Tag: Trinity

What Does It Mean that the Holy Spirit “Proceeds” From the Father (and the Son)?

Published on by nickcady1 Comment

Recently I responded to a question about what it means that Jesus is the “begotten” Son of God. Read that article here: What Does It Mean that Jesus is the “Begotten” Son of God?

In that post, I mentioned that whereas the Bible says that Jesus is “from the Father” (the doctrine of “eternal generation”), the Bible says that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father — and, according to the Western Christian tradition,  “from the Father and the Son.”

That raises some important questions:

  • Where does that language come from?
  • Is it biblical?
  • Why do Western Christians add that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? What is the history of that?

In this article, I will walk you through the biblical foundation for the “procession” of the Holy Spirit, and the historical argument between Western and Eastern Christians about whether to add the clause “and the Son.”

The Biblical Language: “Proceeds from the Father”

The key verse behind this language comes from Jesus Himself:

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” (John 15:26)

This is the only place in the Bible where the word “proceeds” (Greek: ekporeuetai) is explicitly used to describe the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Father.

Two important things are happening in this verse:

  1. The Spirit proceeds from the Father – This speaks to the Spirit’s eternal origin.
  2. The Son sends the Spirit – This speaks to the Spirit’s mission in time.

Christians have historically distinguished between these two ideas:

  • Eternal procession: Who the Spirit is in relation to the Father.
  • Temporal mission: What the Spirit does in being sent into the world.

This is similar to the distinction between the “ontological” and the “economic” Trinity. For more on that, read: The Trinity: Ontological & Economic

But this verse raises a question: If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, what is the Son’s role?

The Son’s Role in Sending the Spirit

Other passages fill in that picture:

  • John 16:7 — Jesus says of the Spirit, “I will send him to you.”
  • John 20:22 — Jesus breathes on the disciples after His resurrection and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
  • Galatians 4:6 — “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.”

These verses strongly connect the Spirit not only to the Father, but also to the Son.

So while John 15:26 emphasizes that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the broader New Testament shows that the Spirit is also intimately related to the Son—to the point where He is even called “the Spirit of the Son.” In fact, in John 14, when telling His disciples at the Last Supper that He would not abandon them through this departure from this world, Jesus said that He would come to them, in the context of sending the Holy Spirit to them (see John 14:18). Furthermore, the New Testament authors tell us that the Holy Spirit indwells those who believe in Jesus, and then Paul tells us in Colossians that Christ dwells in us who believe (cf. Ephesians 1:13-14; Colossians 1:27)

Why “Proceeds”? What Does that Mean?

In addition to accurately reflecting the words of Scripture, “proceeds” (for the Spirit) and “begotten” (for the Son) describe the distinct ways each person of the Trinity relates to the Father. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God, these relationships distinguish them as unique persons.

The Father is unbegotten (He is the source). The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The Son is not the Father because He is begotten, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son because He proceeds. In God’s temporal mission, the Spirit is then sent by the Son and glorifies the Son, and the Son, in turn, glorifies the Father.

The Early Church and the Nicene Creed

As the early church wrestled with how to faithfully summarize biblical teaching, they gathered for the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). At that gathering, they produced the Nicene Creed, which affirmed that the Son is “begotten, not made.”

Later, at the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), the church expanded the creed to include a fuller statement about the Holy Spirit:

“We believe in the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father…”

Notice: no mention of “and the Son” yet.

At this point, the church was primarily concerned with affirming:

  • The full divinity of the Spirit
  • His distinct personhood
  • His procession from from the Father (directly using the language of John 15:26)

The Addition of “and the Son” (Filioque)

The phrase “and the Son” (Latin: Filioque) was added later in the Western church.

It first appeared in regional councils in the West (notably in Spain in the 6th century) as a way to combat false teachings that undermined the divinity of the Son.

The reasoning went like this:

  • If the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, some might conclude that the Son is less central or less divine.
  • But if the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it reinforces the full equality and unity of the Father and the Son.

By the early Middle Ages, the Western church had adopted the phrase into the creed:

“who proceeds from the Father and the Son”

The Filioque Controversy

This addition led to one of the most significant theological disputes in church history between the Eastern (largely Greek speaking) and Western (largely Latin speaking) churches.

The Eastern church objected for two main reasons:

1. Theological Concern

Eastern theologians argued that the Father is the single source within the Trinity.

They believed:

  • The Son is begotten of the Father
  • The Spirit proceeds from the Father

Adding “and the Son,” they argued, blurred these distinctions.

2. Authority Concern

The East also objected that the Western church added to the creed unilaterally, without an ecumenical council.

For the Eastern church, this wasn’t just a doctrinal issue—it was also a question of church authority and unity. Tensions were already growing over the Western church’s claims about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the “Pope”) as the head of all Christians — a claim the Eastern church did not accept. From their perspective, the unilateral addition of the Filioque to the creed felt like another example of the West asserting authority in a way they believed was illegitimate and unwarranted.

The Great Schism: The East-West Split

Although it wasn’t the only factor, the disagreement over the Filioque clause contributed to the growing divide between Eastern and Western Christianity, culminating in the Great Schism of 1054.

To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Filioque clause and maintains “The Spirit proceeds from the Father,” whereas the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant churches affirm “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

Is the Filioque Clause Biblical?

On the one hand, Eastern Christians point out that John 15:26 explicitly says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. On the other hand, Western Christians highlight the fact that the Spirit is deeply connected to the Son (John 16:7; Galatians 4:6), the Spirit is sent by the Son and bears witness to Him, and the unity of the Father and the Son is biblical and must be preserved.

Many theologians today suggest a both/and approach:

  • The Spirit proceeds from the Father
  • The Spirit proceeds through the Son in a way that reflects their unity

This preserves both the Father’s role as source and the Son’s participation and unity with the Father.

Conclusion

So, why do Christians say that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father (and the Son)”?

It’s because Jesus explicitly stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26), and because the New Testament shows the Spirit is also sent by and connected to the Son

Even though Christians have disagreed on how to best phrase it, both sides are trying to be faithful to Scripture and to preserve the mystery and beauty of the Trinity.

What Does It Mean that Jesus is the “Begotten” Son of God?

Published on by nickcady1 Comment

I recently received this comment on my post titled What Does It Mean that Jesus is the Son of God?:

One definition of “begotten” is to create or produce, to bring into existence. 

If God and Jesus are both eternal, and they have no beginning of existence and no end of existence, how is Jesus God’s begotten son?

The answer to this question lies in understanding the Greek word translated “begotten” and the attempt to explain something important that challenges the limits of human language.

“Begotten” Does Not Mean “Created”

When the early church clarified its beliefs about Jesus at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), it used a very precise phrase:

γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα (gennēthenta, ou poiēthenta) = “Begotten, not made.”

That phrase is crucial.

  • “Made” means created—something that comes into existence
  • “Begotten” means sharing the same nature as the one who begets
  • gennaō (γεννάω) = “to beget” implies the same nature
  • poieō (ποιέω) = “to make” implies a different nature

So when Christians say Jesus is begotten, they are explicitly saying that He is not a created being.

This language was chosen in response to teachers like Arius, who argued that the Son (Jesus) was a created being. The church’s answer was clear: Jesus is not made—He is begotten.

Why Say that Jesus is “Begotten” at All?

We get this language from the Bible, and from Jesus’ own words. For this reason, it’s important that we not dismiss them, but receive them and try to understand them.

In passages like John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:16, Jesus is called the “only begotten Son.”

The Greek word behind this phrase is: μονογενής (monogenēs)

While it has traditionally been translated in English as “only begotten,” its meaning is slightly different. It most directly means: “one of a kind,” “unique,” or “only one of His kind”

So when John calls Jesus the monogenēs Son, he is emphasizing that:

  • Jesus is the unique Son of God
  • He is not one Son among many
  • He is the Son in a completely different category

This fits with what the creed later clarifies: Jesus is not just another “child of God” – He is the Son of God in a way that no one else is.

“Begotten” Speaks of Relationship, Not Beginning

Theologians have used the phrase “eternal generation” to describe this truth:

  • The Father is eternally Father
  • The Son is eternally Son
  • The Son is from the Father—but not after the Father

In other words: There was never a time when the Son did not exist. So “begotten” does not describe a moment in time, but rather an eternal relationship within the Godhead.

Why Not Just Say “Born”?

The Greek word gennaō can also be translated “born,” so this raises a question about why English translations of the Bible and creeds use the word “begotten” instead?

The reason is an attempt at theological precision.

  • “Born” tends to imply a moment in time
  • “Begotten” emphasizes shared nature, without implying that there was a “starting point” when it began.

So, begotten is carefully chosen to preserve the idea that the Son is unique and that He shares in the Father’s nature, but was not created.

The Unique Son: Jesus Is the Son by Nature; We Become Sons by Adoption

This brings us to an important distinction. The Bible says that we become sons or children of God through faith in Jesus (John 1:12, 1 John 3:1)

As sons of God, we share in the inheritance which is ours as sons, and Jesus is our brother. But there is a difference between the way that we are sons of God and the way that Jesus is the Son of God.

  • Jesus is the only begotten Son
  • Believers are adopted as sons (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:4–7)

Jesus is:

  • Son by nature
  • Eternal
  • Shares the same divine essence as the Father

We (believers) are:

  • Sons and daughters by adoption
  • Not sons from eternity past, but:
  • Brought into God’s family by grace

John 1:12 says: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God”

We become children of God. Jesus never became the Son, He has always been the unique Son of God – in a way that no one else is or ever will be.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just a technical theological point, it’s actually essential to the gospel.

If Jesus were made, then He would be a creature. But if Jesus is “begotten, not made,” then He is fully God.

And that matters because:

  • Only God can fully reveal God
  • Only God can truly save

The message of the gospel is that the eternal Son of God came to us, so that we, who are not sons by nature, might become sons by grace.

Going Deeper: “Eternal Generation” versus “Procession”

The doctrine of “Eternal Generation” is the way that theologians explain some of the passages in the Bible which describe the Son as being from the Father, while not being created by the Father. This is different from “procession,” which is the term traditionally used for the Holy Spirit.

For more on that, read: What Does It Mean that the Holy Spirit “Proceeds” From the Father (and the Son)?

But as for the Son coming from the Father, consider these examples:

  • “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
  • “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)
  • “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” (Hebrews 1:3a)
  • “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

The Bible describes the Son as being “from” the Father, but not as a created being or someone who came into existence at some point—rather, as the eternal Son who has always been in perfect relationship with the Father.

Here are four basic assertions about the Trinity that are universally accepted by Christians [1]:

  1. There is one and only one true and living God.
  2. This one God eternally exists in three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
  3. These three Persons are completely equal in attributes, each sharing the same divine nature.
  4. While each Person is fully and completely God, the Persons are not identical.

It is in an attempt to write down what the Bible, and Jesus Himself stated regarding the nature of God, that we use the terms “begotten” and explain it using the language of “eternal generation.”

Resources for Further Study

Reader Questions: What Will Be the Work of the Holy Spirit in Eternity?

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

There is a page on this site where readers can submit questions or suggest topics. Recently I received the following question:

Both God the Father and the Son have distinct and obvious eternal roles that we see in the Bible, but as I was thinking through the role of the Holy Spirit in eternity, I couldn’t come up with anything concrete.

Could you give a brief overview of the role of the Holy Spirit in eternity?

Great question! I would begin by stating, that from God’s perspective, eternity is not a future reality, but an ongoing reality. Jesus said (speaking to the Father): “this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) In other words, eternity is the continuation of what has already been ongoing for eternity past. For that reason, there are many things about the Holy Spirit which will not change, but, there are some that will.

I laid out the distinction between the “ontological Trinity” (who the members of the Trinity are) and the “economic Trinity” (what the members of the Trinity do) in this post, which is worth checking out: The Trinity: Ontological & Economic

What will not change

For eternity, the Holy Spirit will continue to be the third person of the Trinity—fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Spirit, who now dwells in believers as a guarantee of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13–14), will continue to indwell God’s people, enabling perfect love, worship, and joy in the presence of the Triune God.

What will change

Some of the roles of the Spirit in the present age include:

  • Conviction of sin and the need for a savior
  • Empowerment for mission and fulfilling God’s callings
  • Sanctification of believers

In eternity, these roles will not continue, because they will no longer be needed. However, the indwelling Spirit will continue to unite the redeemed, not only with one another, but also with the Father and Son as we are brought into the eternal communion of the Godhead in a greater way than we experience now here on Earth.

The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) – with Shane Angland

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I sit down with returning guest Shane to explore the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), the fourth ecumenical council of the early church.

Recorded live in Colorado during an Expositors Collective training weekend, this conversation traces the events leading up to Chalcedon, its theological breakthroughs, and its messy aftermath.

From the fallout of the Council of Ephesus, to the clash between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of Christology, and the mess of Ephesus II, Shane breaks down the stakes: how do we understand the two natures of Christ—human and divine—in one person?

The episode also tackles the political power plays, the deposition of bishops, and the schisms that followed, including the rise of the Oriental Orthodox churches. Plus, hear why Shane sees Chalcedon as both a triumph and a tragedy—and what it still teaches us today.

Resources Mentioned:

Click here to listen to the episode, or listen in the embedded player below.

The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) – with Shane Angland – Theology for the People

In this episode, Nick sits down in person with returning guest Shane to explore the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), the fourth ecumenical council of the early church. Recorded live in Colorado during an Expositors Collective training weekend, this conversation traces the events leading up to Chalcedon, its theological breakthroughs, and its messy aftermath. From the fallout of the Council of Ephesus to the clash between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of Christology, Shane breaks down the stakes: how do we understand the two natures of Christ—human and divine—in one person? The episode also tackles the political power plays, the deposition of bishops, and the schisms that followed, including the rise of the Oriental Orthodox churches. Plus, hear why Shane sees Chalcedon as both a triumph and a tragedy—and what it still teaches us today.Resources Mentioned:The Definition of Chalcedon (available online for further reading).Bruce Shelley’s Church History in Plain Language (Fifth Edition).Augustine’s The Unity of the Church on the role and limits of councils.Visit TheologyforthePeople.com

The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) – with Matthew Pursely

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, we continue our series on the first four ecumenical councils of the early church, diving into the Council of Ephesus (431 AD).

Matthew Pursely, Executive Pastor at Park Hill Church in San Diego, CA, joins us again to explore the theological debates surrounding Nestorius, the nature of Christ, and the implications of the hypostatic union—Jesus being fully God and fully man.

We discuss how this council addressed Nestorianism, affirmed Mary as the “Theotokos” (God-bearer), and shaped Christian understanding of communion and humanity’s connection to Christ.

Click here to listen to the episode, or listen in the embedded player below.

The Council of Ephesus (431 AD): Hypostatic Union, Nestorianism, & Theotokos – with Matt Pursely – Theology for the People

In this episode, we continue our series on the first four ecumenical councils of the early church, diving into the Council of Ephesus (431 AD). Matthew Pursely joins us again to explore the theological debates surrounding Nestorius, the nature of Christ, and the implications of the hypostatic union—Jesus being fully God and fully man. We discuss how this council addressed Nestorianism, affirmed Mary as the "Theotokos" (God-bearer), and shaped Christian understanding of communion and humanity’s connection to Christ.Recommended ResourcesFor those wanting to dive deeper into the councils and related theology:Edward Siecienski – The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal ControversyAdonis Vidu – Exploring the Doctrine of Divine InseparabilityJohn Behr – The Nicene Faith (2 volumes) and John the Theologian and the Mystery of ChristKallistos Anatolios – Retrieving NicaeaJohn Henry Newman – Arians of the Fourth CenturyWilliam Bright – Notes on the Canons of the First Four General CouncilsTodd Miles – Superheroes Can’t Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies (compares heresies to superhero archetypes—highly recommended entry-level read).Connect with Us:Subscribe to the Theology for the People podcastVisit the Theology for the People website at theologyforthepeople.com

The Council of Constantinople – with Matthew Pursely

Published on by nickcady1 Comment

How did the early church come to a clear understanding of who Jesus is and how the Holy Spirit relates to the Father and the Son? And why did it take more than one council to settle these questions?

In this episode, I’m joined again by Matthew Pursley, Executive Pastor at Park Hill Church in San Diego, CA, and an expert in historical theology. Last time, we discussed the Council of Nicaea, and in this episode, we continue the conversation by diving into the Second Ecumenical Council—Constantinople (381 AD).

We discuss why the Council of Constantinople was necessary even after Nicaea, the role of the Cappadocian Fathers in defining the Trinity, the Filioque controversy, and how this council still shapes our faith to this day.

Click here to listen to the episode, or listen in the embedded player below.

The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) – with Matthew Pursely – Theology for the People

How did the early church come to a clear understanding of who Jesus is and how the Holy Spirit relates to the Father and the Son? And why did it take more than one council to settle these questions?In this episode, I'm joined again by Matt Pursley, Executive Pastor at Park Hill Church in San Diego, CA, and an expert in historical theology. Last time, we discussed the Council of Nicaea, and in this episode, we continue the conversation by diving into the Second Ecumenical Council—Constantinople (381 AD).We discuss why the Council of Constantinople was necessary even after Nicaea, the role of the Cappadocian Fathers in defining the Trinity, the Filioque controversy, and how this council still shapes our faith to this day. Make sure to visit the Theology for the People website.

Avoiding Reductionist Views of the Atonement – with Jeremy Treat

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

Jeremy Treat is the Pastor for Preaching and Vision at Reality LA, a church in Los Angeles, California. He is also an Adjunct Professor of theology at BIOLA University, and he has his PhD from Wheaton College. 

Jeremy is the author of several books. His latest book is The Atonement: an Introduction, published by Crossway Publishing as part of their series of Short Studies in Systematic Theology.

On this episode of the Theology for the People podcast, I spoke with Jeremy about the doctrine of the Atonement, including what it means, and why it is so central to Christianity.

We also discuss some common errors that people commit when thinking about the atonement, and how many of these errors are due to a view of the atonement which is reductionistic. Further, we talk about the practical implications of those different reductionist views.

Jeremy believes that the best narrative in which to understand the atoning work of Jesus is that of the Kingdom of God, in light of the entire story that the Bible tells.

Click here to listen to the episode, or listen in the embedded player below.

Avoiding Reductionist Views of the Atonement – with Jeremy Treat – Theology for the People

Jeremy Treat is the Pastor for preaching and vision at Reality LA, a church in Los Angeles, California. He is also an Adjunct Professor of theology at BIOLA University, and he has his PhD from Wheaton College.  Jeremy is the author of several books. His latest book is The Atonement: an Introduction, published by Crossway Publishing as part of their series of Short Studies in Systematic Theology. In this episode, Jeremy speaks with Nick Cady about the doctrine of the Atonement, including what it means, and why it is so central to Christianity. They also discuss some common errors that people commit when thinking about the atonement, and how many of these errors are due to a view of the atonement which is reductionistic. Further, they talk about the practical implications of those different reductionist views. Jeremy believes that the best narrative in which to understand the atoning work of Jesus is that of the Kingdom of God, in light of the entire story that the Bible tells.

Responding to Arguments for Biblical Unitarianism (Non-Trinitarianism)

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

Unitarianism is the belief that God is not Trinitarian in nature.

This belief can take many forms, such as Modalism: the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are “modes” in which God sometimes manifests, or in Partialism: the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are “parts” of who God is.

Other unitarians believe that Jesus is not divine and that there was a time when Jesus was not, i.e. that at one point in time, Jesus came into being – and that he has not existed from eternity past, as the Father has. Further, unitarians might believe that the Holy Spirit is either essentially the Father, or that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force, but not a “person” of the Trinity.

The following is a list of responses to common Unitarian claims, written by Pastor Jason Cralley, Executive Pastor at White Fields Community Church.

Creeds show progression of development towards the Trinity. 

False. The creeds were developed to fight heresy. As one heresy appears, they created a creed to address it. When another heresy appeared around the same topic, they would change the creed to make it more specific. According to the earliest Christian writings it is very clear that they believed in the trinity. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, and others all church fathers that wrote about the Trinity long before the first creed was ever written.

The Old Testament foretold that Jesus would be a human being. 

True. But it also said he would be God. Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 7:14 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” As Matthew 1:23 points out, Immanuel means “God with us.” The Biblical Unitarians argue that the Jews never understood that these meant the Messiah would be God. True. But as we knew they misunderstood most of the prophecies about Jesus. They thought he would come and set up an earthly kingdom. We cannot take what they believed as truth.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus was a man. 

True. But it also teaches that Jesus was God. We have to take the Bible as a whole and not take some verses to make a theology and leave others out. Jesus has divine attributes that only God possesses: he is omnipresent (Matt. 28:20), Omniscient (Mark 2:8, John 6:64; 16:30; 21:17), Omnipotent (Matt. 28:18, Mark 4:37-41; 6:30-44), Created all things (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17), he keeps the universe going by his power (Heb. 1:3). Jesus thought himself as God: he forgave sins (Mark 2:3-12) and the everyone knew that was something only God could do as they tried to kill him (Luke 7:48-50), he accepted worship as God and never rejected it (Matt. 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; 20:28), He stated he was God (John 10:30-33, Mark 14: 61-62, Rev. 1:8).

The Bible teaches that Jesus was a created being. 

False. Jesus explains his own preexistence ((John 3:13; 6:33, 38, 62; 8:23; 16:28) and that he existed before Abraham (John 8:58). God sent his Son proving that Jesus existed before his incarnation (Rom. 8:3; 1 John 1:2; Gal. 4:4). He didn’t create a son but sent the one that already existed.The New Testament teaches that Jesus is eternal: He existed before creation (John 1:1-3; 17:5), Jesus holds all creation together therefore he had to preexist before his birth (Col. 1:17), Jesus has always been and always will be (Heb. 13:8, Rev. 1:8), created all things meaning he was there before creation (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17), he keeps the universe going by his power so he had to be preexistent (Heb. 1:3).

The Bible teaches that Jesus has a God. 

True and False. Jesus has two natures: fully human (Gal. 4:4) and fully divine (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8). When he came down to earth he humbled himself and cooperated with the limitations of being a human (Phil 2:5-8, Heb. 2:9). Jesus the man had someone he would call his God (the Father). Jesus still has a human nature (1 Tim. 2:5; Col. 2:9). Jesus will always have a human nature and will therefore always call the Father God. This does not mean that Jesus doesn’t share the same divine nature as God the Father. 

Biblical Unitarianism commits the logical fallacy of equivocation where the meaning of a word changes as it is used. Saying “The Trinity is the teaching that the one God of all existence, consists of three divine persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is not the same as “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.” The first sentence uses God as a quantitate, dealing with how many gods there are. The second sentence is qualitative, dealing with the nature of divinity. The Unitarians are confusing the qualitative with the quantitative. Jesus is qualitatively stating that the Father is God. He is not quantitatively stating that only the Father is God, and he is not. 

Jesus Called the Father the only true God. 

True. But Jesus claims that the Father and he are one (John 10:30) which his opponents knew to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God and picked up stones to kill him (John 10:31). He later states the Father is in him, and he is in the Father (John 10:36-38). So, if the Father is the one true God, then so is he. The Triune God is the one true God.The Holy Spirit is simply the Father. False. The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father. The Father sent the Spirit (John 14:26). The Spirit does the will of the Father (Rom. 8:27). The Holy Spirit is mentioned with the Father and Son (Matt. 28:19). If the Father was the Spirit, none of these would make sense.

What is Biblical Unitarianism? – Considering the Best Arguments For and Against It

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

In this episode of the Theology for the People podcast, Nick Cady and Jason Cralley respond to the best arguments for Biblical Unitarianism, which is the a non-Trinitarian interpretation of biblical texts about who God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are.

In doing this, we look at the history of Arianism and Trinitarian formulations of who God is, including a discussion about Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea, and the Nicene Creed.

Further, we look into the arguments put forth regarding certain Biblical passages that Unitarians point to as evidence of God’s non-trinitarian, or unitarian nature, and give a defense for trinitarian beliefs.

Below, you can find a link to the video mentioned in the episode about Bad Trinitarian Analogies.

Click here to listen to the episode or listen in the embedded player below.

What is Biblical Unitarianism? – Considering the Best Arguments For and Against It – Theology for the People

In this episode, Nick Cady and Jason Cralley respond to the best arguments for Biblical Unitarianism, the a non-Trinitarian interpretation of biblical texts about who God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are. In doing this, they look at the history of Arianism and Trinitarian formulations of who God is, including a discussion about Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea, and the Nicene Creed. Further, they look into the arguments put forth regarding certain Biblical passages that Unitarians point to as evidence of God's non-trinitarian, or unitarian nature, and give a defense for trinitarian beliefs. Make sure to visit the Theology for the People website at nickcady.org

The Trinity: Ontological & Economic

Published on by nickcady2 Comments

As Christians, we confess that there is one God who eternally exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The three persons of the Trinity are equal in power and glory, are co-eternal, and are of the same essence (Ousia in Greek).

The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, nor is the Spirit the Father or the Son. 

The three persons of the Trinity also have unique functions, and relate to each other in unique ways. As a result, we can speak about the Trinity in two ways: the “Ontological Trinity” and the “Economic Trinity.”

Ontological Trinity

“Ontological” has to doing with “being.” So, to speak of the Ontological Trinity is to explain who God is, and who the three persons of the Godhead are. 

The major ecumenical councils of the church, such as Nicaea and Chalcedon, focused on the ontological nature of the persons of the Trinity, and affirmed that Jesus, the Son, is very God of very God, and that the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force, but is, indeed, God. 

So, to speak about the Trinity ontologically, is to affirm both the divine nature and the unique personhood of the three persons of the Trinity.

Economic Trinity

“Economic” has to do with action, roles, and function: what God (and each person of the Godhead) does.

So, when we take an economic view of the Trinity, we are talking about the things which the Father does, or which the Spirit does, which are unique to that person of the Godhead.

For example, it is the role and function of the Holy Spirit to perform the sealing and sanctifying functions of God in the life of a believer.

Jesus, the divine Son, uniquely took on human flesh, came to Earth, lived a sinless life, and died on a cross for our redemption. 

The Father sent the Son, the Son submitted to the Father and obeyed the Father, the Father and the Son sent the Spirit. The Spirit glorifies and points to the Son. The Son glorifies the Father. The Father exalts the Son. The Son ever lives to make intercession for us. The Spirit indwells believers, reminding them of what the Son said, and bringing about conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Application

One important application of these principles, is the understanding that economic actions, such as submission, leadership, and difference of roles, does not diminish or take away from a person’s ontological identity, value, dignity, or identity.

This is communicated explicitly in Philippians 2, where we are told that Jesus, although he was equal with the Father, as God (ontologically), did not regard equality with [the Father] (economically) something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and humbled himself in obedience, even to the point of death on a cross. 

The point here is that Jesus’ economic activity did not detract from his ontological nature. 

A point of application is made in the New Testament, in the complementary roles of men and women in the church. Though men are called to teach and exercise authority in the “household of God” (1 Timothy 3:15), this does not diminish or take away from the ontological equality of men and women as human beings, and as children of God, but is rather a matter of economic function. If this is true of the Trinity (and clearly it is), then it should not surprise us that it is true in the “household of God,” acted out by those who reflect His image to the world.

For more on this, check out this discussion of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, which I had with my wife, Rosemary, for our church’s weekly Sermon Extra video: