mystery.
Practical Implications
Now, some of you might be thinking, “This is all very interesting, Rev, but what difference does it make to my daily Christian life?” Fair question. Let me suggest a few ways it matters.
First, it reminds us that God is both beyond us and knowable. We can know Him truly without knowing Him exhaustively. This should produce humility. When Paul contemplates God’s wisdom, he bursts into doxology: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:33). We should approach discussions about God’s nature with reverence and care.
Second, the Trinity shows us that God is love in His very nature. John writes, “God is love” (1 John 4:8). How can this be true if God were a solitary being? Who did He love before creation? But if God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Spirit in perfect loving relationship, then love is fundamental to who God is, not dependent on creation. This means when we love one another, we reflect something of God’s very nature.
Third, our salvation depends on the Trinity. The Father sent the Son (John 3:16), the Son accomplished our redemption through His death and resurrection (Romans 5:8-10), and the Holy Spirit applies that salvation to us and dwells within us (Titus 3:5-6, Romans 8:9-11). Remove any person of the Trinity and the whole plan of salvation falls apart.
Fourth, the Trinity shapes how we relate to God. We pray to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Paul writes, “through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:18). Our worship is Trinitarian, our prayer is Trinitarian, our Christian life is Trinitarian.
Where Should We Stand?
So with all these different views among Trinitarians, where should we land? We need to hold fast to what Scripture clearly teaches: there is one God who exists eternally as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are equal in deity, power, and glory. Beyond that, we should have charity towards different ways of articulating and emphasising aspects of this profound mystery.
We should avoid the errors the early church identified—don’t deny the full deity of any person, don’t suggest three gods, don’t collapse the persons into mere modes of one being. But within those guardrails, there’s room for different emphases and explanations. What matters most is not that we can perfectly explain the Trinity, but that we worship the Triune God revealed in Scripture and trust in Father, Son, and Spirit for our salvation.
Conclusion
The Trinity is ultimately a mystery that we will never fully comprehend in this life. As Moses was told, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live” (Exodus 33:20). We see through a glass darkly now, but one day we shall see face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12). Until then, we worship in faith, love, and humility.
The Puritan Thomas Watson put it well: “The Trinity is a mystery, not to be pried into, but to be believed and adored.” Let’s make sure we’re doing both—believing what Scripture reveals and adoring the God who is three in one, one in three, forever blessed.
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” Romans 11:33
