Trinity

== Theology ==
{{redirect|Trinitarian|other uses|Trinitarian (disambiguation)}}

=== Trinitarian baptismal formula ===
{{Main|Trinitarian formula}}
[[File:Piero, battesimo di cristo 04.jpg|thumb|''[[The Baptism of Christ (Piero della Francesca)|The Baptism of Christ]]'', by [[Piero della Francesca]], 15th century]]
Baptism is generally conferred with the [[Trinitarian formula]], "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".<ref>{{bibleverse|Mt|28:19}}</ref> Trinitarians identify this name with the Christian faith into which baptism is an initiation, as seen for example in the statement of [[Basil the Great]] (330–379): "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized." The [[First Council of Constantinople]] (381) also says, "This is the Faith of our baptism that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."<ref>{{bibleref2|Matthew|28:19}}</ref> may be taken to indicate that baptism was associated with this formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence. Other Trinitarian formulas found in the New Testament include in 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Corinthians 12:4–6, Ephesians 4:4–6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4–5.{{sfn|Januariy|2013|p=99}}{{sfn|Fee|2002|p=52}}

[[Oneness Pentecostals]] demur from the Trinitarian view of baptism and emphasize baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" only, what they hold to be the original apostolic formula.{{sfn|Vondey|2012|p=78}} For this reason, they often focus on the baptisms in Acts. Those who place great emphasis on the baptisms in Acts often likewise question the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 in its present form.{{citation needed|date=November 2023}} Most scholars of New Testament [[textual criticism]] accept the authenticity of the passage, since there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula,{{sfn|Ferguson|2009|pp=134–135}} and the extant form of the passage is attested in the [[Didache]]<ref name="patristics"/> and other [[patristic]] works of the 1st and 2nd centuries: [[Ignatius of Antioch|Ignatius]],<ref name="patristics1"/> [[Tertullian]],<ref name="patristics2"/> [[Hippolytus (writer)|Hippolytus]],<ref name="patristics3"/> [[Cyprian]],<ref name="patristics4"/> and [[Gregory Thaumaturgus]].<ref name="patristics5"/>

Commenting on Matthew 28:19, Gerhard Kittel states:

{{blockquote|This threefold relation [of Father, Son and Spirit] soon found fixed expression in the triadic formulae in 2 Corinthians 13:14<ref>{{bibleref2|2 Cor.|13:14|KJV}}</ref> and in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6.<ref>{{bibleref2|1Cor|12:4–6||1 Cor. 12:4–6}}</ref> The form is first found in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 Did., 7. 1 and 3.&nbsp;... [I]t is self-evident that Father, Son and Spirit are here linked in an indissoluble threefold relationship.<ref name="kittel3"/>}}

=== One God in three persons === <!--Linked from [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]-->

In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one being, having a single divine [[Physis (Christian theology)|nature]].{{sfn|Grudem|1994|p=226}} The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the [[Athanasian Creed]], the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning.<ref name="athanasian-creed"/> "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God, but one name for God{{sfn|Barth|1975|pp=348–349}} because three persons exist in God as one entity.{{sfn|Pegis|1997|pp=307–309}} They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.{{sfn|De Smet|2010|p=}}

According to the [[Eleventh Council of Toledo]] (675) "For, when we say: He who is the Father is not the Son, we refer to the distinction of persons; but when we say: the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, and the Holy Spirit that which the Father is and the Son is, this clearly refers to the nature or substance".<ref>{{cite book |title=The Eleventh Council of Toledo (675) |url=https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TOLEDO.HTM |access-date=11 January 2019}}</ref>

The [[Fourth Lateran Council]] (1215) adds: "Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality – that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial. "<ref>{{cite book |title=Fourth Lateran Council (1215) List of Constitutions: 2. On the error of abbot Joachim |url=https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190707222231/https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm |access-date=7 July 2019|archive-date=7 July 2019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Fathers |first1=Council |title=Fourth Lateran Council : 1215 Council Fathers |date=11 November 1215 |url=https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm |access-date=24 December 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

Clarification of the relationships among the three Trinitarian ''Persons'' (divine persons, different from the sense of a "human self") advanced in the Magisterial statement promulgated by the [[Council of Florence]] (1431–1449), though its formulation precedes the council: "These three persons are one God and not three gods, for the three are one substance, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one infinity, one eternity, and everything (in them) is one
where there is no opposition of relationship [{{lang|la|relationis oppositio}}]".{{efn|name=Enchiridion}} [[Robert Magliola]] explains that most theologians have taken {{lang|la|relationis oppositio}} in the "Thomist" sense, namely, the "opposition of relationship" [in English we would say "oppositional relationship"] is one of [[contrariety]] rather than [[contradiction]]. The only "functions" that are applied {{em|uniquely}} to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit respectively in Scripture are the following: "Paternity" to the Father, "Filiation" (Sonship) to the Son, and "Passive Spiration" or that which is "breathed out", to the Holy Spirit. Magliola goes on to explain:

{{blockquote|Because such is the case (among other reasons), [[Karl Rahner]] rejects the "psychological" theories of Trinity which define the Father as Knower, for example, and the Son as the Known (i.e., Truth). Scripture in one place or another identifies Knowing with each of the three Persons all told. Which is to say, according to the {{lang|la|relationis oppositio}}, Knowing (in our example) does not define the Persons [qua individual Persons] at all, but the Unity of God instead. (Scripture's attribution of Knowing to any one Person at any one time is said to be just "appropriated" to the Person: it does not really belong to that unique Person).{{sfn|Magliola|2001|pp=404, 405}} }}

Magliola, continuing the Rahnerian stance, goes on to explain that the Divine Persons necessarily relate to each other in terms of "pure negative reference", that is, the three "Is Not" relations represented in the {{lang|la|Scutum Fidei}} diagram are in each case a pure or absolute "Is Not". This is the case because the {{lang|la|relationis oppositio}} clause disallows the Persons to "share", qua Persons, the unique role that defines each of them. Lest he be misunderstood, Magliola, in a subsequent publication, makes sure to specify that each of the three Persons, while unique as a Person, is nonetheless—because of the Divine "consubstantiality" and "simplicity"—the ''one'' Reality that is God.{{sfn|Magliola|2014|pp=159–161}}

=== ''Perichoresis'' ===
{{main|Perichoresis}}
[[File:THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA.jpg|thumb| A depiction of the [[First Council of Nicaea|Council of Nicaea]] in AD 325, at which the Deity of Christ was declared orthodox and [[Arianism]] condemned]]
{{lang|grc-Latn|Perichoresis}} (from [[Greek language|Greek]], "going around", "envelopment") is a term used by some scholars to describe the relationship among the members of the Trinity. The Latin equivalent for this term is {{lang|la|circumincessio}}. This concept refers for its basis to John 10:38,14:11,14:20,<ref>{{bibleref2|John|10:38,14:11,14:20}}</ref> where Jesus is instructing the disciples concerning the meaning of his departure. His going to the Father, he says, is for their sake; so that he might come to them when the "other comforter" is given to them. Then, he says, his disciples will dwell in him, as he dwells in the Father, and the Father dwells in him, and the Father will dwell in them. This is so, according to the theory of {{lang|grc-Latn|perichoresis}}, because the persons of the Trinity "reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes" ([[Hilary of Poitiers]], ''Concerning the Trinity'' 3:1).<ref name="hilary-john"/> The most prominent exponent of {{lang|grc-Latn|perichoresis}} was [[John of Damascus]] (d. 749) who employed the concept as a technical term to describe both the interpenetration of the divine and human natures of Christ and the relationship between the hypostases of the Trinity.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia|editor-last=Cross|editor-first=F. L.|title=Cicumincession |dictionary=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church |edition=2nd |publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1974}}</ref>

{{lang|grc-Latn|Perichoresis}} effectively excludes the idea that God has parts, but rather is a [[divine simplicity|simple being]]. It also harmonizes well with the doctrine that the Christian's union with the Son in his humanity brings him into union with one who contains in himself, in Paul's words, "all the fullness of deity" and not a part.{{efn|See also [[Divinization (Christian)]]}} {{lang|grc-Latn|Perichoresis}} provides an intuitive figure of what this might mean. The Son, the eternal Word, is from all eternity the dwelling place of God; he is the "Father's house", just as the Son dwells in the Father and the Spirit; so that, when the Spirit is "given", then it happens as Jesus said, "I will not leave you as orphans; for I will come to you."<ref>{{bibleverse|John|14:18}}</ref>

=== Economic and immanent Trinity ===
The term "immanent Trinity" focuses on who God is; the term "economic Trinity" focuses on what God does. According to the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'',

{{blockquote|The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology ({{lang|grc-Latn|theologia}}) and economy ({{lang|grc-Latn|oikonomia}}). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the {{lang|grc-Latn|oikonomia}} the {{lang|grc-Latn|theologia}} is revealed to us; but conversely, the {{lang|grc-Latn|theologia}} illuminates the whole {{lang|grc-Latn|oikonomia}}. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm ''CCC'' §236].</ref>}}

{{blockquote|The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle." However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, "one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are". It is above all the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm ''CCC'' §258].</ref>}}

The ancient [[Nicene Christianity|Nicene theologians]] argued that everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working in unity with one will. The three persons of the Trinity always work inseparably, for their work is always the work of the one God. The Son's will cannot be different from the Father's because it is the Father's. They have but one will as they have but one being. Otherwise they would not be one God. On this point [[St. Basil]] said:

{{blockquote|When then He says, "I have not spoken of myself", and again, "As the Father said unto me, so I speak", and "The word which ye hear is not mine, but [the Father's] which sent me", and in another place, "As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do", it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a "commandment" a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.<ref name="despiritu"/>}}

According to [[Thomas Aquinas]] the Son prayed to the Father, became a minor to the angels, became incarnate, obeyed the Father as to his human nature; as to his divine nature the Son remained God: "Thus, then, the fact that the Father glorifies, raises up, and exalts the Son does not show that the Son is less than the Father, except in His human nature. For, in the divine nature by which He is equal to the Father, the power of the Father and the Son is the same and their operation is the same."<ref name="dhspriory.org"/> Aquinas stated that the mystery of the Son cannot be explicitly believed to be true without faith in the Trinity (''ST'' IIa IIae, 2.7 resp. and 8 resp.).<ref>{{cite book|author=John Took|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z4XhDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA66|title=Conversations with Kenelm: Essays on the Theology of the Commedia|page=66|publisher=[[Ubiquity Press]]|date=15 May 2016|isbn=9781909188082|oclc=1054304886}} Quote (in [[Latin language|Latin]]): "mysterium Christi explicite credi non potest sine fide Trinitatis..."</ref>

[[File:Hierarch panagia episcopi cropped.jpg|thumb|A Greek [[fresco]] of Athanasius of Alexandria, the chief architect of the Nicene Creed, formulated at Nicaea]]
[[Athanasius of Alexandria]] explained that the Son is eternally one in being with the Father, temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry.<ref name="athanasius3"/> Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the eternal Trinity. Likewise, the [[Cappadocian Fathers]] also insisted there was no economic inequality present within the Trinity. As Basil wrote: "We perceive the operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and the same, in no respect showing differences or variation; from this identity of operation we necessarily infer the unity of nature."<ref name="basil"/>

The traditional theory of "appropriation" consists in attributing certain names, qualities, or operations to one of the Persons of the Trinity, not, however, to the exclusion of the others, but in preference to the others. This theory was established by the Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, especially by [[Hilary of Poitiers]], [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]], and [[Pope Leo I|Leo the Great]]. In the Middle Ages, the theory was systematically taught by the [[Scholasticism|Schoolmen]] such as [[Bonaventure]].{{sfn|Sauvage|1907}}

=== Trinity and love ===
Augustine "coupled the doctrine of the Trinity with [[Christian anthropology|anthropology]]. Proceeding from the idea that humans are created by God according to the divine image, he attempted to explain the mystery of the Trinity by uncovering traces of the Trinity in the human personality".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Stefon |first=Matt |title=Christianity – The Holy Trinity {{!}} Attempts to define the Trinity |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-Holy-Trinity#ref67486 |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |date=10 December 2015}}</ref> The first key of his exegesis is an interpersonal analogy of mutual love. In {{lang|la|[[On the Trinity|De trinitate]]}} (399–419) he wrote,

{{blockquote|We are now eager to see whether that most excellent love is proper to the Holy Spirit, and if it is not so, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Trinity itself is love, since we cannot contradict the most certain faith and the most weighty authority of Scripture which says: "God is love".{{efn|name=Augustine1}}{{sfn|Augustine of Hippo|2002|p=25}} }}

The Bible reveals it although only in the two neighboring verses [[First Epistle of John|1 John]] 4:8.16, therefore one must ask if love itself is triune. Augustine found that it is, and consists of "three: the lover, the beloved, and the love."{{efn|name=Augustine2}}{{sfn|Augustine of Hippo|2002|p=26}}

Reaffirming the [[Scythian monks#Theopaschite doctrine|theopaschite formula]] {{lang|la|unus de trinitate passus est carne}} (meaning "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh"),{{sfn|Pool|2011|p=398}} Thomas Aquinas wrote that Jesus suffered and died as to his human nature, as to his divine nature he could not suffer or die. "But the commandment to suffer clearly pertains to the Son only in His human nature. ... And the way in which Christ was raised up is like the way He suffered and died, that is, in the flesh. For it says in 1 Peter (4:1): 'Christ having suffered in the flesh' ... then, the fact that the Father glorifies, raises up, and exalts the Son does not show that the Son is less than the Father, except in His human nature. For, in the divine nature by which He is equal to the Father."{{sfn|Aquinas|1975|p=91}}

In the 1900s the recovery of a substantially different formula of [[theopaschism]] took place: at least {{lang|la|unus de Trinitate passus est}} (meaning "not only in the flesh").<ref>{{in lang|la}} ''DS'' [http://catho.org/9.php?d=bxo#bew 401] ([[Pope John II]], letter ''Olim quidem'' addressed to the senators of Constantinople, March 534).</ref> Deeply affected by the [[atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|atomic bombs event]],{{sfn|Yewangoe|1987|p=273}} as early as 1946 the [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] theologian [[Kazoh Kitamori]] published ''Theology of the Pain of God'',{{sfn|Kitamori|2005|p=v}} a [[theology of the Cross]] pushed up to the immanent Trinity. This concept was later taken by both [[Reformed churches|Reformed]] and [[Catholic theology]]: in 1971 by [[Jürgen Moltmann]]'s ''The Crucified God''; in the 1972 "Preface to the Second Edition" of his 1969 [[German language|German]] book {{lang|de|italic=yes|Theologie der drei Tage}} (English translation: {{lang|la|italic=yes|[[Mysterium Paschale|The Mystery of Easter]]}}) by [[Hans Urs von Balthasar]], who took a cue from [[Book of Revelation|Revelation]] 13:8 ([[Vulgate]]: {{lang|la|agni qui occisus est ab origine mundi}}, [[New International Version|NIV]]: "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world") to explore the "God is love" idea as an "[[eternal super-kenosis]]".{{sfn|von Balthasar|2000|p=vii}} In the words of von Balthasar: "At this point, where the subject undergoing the 'hour' is the Son speaking with the Father, the controversial 'Theopaschist formula' has its proper place: 'One of the Trinity has suffered.' The formula can already be found in [[Gregory of Nazianzus|Gregory Nazianzen]]: 'We needed a&nbsp;... crucified God'."{{sfn|von Balthasar|1992|p=55}}

But if theopaschism indicates only a Christological kenosis (or kenotic Christology), instead von Balthasar supports a Trinitarian kenosis:{{sfn|Mobley|2021|p=202}} "The persons of the Trinity constitute themselves as who they are through the very act of pouring themselves out for each other".{{sfn|Dimech|2019|p=103}} The underlying question is if the three Persons of the Trinity can live a [[self-love]] ({{lang|la|amor sui}}), as well as if for them, with the conciliar dogmatic formulation in terms that today we would call [[ontotheology|ontotheological]], it is possible that the [[aseity]] ({{lang|la|[[causa sui]]}}) is valid. If the Father is not the Son or the Spirit since the generator/begetter is not the generated/begotten nor the generation/generative process and vice versa, and since the lover is neither the beloved nor the love dynamic between them and vice versa, Christianity has provided as a response a concept of divine ontology and [[Love of God in Christianity|love]] different from common sense ([[omnipotence]], [[omnibenevolence]], [[attributes of God in Christianity#Impassibility|impassibility]], etc.):{{sfn|Carson |2000|p=9}} an [[Oblation|oblative]], sacrificial, martyrizing, crucifying, precisely kenotic concept.

=== Trinity and will ===
[[B. B. Warfield|Benjamin B. Warfield]] saw a principle of subordination in the "modes of operation" of the Trinity, but was also hesitant to ascribe the same to the "modes of subsistence" in relation of one to another. While noting that it is natural to see a subordination in function as reflecting a similar subordination in substance, he suggests that this might be the result of "an agreement by Persons of the Trinity – a 'Covenant' as it is technically called – by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is assumed by each."{{sfn|Warfield|1915|pp=3020–3021}}

=== Trinity and Christian apologetics ===
Today, several analogies for the Trinity abound. The comparison is sometimes made between the triune God and [[H2O|H<sub>2</sub>O]].<ref name="Jonas2010"/><ref name="Seamands2009"/> Just as H<sub>2</sub>O can come in three distinct forms (liquid, solid, gas), so God appears as Father, Son, Spirit.<ref name="Jonas2010"/><ref name="Seamands2009">{{cite book|last=Seamands|first=Stephen|title=Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5MX3M03qcGIC&pg=PA97|date=20 August 2009|publisher=InterVarsity Press|isbn=9780830876358|page=97|quote=Christians have always used various analogies to help make sense of the Trinity. Water, for example, can exist in three different states, as liquid, steam or ice. It is once substance (H<sub>2</sub>O) yet appears in three distinct forms.}}</ref> The mathematical analogy, "1+1+1=3, but 1x1x1=1" is also used to explain the Trinity.<ref name="Jonas2010">{{cite book|last=Jonas|first=W. Glenn|title=Christianity|date=1 January 2010|publisher=Mercer University Press|isbn=9780881462043|page=241|quote=Popular analogies for the Trinity abound. The comparison is sometimes made between the triune God and H<sub>2</sub>O. Just as H<sub>2</sub>O can come in three distinct forms (liquid, solid, gas), so God appears as Father, Son, Spirit. Or just as the sun cannot be separated from its rays of light and its felt heat, so the Son is the ray of the Father and the spirit is the heat of God. Or, to use a mathematical analogy: 1+1+1=3, but 1x1x1=1.}}</ref>

=== Political aspect ===
According to Eusebius, Constantine suggested the term {{lang|grc-Latn|homoousios}} at the Council of Nicaea, though most scholars have doubted that Constantine had such knowledge and have thought that most likely Hosius had suggested the term to him.{{sfn|Harvey|Hunter|2008|p=}} Constantine later changed his view about the Arians, who opposed the Nicene formula, and supported the bishops who rejected the formula,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm|title=What Was Debated at the Council of Nicea?|access-date=11 July 2014|archive-date=10 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140710210117/http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref> as did several of his successors, the first emperor to be baptized in the Nicene faith being [[Theodosius the Great]], emperor from 379 to 395.<ref>{{cite book| url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.vi.xv.html| first = Philip |last=Schaff |title=History of the Christian Church |volume=III. Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity |edition=fifth revised |at=§27}}</ref>