Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
In the intertestamental and Second Temple periods, Jewish literature explored a wide range of theological ideas, including personalized portrayals of Wisdom (cf. Proverbs 8), the Logos (notably in Philo), the Memra (in Targums), the Shekinah (Divine Presence), and the Angel of the Lord in Genesis and Exodus. However, it is crucial to recognize that these were literary, not doctrinal, developments. Judaism at that time had no central theological authority defining the nature of these concepts. Instead, we find a variety of Jewish voices wrestling with how to maintain monotheism while affirming God’s activity within the world in tangible, personal terms. Importantly, some of these figures are depicted in personal terms, despite the claim to the contrary. For example:
- Wisdom in Proverbs 8 speaks and acts as an agent in creation (vv. 22–31).
- The Angel of the Lord speaks as God, bears God's name, forgives sins (cf. Exodus 23:20–21), and is identified as YHWH himself in multiple passages (e.g., Genesis 16:10–13; Exodus 3:2–6).
- Philo’s Logos functions as God's agent in creation, providence, and revelation, and while not personal in the Christian sense, he is more than a mere metaphor.
These Jewish ideas laid the intellectual and theological groundwork for Christian Trinitarianism. They were not a contradiction of it, but a seedbed in which the doctrine later found mature expression after the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ forced the early Church to articulate more precisely who Jesus is.
The argument assumes a false dichotomy: that if something is personal, it must be created and subordinate to God, and if it is uncreated, it must lack personhood. This is a philosophically and theologically unjustified leap. Trinitarianism, grounded in divine revelation and clarified over time, does not argue that God is three beings but that God is one being in three persons — a distinction rooted in the ontological unity of the divine nature and the relational distinctions among the persons. The early Church concluded from the evidence of Scripture that:
- The Father is God.
- The Son is God (John 1:1; 20:28; Colossians 2:9).
- The Spirit is God (Acts 5:3–4; 1 Corinthians 2:10–11).
- Yet there is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:6).
This is not derived from pagan ideas or philosophical speculation alone but from grappling with revelation — particularly in the person of Jesus Christ.
The claim that subordination of the Son (or Wisdom, or Logos) implies inequality of nature misunderstands both Jewish categories and the doctrine of the Trinity. Within the Trinity, functional subordination (e.g., the Son is sent by the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) does not imply ontological inferiority. Jesus himself declared: “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) — but this was said in the context of his incarnation, not of his eternal divine nature. Philippians 2:6–7 is explicit: though Jesus was in the form of God, he humbled himself, taking on the nature of a servant. His subordination was voluntary, rooted in the economic (salvific) order, not the ontological order of the Trinity.
The objection falsely claims that early Christianity, up until the 4th century, held that Jesus was a created being — a position compatible with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology. This is historically inaccurate. Well before the Council of Nicaea (325), Church Fathers affirmed the eternity and deity of Christ:
- Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century): “[Jesus Christ] is God in man, life in death, … the Son of Mary and of God.” (Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2)
- Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century): refers to Christ as “God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128).
- Irenaeus (late 2nd century): says the Son is “eternally co-existing with the Father.” (Against Heresies, 2.30.9)
The idea that the Son is begotten of the Father does not imply createdness. The Nicene Creed clarified this: “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.” The Church rejected Arius’ claim that “there was a time when the Son was not” — a claim much closer to JW theology than anything biblical or apostolic.
The claim that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” does not mean he is the first created being. The Greek word prōtotokos (πρωτότοκος) often means preeminent heir, not necessarily first in time. Psalm 89:27 calls David “firstborn,” though he was the youngest son of Jesse. In Colossians 1:15–17, Jesus is said to be the one “through whom all things were created” and who holds all things together. That cannot be said of a creature.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345
“And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.”
— Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues, §146 (English from C.D. Yonge translation)
This passage has been misinterpreted to argue that the Logos is a created angel or the first created being—the very claim of Arians and modern Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, Philo is not describing a created being but rather a divine manifestation of God's activity, functioning as an intermediary—not a literal creature. In §145, he says:
“The Word is the eldest-born image of God.”
“πρωτότοκος εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος”
Here “πρωτότοκος” (firstborn) is used metaphorically, in the Hellenistic Jewish Platonic tradition, not in a biological or ontological sense of creation. Philo often personifies Logos (λόγος) as God’s instrument in creation, not as a created being. For Philo, the Logos is:
- God’s rational principle,
- His image,
- The instrument through which the visible world was fashioned.
Compare §148:
“For the Word is the eldest-born image of God.”
This echoes Wisdom 7:25–26 and Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is God’s agent but not a creature. The firstborn language is figurative: the Logos is the chief, the archetype, not the first in a sequence of created beings. Yes, Philo calls the Logos:
“the eldest of his angels, the archangel of many names…”
Greek: “πρεσβύτατος τῶν ἀγγέλων… ἀρχάγγελος πολλῶν ὀνομάτων”
But Philo is not saying the Logos is one of the angels. Rather, in Hellenistic thought, “angel” could denote a messenger, and Philo uses angelic language metaphorically to describe divine intermediaries. The Logos is above angels and serves as their archetype:
- He is the Word through whom God speaks.
- He is the Image of God.
- He is the archangel in the sense of being the highest manifestation of God’s revelation—not a being created alongside angels.
As David Winston (in Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria) rightly notes, Philo's Logos is “an ontological bridge between the ineffable God and the material world” – not a created creature. In De Somniis II, §242, Philo says:
“For the Father of the universe has caused him [the Logos] to spring up as the eldest son, whom he (God) calls his firstborn…”
This does not make the Logos a creature. It mirrors Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature.” And in Legum Allegoriae III.96:
“To his Logos, God says: ‘Behold, I give you as a covenant to the nation, as a light to the Gentiles.’”
Again, the Logos functions as God's agent, but not as a created subordinate.
The genitive in “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως” (Col 1:15) is not partitive, as Arian exegesis claims. It is a genitive of subordination, as even D.B. Wallace notes in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 103–104. Paul means “the Firstborn over all creation,” not “the firstborn among created things.” That parallels Psalm 89:27 (LXX): “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” The term denotes rank and authority, not origin.
To sum up, Philo’s use of “firstborn” and “archangel” language is Platonic, metaphorical, and theological, not ontological in the Arian sense. The Logos is:
- Not created/made/came into being,
- Not subordinate by nature,
- Not one among angels, but the supreme manifestation of God’s wisdom and power.
Therefore, to quote Philo to support Arianism is a category mistake—it confuses figurative philosophical language for literal ontological claims.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

One of the most controversial verses in the Arian-Nicene debate about the nature of Christ is Colossians 1:15, where Paul calls Jesus “the Firstborn of all creation” (prototokos pases ktiseos). A common argument from those who reject Christ’s deity is that this verse means Jesus was the first created being, based on the assumption that prototokos "always" (?) denotes a temporal or biological priority. However, an examination of how the early Church, particularly apostolic disciples like Polycarp, understood and used this term provides invaluable insight into how prototokos was meant to be understood by those closest to the apostolic tradition.
Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, was not just a second-century Christian; he was a disciple of the Apostle John himself and a key transmitter of the apostolic faith. His connection to the apostolic age gives his writings and reported sayings immense theological weight. In his Epistle to the Philippians (7:1), he writes:
“Whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.”
The Greek phrase is striking: houtos prototokos estin tou Satana. Polycarp uses the exact word prototokos, “firstborn,” not in a biological sense, but in a moral and symbolic one. The heretic is not literally Satan’s first biological offspring; rather, he is called the “firstborn of Satan” because he is the foremost in error, the most prominent in rebellion, the exemplar of heresy.
This usage proves that prototokos in early Christian literature, even among the closest apostolic successors, had a clearly metaphorical and hierarchical meaning. To be “firstborn” could mean preeminent, representative, foremost—not merely the first to be created. When Paul calls Christ the prototokos of all creation in Colossians 1:15, he is not placing Christ within the category of creation, but above it. The following verses reinforce this interpretation: all things were created through Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). Far from being part of creation, Christ is its source, its sustainer, and its goal.
Polycarp’s use of the term prototokos in reference to a heretic as the “firstborn of Satan” makes it clear that the word denotes rank or representative identity rather than temporal order. Just as the heretic is the leading figure in evil, so Christ is the supreme figure over creation. Moreover, Polycarp’s rebuke of Marcion as the “firstborn of Satan,” recorded by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3.4, demonstrates the polemical and theological use of prototokos to convey primacy in a qualitative, not merely chronological, sense.
This understanding of prototokos aligns with the consistent witness of the early Church Fathers and the context of Colossians itself. The term is used again in Colossians 1:18 to describe Christ as the “firstborn from the dead,” clearly indicating preeminence in resurrection and glory rather than mere sequence. The context is not biological generation, but cosmic lordship. Paul’s intention is to magnify Christ as sovereign Lord, the visible image of the invisible God, not to place Him among the created beings. And this is exactly how Polycarp, a man instructed directly by the Apostle John, used the same term in his own writings and teachings.
In conclusion, the use of prototokos by Polycarp offers strong lexical and theological evidence that the term in Colossians 1:15 denotes preeminence, not creation. It reinforces the traditional, Trinitarian understanding of the passage: that Christ is supreme over all creation because He is its source, its sustainer, and its Lord. To read this verse as teaching Christ’s creation is not only a misreading of Paul’s intent but a contradiction of the very way the apostolic Church interpreted and applied the language of “firstborn.”
65
The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity
by Longlivetherenegades in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
those who say they are christians or follow christianity needs .

1. father .

2. jesus .
aqwsed12345

@MeanMrMustard
You objected to my statement that certain truths about God's nature are necessary for salvation, characterizing it as a "sneaking in" of doctrine without clear scriptural command. However, the principle (Veritas fidei est de necessariis ad salutem) does not "sneak in" the Trinity but explicitly highlights that true saving faith requires belief in God as He has revealed Himself. Belief in Christ necessarily implies belief in the Trinity, as the very revelation of Christ includes the Father sending the Son, and the Spirit proceeding from both. The Trinity isn't an “arbitrary” addition but the foundational truth of God’s self-disclosure. Thus, recognizing the Trinity as essential for salvation flows logically and scripturally from the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit explicitly taught in Scripture (e.g., John 1:1, Matthew 28:19, Hebrews 1:3).
You described my explanation as "word salad," objecting particularly to terms like "habit" and "infused by grace." The term "habit" (Latin: habitus) does not imply mere repetitive behavior (works), but rather an enduring disposition of the soul. Faith is precisely this: a stable, supernatural disposition enabling the intellect and will to assent freely to revealed truths. "Infused by grace" refers specifically to the divine origin of faith—it is not a natural human capacity but a supernatural gift given by God. This understanding isn't vague; rather, it's a precise philosophical-theological clarification rooted deeply in the biblical idea that faith itself is a gift (Eph. 2:8).
You questioned the object of saving faith, implying that focusing on God’s revealed identity somehow diverts from salvation’s purpose. However, salvation precisely consists in union with God as He truly is—not a generalized deity. Saving faith must therefore assent to the truths God has explicitly revealed about Himself (Hebrews 11:6). If God has revealed Himself as triune—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—then authentic faith requires accepting this. Rejecting the clearly revealed nature of God means rejecting God’s own self-disclosure, not merely an interpretation.
You rightly point out that sincere believers can define terms differently. However, sincerity alone does not guarantee correctness. Objective truth does matter. Terms like "nature," "essence," "person," and "substance" have precise philosophical meanings. Classical theology uses these terms to clarify—not complicate—what Scripture explicitly affirms: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully divine yet distinct. The terms are intended precisely to prevent misunderstandings (such as modalism or tritheism) and are not arbitrary but deeply grounded in both scriptural revelation and logical coherence.
Raymond Franz’s concern about dogmatism and judgmentalism is valid in spirit. Many people who misunderstand or reject the Trinity may do so out of ignorance rather than willful obstinacy, which mitigates personal culpability. However, the Church maintains that the truth itself—once clearly understood and explicitly rejected—becomes a serious matter, as it pertains directly to the nature of God and thus salvation. It is not dogmatic arrogance to clarify essential truths clearly; rather, it is a charitable duty. Classical theology itself emphasizes humility and charity in discussing truths of faith, never condoning harsh judgmentalism. Distinguishing clearly between objective truth and subjective culpability is critical. Thus, the insistence on precise theological truth (such as the Trinity) is not arrogance but fidelity to God’s revelation.
In conclusion, your critique is valuable because it highlights the need for clear definitions and charitable dialogue. The Trinity is not "word salad" nor an arbitrary dogmatic hurdle, but the deepest reality of God’s revealed identity. Far from undermining salvation or adding extraneous requirements, it is the foundational truth necessary for true faith in the real, self-disclosing God. While recognizing human limitations and the mystery involved, classical theology maintains that rational clarity about God's revealed nature is both possible and necessary, precisely because God has revealed Himself as Trinity.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

You mean, apart from you and your one-man "church"? There are a several Arian groups whose writings I follow, Biblical Unitarians, Church of God, Christadelphians and several YouTubers / Bloggers, and some non-mainstream Messianic Jews, etc.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Many modern Arians, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim that early Christian thinkers like Justin Martyr denied the full divinity of Christ and instead viewed Him as a lesser god, or even a created angel like Michael. In particular, they appeal to Dialogue with Trypho 56, where Justin refers to “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” who “is also called an Angel.” They allege this proves Justin taught subordinationist or semi-Arian theology. However, this interpretation collapses under close scrutiny — grammatically, contextually, and theologically. When we read Justin in full and in light of the developing tradition of the Church, we find a consistent affirmation of the Son's true divinity, pre-existence, and distinct personhood within the one divine essence.
First, let’s clarify Justin’s vocabulary ("Theos kai Kyrios heteros"). In Dialogue with Trypho 56, Justin writes:
"There is, and there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things, who is also called an Angel..."
The Arian reading fixates on the phrase “another God” and concludes that Justin believed in a second, lesser divine being — a created god in the mold of Michael the Archangel. But this distorts Justin's meaning in several ways.
The Greek phrase “theos kai kurios eteros” does not imply a separate nature or essence. Rather, Justin is using the language of relational distinction, not ontological separation. In context, he is explaining to a Jewish interlocutor how the Old Testament's theophanies — appearances of "the Lord" distinct from “God Most High” — are to be understood. He is not saying Jesus is ontologically different from the Father, but that He is a distinct divine Person within the Godhead. "Another" (eteros) refers to another person, not another being. The Son is distinct from the Father not in nature (essentia), but in relation. This is precisely what Trinitarian theology would later clarify using the language of "hypostasis" and "ousia": one essence, three persons. Justin is expressing the real personal distinction of the Logos, in a time before the Church had developed precise metaphysical vocabulary.
Yes, Justin says the Son is “subject” (hupotagmenos) to the Maker. But this is not a statement of ontological inferiority. Classical theology distinguishes between order and essence. In the Trinity, the Son is from the Father (as begotten), and so we can speak of an order or relation of origin. But He shares the same divine substance. Thomists recognize this as the basis for the doctrine of eternal generation. Even Thomas Aquinas teaches that the Son is from the Father, but not less than the Father: "In God, to be from another does not imply inferiority, but only distinction of origin." (ST I, q.42, a.4) So when Justin says the Logos is subject to the Father, he is speaking in terms of personal distinction, not inequality in nature.
Much confusion stems from Justin’s use of the term angelos (ἄγγελος, “angel”) to describe the Son. But to conclude that Justin thought Jesus was ontologically an angel — a created, subordinate being — is simply false. Justin is explicit: the Son is called an angelos because He announces the will of the Father, not because He is a creature:
"...who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things... wishes to announce." (Dialogue with Trypho, 56)
This is "angel" as function, not as nature. The term “angelos” here simply means “messenger,” and Justin applies it in this sense to Christ because He is the Logos — the revealer of the Father’s will. This is consistent with biblical usage (e.g., Malachi 3:1 — “the Messenger of the Covenant”), not with Arian or JW theology which conflates messenger with created angelic being. Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person. Not an angel, but the eternal Son, made flesh.
Far from viewing Christ as a created spirit being, Justin teaches:
- The Logos always existed in God as His Reason (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) and was begotten into personal existence (λόγος προφορικός) without division (Trypho 61).
- The Logos is God Himself: “This same one who was begotten by the Father… is very God.” (Trypho 63)
- The Logos is worshipped, alongside the Father and Spirit (1 Apology 6). Justin knew well that worship is due to God alone.
These statements are utterly incompatible with Arianism. A created being — no matter how exalted — is not due latria (divine worship). That Justin includes the Son in Christian worship is a powerful testimony to his belief in Christ’s full divinity.
When Justin speaks of “another God and Lord,” he is not teaching polytheism or henotheism. In Trypho 61, he explains that the Logos is begotten from the Father “not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided,” but by communication of the same essence. Justin here refutes any materialist or literalistic notion of begetting that would imply separation or inequality. Thus, Justin’s “another God” should be read in light of the Johannine “the Word was with the God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The Son is distinct in person, but consubstantial in essence. Justin affirms the same truth in pre-Nicene language. Even critical scholars who are not Catholic agree with this reading. Denis Minns, O.P., writes:
“Justin affirms the real personal distinction between the Father and the Son, while insisting on their shared divinity… this is not Arian subordination, but the seed of Trinitarian faith.” (Justin Martyr: Philosopher and Martyr)
A favorite Arian talking point is Justin’s statement that the Son occupies “second place” to God (1 Apology 13). But again, this speaks to order, not essence. St. Thomas Aquinas writes similarly: “The Son is second to the Father in order of origin, not in nature or dignity.” (ST I, q.42, a.4 ad 3) Even modern Trinitarian theology maintains the taxis (order) within the Trinity: the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeds. This order does not entail subordination in essence.
Conclusion: Justin Is No Arian
- He affirms the eternal pre-existence of the Logos
- He identifies the Logos as God and Creator
- He says the Logos is to be worshipped
- He calls the Logos “begotten,” not “created”
- He affirms that the Logos shares in the same divine nature
- He uses “angelos” functionally, not ontologically
- He distinguishes persons within the divine essence
Thus, Justin Martyr is not an Arian precursor. He is a pre-Nicene Trinitarian in seed form, articulating the mystery of Father, Son, and Spirit using the philosophical tools and terminology available to him. His theology anticipates the Nicene Creed, and cannot be harmonized with Arian heresy. To claim Justin believed Christ was a created angel like Michael is not only inaccurate — it is a gross distortion of one of the Church’s earliest defenders of Christ’s deity.
St. Justin Martyr, pray for us, that we may defend the deity of Christ with courage and clarity.
65
The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity
by Longlivetherenegades in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
those who say they are christians or follow christianity needs .

1. father .

2. jesus .
aqwsed12345
Yes, God’s essence is ultimately incomprehensible to us in this life. Yes, the terms like “person,” “essence,” and “Son” need to be carefully defined. And yes, no one is saved merely by passing a theological exam on the Trinity. But that does not mean that the doctrine is irrelevant to salvation.
Let’s begin with the principle: Veritas fidei est de necessariis ad salutem — “The truth of faith is necessary for salvation.” Now, not every truth must be explicitly believed by every individual in order to be saved (e.g., the identity of Melchizedek), but some truths are essential because they touch the very nature of the one in whom we believe — namely, God Himself.
Faith, is not mere trust or sincerity. It is a supernatural habit infused by grace, by which we assent to divinely revealed truths because God, who is Truth itself, has revealed them. Therefore, the object of saving faith is not merely the idea of “God in general,” nor even “Jesus as Savior” in an undefined sense — but the real God as He has revealed Himself to us. The more essential the truth is to God's identity, the more closely it pertains to the virtue of faith.
This is why the Trinity matters. God has revealed Himself not merely as a solitary monad, nor merely as acting through Jesus, but as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To knowingly reject this is not merely to reject a theological formulation; it is to reject the very God who has made Himself known. It is not a question of passing a theological test but of assenting to God as He is. If one were to say, “I accept God, but not the God of Abraham, or not the God revealed in Christ,” that would not be true faith, no matter how sincere.
Now, regarding the claim that there’s “no command” to believe in the Trinity — this is true only in a very superficial, proof-texting sense. The Scriptures themselves present the triune reality of God — not in scholastic formulae, but in revealed form. The Father sends the Son; the Son is begotten, not made; the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; and all three act with divine authority, receive divine worship, and share divine glory. The formula of Matthew 28:19 — baptizing in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — is a liturgical summary of a deeper metaphysical truth: the unity of divine essence, and the real distinction of persons.
We must distinguish between what is comprehended and what is believed. No one can comprehend God’s essence. But to be saved, one must believe in God as He is — and if He is triune, then faith must eventually conform to that truth. A person in invincible ignorance who trusts God sincerely may be saved through implicit faith. But once the Trinity is clearly proposed and understood, to reject it knowingly is to reject the true God.
You also raise a valuable point about terms. Indeed, the debate often fails because the metaphysical terms are undefined or misunderstood. According to the classical theology:
- A “person” is a subsistent relation in an intellectual nature (Boethius' definition, refined by Aquinas).
- “Essence” refers to what something is — in God, essence is identical to existence (ipsum esse subsistens).
- “Son” implies origin, not inferiority. In God, the Son proceeds by generation, not as a creature, but as the perfect intellectual expression of the Father — the eternal Word.
- “Fully God” means possessing the whole divine essence, which is simple, indivisible, and not shared by parts.
- “Death” for Christ refers not to the death of His divine nature, which is impassible, but to the separation of His human soul from His human body.
When we speak of Jesus as the "Son of God," it’s essential to recognize that this is not a biological or temporal statement in the same sense that “son of John” would be. The phrase “Son of God” is not meant to imply a separate and (ontologically) subordinate being who came into existence after the Father, or who is of a different nature. Rather, in biblical language, especially in the Hebrew mindset, the term “son of…” often describes identity, nature, or role, not merely biological descent.
For example:
- "Sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) does not mean people literally born from a parent named “Disobedience,” but that they embody disobedience.
- "Son of perdition" (John 17:12) refers to Judas Iscariot — not because Perdition is his father, but because his destiny and character are destruction.
- "Sons of light" (Luke 16:8) describes those who live in and reflect the truth of God.
- "Son of death" in Hebrew idiom means someone who is destined to die.
- Barnabas is called “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36), not because “Encouragement” is a person, but because that quality defines his nature.
So, when Jesus is called the "Son of God," it does not mean He is a separate being from God, any more than calling someone a "son of peace" means they are separate from peace. It means that He shares the very nature of God — divinity itself.
This is confirmed by John 5:18, where the Jews understood that Jesus, by calling God His own Father, was making Himself equal with God. They did not misunderstand Him — Jesus does not correct them. He intensifies the claim in the verses that follow.
Jehovah's Witnesses, and others like them, make a category mistake: they assume “Father” and “Son” refer to a relationship of origin in time, and thus subordinate the Son. But if that logic were consistent, then for Jesus to be God, He would have to be “His own Father” — an absurdity that reveals the flaw in their reasoning.
But the relationship between the Father and the Son is eternal and ontological — it has to do with who God is in Himself, not a temporal event. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten, and the Spirit proceeds eternally — this is not mythology or "three gods," but the inner life of the one true God, as revealed by God Himself.
Furthermore, in Hebrews 1:3, we are told that the Son is the exact representation (charaktēr) of God’s being (hypostasis) — not merely a reflection, not a similar image, but the exact imprint. A person who is “the exact imprint of God's nature” is God.
To summarize:
- "Son of God" in reference to Jesus does not imply lesser deity, temporal origin, or inferiority.
- In biblical language, "son of" often denotes nature, destiny, or identity — not physical lineage.
- Jesus is called God (John 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13), worshipped as God, exercises the works of God, and claims the name and authority of God.
- Therefore, calling Jesus the "Son of God" is a declaration of His divinity, not a denial of it.
You are right that many arguments collapse into proof-text ping-pong. Classical theology avoids this by carefully analyzing the nature of God, the logical structure of Scripture, and the principles of metaphysics. The Church did not "invent" the Trinity; only offered a rational and precise explanation of what had already been revealed and believed. The goal is not to reduce mystery, but to approach it rightly — with reason obedient to faith.
In sum, the Trinity is not a theological accessory. It is the name of the true God. To believe in God savingly is to believe in this God — not a mode, not a creature, not a generic deity. Thus, while invincible ignorance may excuse, obstinate rejection of the Trinity once clearly understood is not compatible with saving faith. As Aquinas puts it: "It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ without faith in the Trinity, because the mystery of Christ includes the mission of the Son and the giving of the Holy Spirit." (ST II-II, q.2, a.8)
Therefore, the Trinity is not an arbitrary dogma — it is the deepest reality of God’s inner life, into which we are invited, by grace, through Christ, in the Spirit.
65
The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity
by Longlivetherenegades in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
those who say they are christians or follow christianity needs .

1. father .

2. jesus .
aqwsed12345

@Vanderhoven7
That's a clever line — the "17 heresies in 5 minutes" joke is a classic, and it captures the reverent caution theologians have when approaching the Trinity. But while the mystery of the Trinity is indeed deep and easily misunderstood, that doesn’t mean it’s optional to the Christian faith — especially if we affirm, as you do, that Jesus is fully God.
In fact, if Jesus is fully God, then we are already inside the logic of the Trinity — because if the Father is God and the Son is also fully God, yet there is only one God, then the question of how this unity-in-distinction is possible becomes unavoidable. The doctrine of the Trinity is the Church’s Spirit-guided attempt to articulate and safeguard that very truth: not to explain God exhaustively, but to protect the boundaries of what Scripture reveals — namely, the full deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, along with the indivisible unity of God.
You're right that Scripture doesn’t frame salvation as contingent on understanding advanced Trinitarian theology. But it does require faith in the real Jesus — and that Jesus is the eternal Word made flesh, not a creature or lesser being (John 1:1, 14; John 8:58; Col 2:9). That implies an implicit faith in the triune God, even if one doesn’t use the philosophical vocabulary of "essence," "hypostasis," or "consubstantiality."
The early Church Fathers didn’t invent the Trinity because they wanted to complicate the faith — they articulated it because the full divinity of Christ and the Spirit, proclaimed by the apostles and worshiped in the liturgy, demanded theological clarity. The moment you affirm “Jesus is fully God,” you’ve already stepped into the mystery that the Trinity explains.
So yes — God’s inner life surpasses our understanding, but God has graciously revealed just enough for us to worship in spirit and truth. The Trinity is not an optional metaphysical bonus; it’s the structure of the Gospel itself: the Father sends the Son, the Son accomplishes our redemption, the Spirit applies it to us. As the early Church prayed:
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
JWs and other Arians frequently attempt to co-opt early Christian sources in support of their heretical Christology, particularly their belief that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel. Now you cite Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chapter 6, where Justin refers to the Father, the Son, and "the host of the other good angels." You suggest that this proves Justin thought of Jesus as one of the angels, perhaps even identifying him with Michael. However, this interpretation distorts both the grammar and theology of the passage and misrepresents Justin’s own clear Christology throughout his works. The original Greek text reads:
ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ τὸν παρ’ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα, καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατόν, πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν...
A literal translation:
"But Him [the Father], and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit — these we venerate and worship."
You imply that the phrase "the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him" implies that Jesus is also an angel. However, this is a misreading. The phrase does not say that Jesus is one of the angels. It says the good angels follow Him and are made like to Him — clearly distinguishing Christ from the angels, not identifying Him as one of them. You don't follow or become like someone if you're already ontologically the same as them. The angels are other beings who imitate Christ. If Justin had meant to classify Christ among angels, he would not have placed the Son distinctly before mentioning the angels nor described them as followers of Him.
Your implication hinges on the term “other” (ἄλλων), suggesting that angels are grouped with the Son as a class. But again, Justin writes of “the host of the other good angels who follow Him and are made like to Him”. The "other" applies to angels, not to the Son. It assumes the existence of one being whom the others follow and imitate — the Son — and places the angels in the category of “other” than Him. In other words: if A is imitated by B and B is called “the other,” then A is not part of the same group as B.
Though Justin occasionally calls Christ the Angel of the Lord (as in Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56), he does so in the biblical sense of “messenger” (from angelos) — not to assert that Christ is a created spirit being like Michael. In fact, Justin is clear that Christ is God Himself in multiple places:
- “He is called God, and Lord of hosts, and Jacob saw Him as man.” (Dialogue with Trypho 61)
- “We reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself.” (Dialogue with Trypho 63)
- “Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is both God and Lord of hosts...” (Dialogue with Trypho 126)
Far from suggesting that Christ is a created angel, Justin explicitly identifies Him with the pre-existent God who appeared in the Old Testament — the same one called Lord and God. Justin writes in 1 Apology 6:
“But both Him [the Father], and the Son... and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore…”
To worship the Son is to recognize Him as God, not a created being. Arians deny that worship is due to Jesus, but Justin affirms it boldly. If Justin thought Jesus were an angel like Michael, this would be blatant idolatry — which is unthinkable in a Christian apologetic work aimed at defending the faith before pagan authorities. Also, note: Justin distinguishes between worship due to God and honor given to angels elsewhere:
“We do not honor with worship those who are only angels, but we honor only the God who is above all…” (Dialogue with Trypho, 6)
Even critical scholars who analyze Justin’s theology — including those not aligned with Catholic orthodoxy — acknowledge that Justin believed in Christ’s pre-existence and divinity. He refers to the Logos (Word) as:
- "God" (θεός)
- "Begotten before all creation"
- "Agent of creation" (cf. Trypho 62)
Justin does use subordinationist language, typical of the second century (prior to the full Trinitarian clarification at Nicaea). But subordination in role or order, not essence, was common in pre-Nicene theology and does not imply inequality in nature. Justin’s vocabulary is developmental, not heretical.
The claim that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus is an angel, or that he identified Christ with Michael, is baseless and misrepresents his theology. Justin:
- Clearly distinguishes Christ from created angels
- Teaches the worship of Christ
- Identifies Him as God, Lord of hosts, and the Logos who appeared to the patriarchs
- Asserts His pre-existence and divine mission
Justin is a witness to Christ’s divinity, not a proponent of the Watchtower’s demotion of Christ to a created archangel.
Bonus: What Do Other Church Fathers Say?
- “He is Himself in His own right, God and Lord and Eternal King, the Incarnate Word.” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.4):
- “The Son is God of God, and the Word of the Father.” - Tertullian (Against Praxeas):
- “Do you not understand that this is the God who appeared to Abraham?” - Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10)
None of these Fathers believed Christ was “just” an angel. The patristic consensus is clear: Christ is true God, consubstantial with the Father, not a created being.
65
The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity
by Longlivetherenegades in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
those who say they are christians or follow christianity needs .

1. father .

2. jesus .
aqwsed12345

Defending the Doctrine of the Trinity: A Thomistic Perspective
Introduction
The doctrine of the Trinity – that the one God exists as three coequal, coeternal Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) – stands at the heart of Christian theology. From a Thomistic perspective (drawing on St. Thomas Aquinas’s metaphysics and theology), the Trinity is a revealed mystery beyond the full grasp of unaided reason, yet it is not irrational or self-contradictory (Fr Gilles Emery on the Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas). Indeed, Aquinas and his followers have sought to show that faith in the Trinity is “not contrary to reason” but is intellectually coherent, consistent with God’s unity and simplicity (Fr Gilles Emery on the Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas). This article undertakes a detailed defense of Trinitarian doctrine through the lens of Thomistic thought, addressing classic objections from Arian theology and Islamic monotheism. It will explain the foundations of the doctrine in Scripture and tradition, articulate the Thomistic account of distinction of Persons within one divine essence, and show why the Trinity does not compromise divine simplicity or true monotheism. In fact, far from undermining the oneness of God, the doctrine of the Trinity upholds it while illuminating God’s inner life of knowledge and love. The inadequacy of Arian subordinationism and the Islamic critique of any plurality in God will be examined, demonstrating that the Catholic doctrine stands as the “highest point of truth” between opposite errors. Throughout, we will draw on the insights of St. Thomas Aquinas and 20th-century Thomist Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange (especially his work The Trinity and God the Creator) to reinforce the argument.
Foundations of Trinitarian Doctrine
Christian reflection on God’s triune nature began with the revelation of God in the New Testament. The Bible maintains uncompromising monotheism – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut 6:4) – yet also speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each as divine. The Gospels present Jesus as the Son of God, one with the Father (cf. John 1:1, 10:30), and the Paraclete Spirit as sent by the Father and Son, sharing in the divine works of sanctification. Early Christians, guided by Scripture, thus faced three essential truths: (1) God is one, as affirmed in the Old Testament; (2) Jesus Christ the Son of God is divine, yet not simply identical to the Father; and (3) the Holy Spirit is also divine and personally distinct. These truths cannot be reconciled without the distinction and the consubstantiality of the three divine persons. In other words, only a Trinitarian understanding – one God in three truly distinct, consubstantial Persons – allows Christians to affirm both God’s unity and the full divinity of Son and Spirit. Alternatives in the early centuries tended to destroy one truth or the other: Sabellianism (or Modalism) preserved divine unity at the cost of denying real distinctions (treating Father, Son, and Spirit as mere modes of one person), whereas Arianism acknowledged some distinction but at the cost of denying the full divinity and equality of the Son (and Spirit) with the Father. The Church rejected both errors, defining at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) that the Son is homoousios (of one substance) with the Father, and later likewise affirming the Spirit’s consubstantial divinity. The Nicene Creed thus professes belief “in one God, Father almighty… and in one Lord Jesus Christ… true God from true God… consubstantial with the Father… and in the Holy Spirit.” This creedal formula enshrines the two pillars of Trinitarian doctrine: unity of essence (one God) and trinity of Persons.
While reason alone could never have discovered the Trinity, once God reveals himself in this way, theology seeks to understand and defend the doctrine’s coherence. St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized that the Trinity, though a mystery, contains no contradiction. We do not say “three Gods in one God” or “three persons in one person,” which would be absurd. Rather, we say three persons in one essence or substance. The term “person” in classical Christian usage (following Boethius and the Church Fathers) means a distinct subsistent identity – in God’s case, a distinct relational identity – whereas “essence” or substance answers what God is. According to Aquinas, when we carefully distinguish person and essence, we avoid the trap of tritheism (which would mistakenly treat the three divine persons as three separate gods) while also avoiding the opposite error of collapsing the persons and negating all distinctions (Modalism). The Church Fathers often described the Trinity as three who’s and one what – three “persons” (Father, Son, Spirit) who each equally are the one God. This nuanced understanding, rooted in Scripture and developed by thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas, safeguards both divine unity and the genuine personal distinction. It shows that Christianity, no less than Judaism or Islam, upholds monotheism: one God, and only one, is to be worshipped, even though that one God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his inner life.
Thomistic Metaphysics and the Triune God
St. Thomas Aquinas brought a profound metaphysical clarity to Trinitarian theology. Building on Aristotle’s philosophy and the patristic tradition, Aquinas introduced conceptual tools – especially the notions of procession, relation, and person – to explain how real distinctions exist in God without compromising His unity. In Aquinas’s account, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished by their relations of origin: the Son is begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and Son) as from one principle. These processions are internal and eternal, analogous (though not identical) to the processes of intellect and will in God. Aquinas famously likened the Son to the Word or Idea begotten in the divine intellect and the Holy Spirit to the Love or Gift breathed forth in the divine will. By this analogy, God’s act of self-knowing generates a perfect Image or Word (the Son), and the mutual love of Father and Son breathes forth a Love who is the Spirit. Crucially, these processions remain within the one divine essence; they do not produce separate beings alongside God. Rather, they are modes of subsistence of the one infinite being of God.
From these processions arise real relations in God: the Father is related to the Son as begetter to begotten (paternity and filiation), and the Father and Son are together related to the Spirit as principle to procession (active spiration, with the Spirit having the correlative relation of proceeding, often called passive spiration). According to Aquinas, these relations are the persons. In created beings, relationships are accidents (external qualities) that do not constitute a thing’s essence. But God, in His absolute simplicity, has no accidents; everything in God is identical with the divine essence itself. Therefore, the relations of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Spiration in God are not additional components – they subsist as the persons themselves, each one identical with the one divine essence. As Aquinas explains: in God, the relations are the divine essence, and so “in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet the persons are really distinguished from each other” by the opposition of relations (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The persons in relation to the essence (Prima Pars, Q. 39)). In other words, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are nothing other than the one God (hence identical in essence), but they are really distinct from one another by virtue of the real relational opposition between Fatherhood, Sonship, and the spiration of Love. The Father is not the Son because one is in relation of origin to the other; the Son is not the Spirit; yet Father, Son, and Spirit each are the one God.
This Thomistic resolution hinges on understanding that a real distinction of persons exists only in regard to each other, not in regard to the divine essence. The Father is distinct from the Son because Father and Son are opposite relations (one cannot be identical to the other in terms of who is originating and who is originated); likewise with the Spirit in relation to Father and Son. However, each of these subsistent relations is the one simple divine being under a different relational aspect. Aquinas succinctly states that the distinction lies in relation and the unity lies in essence: “Relation multiplies the Trinity of persons, but the unity of the substance remains undivided” (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The persons in relation to the essence (Prima Pars, Q. 39)). By conceiving the persons as subsistent relations, Aquinas avoids thinking of them as three parallel “parts” of God or three separate centers of consciousness. They are distinct (Father is not Son, etc.), yet never separate – each person is the one indivisible God. Thus, Thomistic metaphysics shows how plurality of persons can exist in the highest unity of being. As Garrigou-Lagrange observes in expounding Aquinas, this view “perfectly preserves the supreme simplicity of the divine being because in God there is but one being; the real relations, on the one hand, do not make a composition with the essence, and on the other hand they really distinguish the persons”. The result is that “in the three divine persons there is one divinity, equal glory, co-eternal majesty, and the same absolute perfection”. No person lacks any attribute of the Godhead that the others have; all are eternally equal in power and substance. The only “difference” is the manner of each Person’s relationship of origin (unbegotten paternity, filiation, and procession of love).
By framing the Trinity in terms of relations of origin within God’s one essence, Aquinas ensured that divine simplicity was upheld. God is absolutely simple (without parts, composition, or division), and this remains true in Trinitarian doctrine. The divine simplicity “excludes every real distinction except where there is an opposition of relation”. Put another way, the only possible distinctions in the utterly simple God are the relational ones that emerge from eternal generation and procession. These do not add components to God; they are God-understood-as-Father, God-understood-as-Son, and God-understood-as-Spirit. This understanding answers the charge that the Trinity must imply composition or division in God. It does not: the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three independent pieces of the Godhead that together form a greater whole, but each is the whole Godhead, distinguished only by relationships of origin that reference each other. The one divine essence is numerically one and the same in all three Persons. Christian orthodoxy thus walks a razor’s edge between Unitarianism and Tritheism. Garrigou-Lagrange vividly illustrates this by saying the Catholic dogma stands “like the apex of a pyramid” between opposite errors: on one side a Unitarian denial of real plurality in God (as in Modalism or Arian subordinationism), and on the other a tritheistic separation of three gods. The former errs in denying what Scripture reveals about the Word and Spirit’s distinct divine existence; the latter errs in denying God’s unity. The truth, as the Church teaches, affirms both distinction and unity in the proper way, reflecting the fact that “the divine reality is infinitely broader than the limited concepts of the human mind”. We are forced beyond the simplifications of pure monad versus multiple gods, to confess unity in trinity.
Divine Simplicity and the Rational Coherence of Trinitarian Distinction
A central concern for both skeptics and sincere monotheists has been whether the Trinity violates the simplicity and oneness of God. How can one indivisible Godhead be three? Wouldn’t any plurality in God imply parts or composition? Thomistic theology provides a robust answer: the distinction of Persons in God is real, but it does not divide the substance of God. The key is to recognize that the numbers “one” and “three” do not apply to God in the same respect. God is one in essence or nature; God is three in persons or interpersonal relations. The divine essence is not something that can be cut into thirds – it is infinite and indivisible. Each divine Person possesses the totality of that one essence. They are distinguished not by having different “sections” of the godhead or different attributes, but solely by their relations of origin (paternity, filiation, spiration). Those relational distinctions, as noted, do not constitute independent beings; they are subsistent ways of the one being. Therefore, when Christians say “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” they are not enumerating three objects alongside each other in the category of God; they are naming three relationally-distinct subsistences of the one God. This is why classical theology insists that God is one “substance” (or essence) in three “hypostases” (or persons) – avoiding the misleading formulation of “three substances.” The Cappadocian Fathers in the 4th century used precisely that language (one ousia, three hypostaseis) to clarify that while Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, they are not three gods. St. Thomas in Summa Theologiae I, Q.39, art.1 addresses the question whether in God the essence is the same as the person. He replies that divine simplicity demands that essence and person be identical in God (there is not an essence “plus” distinct individuals the way created things have a nature common to many instances) (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The persons in relation to the essence (Prima Pars, Q. 39)) (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The persons in relation to the essence (Prima Pars, Q. 39)). Yet the Persons are truly distinct by virtue of the relational opposition. “Thus there are one essence and three persons,” Aquinas concludes (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The persons in relation to the essence (Prima Pars, Q. 39)). This is a mystery unique to God: in created beings, one nature can only be shared by many individuals in a fragmented way (each human has his own instance of human nature, separate from another’s). But God’s infinite nature is not a genus that gets multiplied; it is one and only, so it can be fully possessed by more than one person only in the case where those persons are intrinsically one being. Father, Son, and Spirit each are the singular divine being, not three beings. In short, 3 persons ≠ 3 gods, but 3 persons = 1 God, when we understand “person” and “God” in the orthodox sense.
From a rational standpoint, this formulation avoids logical contradiction. It would be contradictory to say “three Gods and one God” or “three persons and one person” in the same respect. But saying “one God in three persons” is no more illogical than saying (analogically) that one geometric triangle has three corners or one human nature is possessed by three human individuals (except that in the human case, that nature is split across three separate beings, whereas in God it is the same being). The point is that number is being predicated of different aspects: unity refers to essence, plurality refers to persons. There is mystery here, but not absurdity. The concept of “person” in God is sui generis – unlike human persons, the divine persons are not separate centers of consciousness with separate acts of will or knowledge. All divine action is singular, coming from the one divine nature – yet it is fittingly attributed in different ways to the different persons (for example, the Father creates through the Son, the Son becomes incarnate, the Spirit sanctifies, and so on, without division of labor). The three persons co-inhere in one another (perichoresis or circumincession, in theological terms), since they are one being. Thus, divine simplicity remains intact: God is not composed of intellect + will + power + parts – God is pure and simple being. The Trinity simply tells us that within that unity of being there exists a triune relational life. This does not make God “complex” in the way material things are complex; it signals that God’s unity is fertile and perfect, not sterile. Catholic theologians have even argued that the Trinity highlights God’s supreme perfection: unlike a solitary monad, the one God is never alone or lacking in relation; He is eternally a community of love in Himself (Father loving Son, Son loving Father, and Spirit being that love), which is a more perfect image of absolute goodness. The one divine nature is fruitful and self-communicative, not a solitary selfhood turned inward. While human reason could not deduce this on its own, once revealed it perceives a fittingness: God is love (1 John 4:8), and love implies beloved and the spirit of love – remarkably mirrored by Father, Son, Spirit. In Aquinas’s words, the Trinity of persons “perfects our natural knowledge of God the Creator” by revealing His intimate life, and even “throws light from above” on other mysteries. It is a doctrine that elevates our understanding of God beyond what philosophical monotheism could imagine, yet without contradicting the truth of God’s oneness.
Refuting Arian Subordinationism
One of the earliest and most significant challenges to the Trinity was posed by Arianism, a 4th-century heresy associated with Arius of Alexandria. Arius’s theology can be seen as an extreme attempt to preserve God’s transcendence and unity – but in doing so, it subordinated the Son and Holy Spirit, effectively reducing them to lesser divine agents or high creatures. According to Arius, the Logos or Son of God was not eternal God but the first and greatest creature, brought into existence by the Father to be an intermediary in creation and salvation. “God the Father alone is eternal,” taught Arius; the Son, though exalted, was made out of nothing in time and used as an instrument by the Father. The Holy Spirit, likewise, was viewed as a creature subordinate even to the Son. This theological move was partly influenced by a neo-Platonic and Gnostic mindset that God, being absolutely superior, could not interact with the world except through a hierarchy of lesser beings. The upshot was a denial of the Son’s true divinity: the Son was “heteroousios” (of different substance) or at best “homoiousios” (of similar substance) with the Father, but not “homoousios” (of the same substance). Arius’s subordinationism thus radically contradicts the biblical witness that “the Word was God” (John 1:1) and that the Son knows the Father perfectly and shares in divine honor, as well as the Church’s constant worship of the Holy Spirit as Lord and Life-giver. The Church, led by bishops like St. Athanasius, definitively rejected Arianism at Nicaea, affirming the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father.
Arianism fails on multiple counts. First, it compromises monotheism just as severely as tritheism does – in effect, Arius ended up positing a quasi-divine demigod (the Son) and another subordinate spirit (the Holy Ghost). If Christians were to follow Arius, they would either have to worship a creature (the Son), which is idolatry, or deny Christ the worship given to the Father, which contradicts revelation. The Nicene Creed’s insistence on the Son being “true God from true God” was precisely to ensure that when Christians worship Jesus Christ, they are not offering secondary worship to a secondary god, but truly worshipping the one God in the Son. Aquinas underscores that the honor paid to the Son and Holy Spirit must be the honor given to God alone, since the Son and Spirit are God. By asserting that the Son is not of the Father’s essence, Arianism actually introduces composition and change in God far more problematic than the orthodox Trinity does. If the Father “produced” the Son as a creature, then at some point the Father was alone and then became a creator – meaning God acquired a new relation (that of creator or father) in time, implying change in God’s being. This conflicts with the divine immutability which classical theism (and indeed Arianism itself) wanted to preserve. The orthodox doctrine, in contrast, says the Father eternally generates the Son within the Godhead – an eternal, unchanging act – so that God is eternally Father and Son in relationship, with no new relation arising in time within God’s essence. Thus, ironically, Arius’s refusal to accept an eternal generation within God leads to a scenario where God’s relationship (Fatherhood) begins with time, undermining immutability. Moreover, Arianism is metaphysically unstable: it posits a semi-divine creator Son who is neither fully uncreated nor simply created like other creatures, which shatters the clear line between Creator and creature. By insisting the Son is fully divine, consubstantial with the Father, Christianity maintains a clear categorical distinction: everything on the Creator side of the line is God (Father, Son, Spirit – one Creator), and everything else is created. Arianism muddles this by placing the Logos in a middle position.
Thomistic theology refutes Arian subordinationism by reasserting that any distinction of persons in God must be entirely within the unity of the Godhead, not a separation into greater and lesser beings. The Father and Son are related as begetter and begotten, but both possess the identical divine nature and glory. Aquinas points out that in God there is a perfect communion of essence: the Father eternally communicates the one divine essence to the Son in begetting Him, so the Son has all that the Father is (except being Father) – hence “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.” There is no degree of divinity here; the Son isn’t 90% of the Father’s divinity or an “overflow” – He is 100% God, as is the Father, sharing the same numerical essence. Therefore, any notion of subordination refers only to relation of origin (the Son receives being from the Father, and so in that sense has a dependence of origin), but not to inequality of nature. The Athanasian Creed later summarized: the three persons are co-eternal and co-equal; none is before or after, greater or lesser. Arius’s error was denying this co-equality, effectively introducing hierarchy within the Godhead where only unity should reign. Arianism’s attempt to lower the Son and Spirit to protect God’s highness actually backfired – it led to a trio of beings (one supreme and two subordinate) and thus lost the unity it sought to safeguard. By contrast, orthodoxy paradoxically achieves a more profound unity: one God in three persons, with no division of substance or glory. Arianism can be seen as an inadequate account that tried to resolve the tension by sacrificing one of the truths (the Son’s true divinity). Aquinas would say that truth is not truly served by removing one horn of a paradox; instead, one must accept both horns and find the higher synthesis (in this case, the synthesis is the doctrine of consubstantial Trinity).
Finally, from the standpoint of salvation (an important argument for the Church Fathers), only if the Son is true God could He bring about our divinization. St. Athanasius argued, “the Son of God became man so that we might become God (by participation).” If the Son were a creature, he could not bridge the gap between God and man – he would himself be on the creature side of the gap. The Thomistic view affirms that the Son and Spirit, being fully God, can impart divine life to us. Thus, the Trinity is not an abstract conundrum but lies at the core of Christian life: through the Son and in the Spirit we are brought to the Father. Arian subordinationism is inadequate because it breaks that chain – a lesser son could not impart God’s life. In summary, Arianism’s denial of the consubstantial Trinity was rightly deemed insufficient and erroneous. The Thomistic defense reinforces that the Son must be one in essence with the Father if we are to maintain consistent monotheism and the efficacy of redemption. The doctrine of the Trinity, properly understood, negates subordinationism: all three Persons are equally the one Almighty God, differing only in relational roles that do not imply inferiority or a divided Godhead.
The Trinity and Islamic Monotheism
Perhaps the most vigorous non-Christian objection to the Trinity comes from Islamic theology. Islam is staunchly monotheistic, confessing in its creed (Shahada) that “there is no god but Allah”. The Qur’an regards any suggestion of God having a “partner” or multiplicity as the sin of shirk (association/polytheism) – the “gravest of all sins” in Islamic doctrine (A Clash of Monotheisms: Tawhid vs. Trinity, Pt 1 | Greg Lanier) (A Clash of Monotheisms: Tawhid vs. Trinity, Pt 1 | Greg Lanier). In Islamic history, the emergence of Islam in the 7th century can be seen in part as a reaction against the Christian Trinity: Muhammad explicitly excluded the Trinity of persons, seeing it as a denial of the oneness of the Creator. Garrigou-Lagrange notes that in the Islamic formula, “There is no God but Allah,” Muhammad “had in mind a negation of the Trinity,” regarding the Christian belief as a lapse from pure monotheism. The Qur’an directly rejects the divinity of Christ and the idea that God has a “son” (e.g. Quran 4:171, 5:73, 19:35), sometimes misconstruing the Christian Trinity as God, Jesus, and Mary (Quran 5:116) – an indication that the doctrine was not fully understood in its proper form by early Muslims. From the Islamic perspective, the Trinity sounds like tri-theism; they ask, how can God be three and still be one? To Muslim theologians, God is an absolutely singular being (tawhid meaning unity) with no internal differentiation; any plurality would seemingly compromise His sovereignty and uniqueness (A Clash of Monotheisms: Tawhid vs. Trinity, Pt 1 | Greg Lanier). Thus, Islam stands firmly in the Unitarian camp, closer to ancient Monarchian or Modalist ideas about God’s unity.
Addressing this Islamic critique requires clarifying what the doctrine of the Trinity actually asserts and why it does not amount to worshipping multiple gods. The first point to emphasize is that Christians just as strongly affirm that there is only one true God – we recite the Shema (Deut 6:4) and acknowledge no other deity. The difference lies in how we understand the inner nature of the one God. When Islam declares God’s oneness, it presupposes that oneness means absolute singularity with no distinctions; Christianity, by contrast, holds that God’s oneness is more rich and complex – not the oneness of a mathematical point or a solitary individual, but the oneness of a being who is inherently tri-personal. Importantly, the Trinity is not a belief in three gods. We do not hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separately existing divine beings who together form a committee called “God.” Each person is fully the one God. So Christians do not worship three beings; we worship one divine Being, within whom we distinguish Father, Son, and Spirit. From a Christian perspective, therefore, the charge of shirk is a misunderstanding: we are not “associating” any creature or other deity with God – the Son and Spirit we confess are God, just as the Father is. No outsider is being added to God. There is a fundamental asymmetry here: the Islamic polemic assumes that by saying “Father and Son,” Christians have done something analogous to polytheists adding another deity beside Allah. But in reality, Christians are saying that within the one Allah (to use that term) there is a relationship of Father and Son. It’s an internal plurality, not an external addition. Thus, if one properly conceives of the Trinity, it does not violate the principle of tawhid (God’s uniqueness and unity), because the unity of essence remains absolutely intact. As Aquinas might say, the formula “3=1” is not asserted in any single category; rather “3 persons in 1 essence” is the formulation, which does not contradict the law of identity or non-contradiction (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The persons in relation to the essence (Prima Pars, Q. 39)).
Another way to respond is to point out that even Islamic theology has struggled with affirming divine unity while acknowledging multiple attributes of God. Classical Islamic thinkers debated whether the various attributes of God (life, knowledge, power, mercy, justice, etc., as well as the eternal Quran/Word of God) are distinct realities or all one with God. If one says they are distinct, one risks implying multiple co-eternal entities (which some early Muslim rationalists accused orthodox Islam of – that it had a “multiple eternal” problem). If one says they are all exactly the same, one risks denying any real meaning to God’s attributes. The resolution in mainstream Sunni theology was to say God’s attributes are neither totally separate from Him nor identical in a simplistic way, but rather they flow from and are anchored in his essence in a manner befitting God. In a somewhat analogous way, Christian theology holds that the Word (Logos) and Spirit of God are internal to Him and co-eternal, not separate gods. The Gospel of John uses logos (Word) language that would later resonate in debates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). This matches certain Islamic conceptions of God’s Word (Kalām Allāh) being uncreated and with God from the beginning – though Islam stops short of personifying the Word as a second Person. The Christian claim is precisely that the Word of God is eternally with God and is God (one in being). Thus, what we call “the Son” is God’s own self-knowledge begotten within Him, and what we call “the Holy Spirit” is God’s own love proceeding – neither is an alien addition to God. If a Muslim can accept that God’s Word and Spirit are eternal realities that are not separate gods but inherent to the one God, they have a conceptual bridge to understanding the Trinity (albeit the Trinity goes further in saying these are personal hypostases).
Additionally, one can argue that God’s unity in the Christian view is actually richer and does not reduce God to a solitary monad. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is eternally interpersonal – Father, Son, and Spirit in communion – which means relational attributes like love are not secondary; they are anchored in God’s very being. Islam certainly teaches that God is loving and merciful, but if God is absolutely one in a monadic sense, then such relational attributes either require creation to be expressed or are metaphorical. In Christianity, God is literally love (cf. 1 John 4:8) because within God there is an eternal beloved and an eternal love shared. The Father loves the Son and has done so from all eternity, and the Holy Spirit is often understood as the personified love or bond of love of Father and Son. Thus, God did not need to create creatures in order to have someone to love; relationship is intrinsic to God’s perfection, not an external requirement. Some Christian apologists have suggested that a Unitarian God would be dependent on creating the world to exercise love or communication, whereas a Trinitarian God is fully satisfied in an eternal exchange of love, creating freely to share that love. This line of reasoning attempts to show that Trinity does not diminish God’s greatness but rather highlights it – the one God is a dynamic living unity, not a static singularity.
Of course, to a committed Muslim, the Trinity will remain a difficult concept, as it indeed surpasses human understanding. However, the task of the Thomistic defender is to remove misconceptions: the Trinity is not tritheism, not a dilution of monotheism, but a doctrine of unity-in-distinction that ultimately preserves God’s oneness in a more profound way. As Garrigou-Lagrange notes, Islam’s rejection of the Trinity was so emphatic that it considered the mere idea of God as Father, Son, Spirit to be a total departure from true faith. Yet Christianity contends that this mystery of God’s triune life was disclosed by God Himself for our salvation – not to multiply theoretical complexities, but to reveal who God is and draw us into communion with Him. In engaging Islam, one might finally point out that if God is truly omnipotent and transcendent, He is certainly capable of existing in a mode (threefold personal existence) that is beyond our finite experience. It is not limiting God to say He is Triune; on the contrary, it is saying God’s inner being is so rich that it contains personal distinction without compromising unity. The Muslim-Christian divide on this issue is deep, but careful explanation can at least correct the misunderstanding that Christians worship multiple gods. The doctrine of the Trinity falls squarely within the bounds of monotheism – one eternal being, the Almighty, who in Christian understanding is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To rephrase an old theological aphorism: Christians do not say “there are three who are God” as if three separate gods – we say “there is one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
Conclusion
From a Thomistic perspective, the Trinity emerges as a sublime mystery that both humbles and elevates the human mind. We have seen that Thomistic metaphysics – with its emphasis on the unity of the divine essence and the relational distinction of persons – provides a cohesive intellectual framework for holding together truths that could seem contradictory at first glance. The distinction of Persons in one God does not fracture the divine unity nor introduce composition into God. As Aquinas and his commentators like Garrigou-Lagrange have shown, the divine relations of paternity, filiation, and spiration are real and account for the threefold personal distinction, yet they subsist in the one undivided divine being, thereby “one divinity, equal glory, co-eternal majesty” is shared by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards all that classical theism holds about God’s oneness, simplicity, and perfection, while also unfolding the inner life of God as revealed in Christ. It answers the early Christian need to reconcile the biblical affirmations of Father, Son, and Spirit, avoiding the one-sided errors of Modalism and Arianism. It also provides a profound response to Islamic and other unitarian critiques: the Trinity is not a betrayal of monotheism but its fullest realization. God’s unity is so absolute that it can encompass relational plurality without ceasing to be unity. In the Catholic tradition, this truth has been contemplated not as a logical puzzle only, but as a source of wonder and worship – the inexhaustible mystery of one God in three Persons.
Ultimately, the Trinity remains above reason – no philosophic syllogism can fully demonstrate it – but reason illumined by faith can see its fittingness and clear away claims of contradiction. The Triune God, as St. Thomas insisted, is the foundation of our Christian life: everything comes from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, and returns likewise in that Trinitarian order. Far from being an obscure piece of metaphysics, the Trinity is the living reality of God that Christians encounter in revelation and experience in grace. By defending the coherence of Trinitarian doctrine, Thomism shows that one can be a rigorous monotheist while confessing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As Garrigou-Lagrange put it, the Trinity perfects our understanding of God the Creator and “gives us supernatural knowledge of the intimate life of God” It does so without compromising the fundamental truth that God is one. In the mystery of the Trinity, divine simplicity and divine tri-personality coexist without conflict, inviting us to acknowledge that God’s being transcends our categories. In sum, a Thomistic defense of the Trinity demonstrates that the doctrine is intellectually sound (within the limits of our understanding) and theologically necessary – safeguarding both God’s oneness and the full Christian revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus we can wholeheartedly affirm the Triune mystery, worshipping one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance, ever to God’s glory. (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The persons in relation to the essence (Prima Pars, Q. 39))

aqwsed12345

Posts by aqwsed12345

Bonus: What Do Other Church Fathers Say?