Baptismal formula '', 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". 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." This 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 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Corinthians 12:4–6, Ephesians 4:4–6, 1 Peter 1:2, and Revelation 1:4–5.
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. 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. Most scholars of New Testament
textual criticism accept the authenticity of the passage since there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula, and the extant form of the passage is attested in the
Didache 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. The first key of his exegesis is an interpersonal analogy of mutual love. In (399–419) he wrote: One must, therefore, ask if love itself is triune. Augustine found that it is, and consists of "three: the lover, the beloved, and the love". Reaffirming the
theopaschite formula (meaning "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh"), 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." In the 1900s the recovery of a substantially different formula of
theopaschism took place: at least (meaning "not only in the flesh"). More specifically,
World War II had an impact not only on the
theodicy of
Judaism with the
Holocaust theology, but also on that of Christianity with a profound rethinking of its
dogmatic theology. Deeply affected by the
atomic bomb event, as early as 1946 the
Lutheran theologian
Kazoh Kitamori published
Theology of the Pain of God, a
theology of the Cross pushed up to the immanent Trinity. This concept was later taken by both
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 book (English translation: ) by
Hans Urs von Balthasar, who took a cue from
Revelation 13:8 (
Vulgate: ,
NIV: "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world") to explore the "God is love" idea as an "
eternal super-kenosis". 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 Nazianzen: 'We needed a ... crucified God'." But if theopaschism indicates only a Christological kenosis (or kenotic Christology), instead von Balthasar supports a Trinitarian kenosis: "The persons of the Trinity constitute themselves as who they are through the very act of pouring themselves out for each other". This allows to clearly distinguish his idea from
Subordinationism. Furthermore, following the concepts developed by
Scholasticism, the underlying question is whether the three Persons of the Trinity can experience
self-love (), as well as whether for them, with the conciliar dogmatic formulation in terms that today we would call
ontotheological, it is possible for
aseity () to be 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. As a response, Christianity has provided an
oblative, sacrificial, martyrizing, crucifying, and precisely kenotic concept of divine ontology.
One God in three persons In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one being, having a single divine
nature. 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. 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. " 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 []".
Perichoresis in AD 325, at which the Deity of Christ was declared orthodox and
Arianism condemned|left (from
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 . This concept refers for its basis to John 10:38,14:11,14:20, 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 , 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). effectively excludes the idea that God has parts, but rather is a
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. 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."
Relationship between the persons Although all Trinitarians agree that there exists one God in three persons, Trinitarian theologians have differed on how to explain the relationships of the persons of the Trinity, among them are the
eternal generation of the Son,
the functional subordination of the Son, the
eternal procession of the Spirit, the
Filioque and the
subordinationism. |left The doctrine of eternal generation is defined as a necessary and eternal act of
God the Father, in which he generates (or begets)
God the Son by communicating the whole divine essence to the Son. Generation is not defined as an act of the will, but is by necessity of nature. This doctrine has been affirmed by the
Athanasian creed, the
Nicene creed and by church fathers such as
Athanasius of Alexandria,
Augustine, and
Basil of Caesarea being mentioned explicitly first by
Origen of Alexandria. Those who teach the traditional doctrine of eternal generation have often used biblical texts such as Proverbs 8:23, Psalm 2:7, Micah 5:2, John 5:26, John 1:18, 3:16, Colossians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Hebrews 1:3 to establish their understanding of eternal generation. However, some modern theologians reject the doctrines of eternal generation and procession, disputing the idea that these texts teach the doctrine of eternal generation. To reject eternal generation,
William Lane Craig has argued, is to introduce subordinationism into the Trinity. Although it is a diverse theological movement, many of its advocates argue that each person of the Trinity has their own center of consciousness and own will united in a loving relationship. Critics argue it risks veering into tritheism (belief in three gods) by overemphasizing the distinctness of the persons, while proponents say it better reflects the biblical portrayal of the Trinity as relational and active in history. Social Trinitarianism is in contrast to what is often called "
classical Trinitarianism" due to its association with many classical theologians such as Augustine, which instead distinguishes the persons by their eternal relations of begetting and procession.
Nontrinitarianism Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to Christian belief systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity as found in the Nicene Creed as not having a scriptural origin. Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Various nontrinitarian views, such as
Adoptionism and
Arianism, existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in AD 325, 360, and 431 at the Councils of
Nicaea,
Constantinople, and
Ephesus, respectively. Adherents of Arianism postulated that only God has independent existence. Since the Son is dependent, he should, therefore, be called a creature. Arianism was condemned as
heretical by the
First Council of Nicaea and, lastly, with
Sabellianism by the
Second Ecumenical Council. Adoptionism was declared as heretical by the Ecumenical Council of Frankfurt, convened by the Emperor Charlemagne in 794 for the Latin West Church. Following the adoption of trinitarianism at
Constantinople in 381,
Arianism was driven from the Empire, retaining a foothold amongst the Germanic tribes. When the
Franks converted to Catholicism in 496, however, it gradually faded out. Nontrinitarianism was later renewed in the
Gnosticism of the
Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the
Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the
Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.
Judaism While
Judaism traditionally rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, some Jewish mystical texts have expressed ideas that bear a resemblance to trinitarian concepts. For example, the
Zohar (AD 1286), a foundational work of
Jewish mysticism, states that "God is they, and they are it." According to
Philo (20 BC – c. AD 50), the
Logos—or divine reason—was the instrument through which God created the world. For Philo, the ultimate Being possesses two primary attributes: goodness and authority. The
Logos represents the union of these two powers. As pure being, this ultimate source is called the Father; in relation to goodness, he is called God; and in his rule over creation, he is called Lord. The
Logos is sometimes portrayed not only as the combination of goodness and authority within the Father but also as existing above and between them, thereby being identified with the Supreme Being itself. In this way, Philo presents a kind of trinitarian view of the divine, though it differs from the Christian concept of the Trinity. Scholars continue to debate whether Philo viewed the
Logos as a distinct person or as an impersonal force. == Architecture ==