We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/51e53/51e53fa672e488ca149842bc188b480af4b17575" alt="Trinity Trinity"
What are the different models of the Trinity in the Christian tradition?
The Psychological and Social Models of the Trinity
The Bible teaches that there is only one God. At the same time, it teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God. For this reason the church has always affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that God has one substance (ousia) but eternally and fully exists as three distinct Persons (hypostases in Greek, personae in Latin).
The question left unanswered is how we are to understand the relationship between the substantial unity and personal plurality within the Godhead. Throughout church history, two distinct models have been proposed.
The first model goes back to the second-century apologists and was made famous by Augustine. It is usually called the psychological model of the Trinity, for it likens the unity and diversity of the Godhead to the unity and diversity of the human self. According to Augustine, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is like the unity of the mind (thoughts), heart (emotions), and volition (will) of a person. A different version was put forth by Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth century. He argued that as the human psyche consists of a self, a self-image, and a relationship between the self and the self-image, so the Godhead consists of a self (Father), a perfect self-image (Son), and a perfect loving relationship (Spirit) between the self and the self-image.
While many have found the psychological model helpful, others have objected to it on the grounds that it is not faithful to the biblical data. The Bible depicts the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct Persons, they argue, not three distinct aspects of one Person. Hence, they have proposed that we should think of the unity of the Trinity more like the unity of the mind, heart, and will of three people. This has been labeled the social model of the Trinity.
To some defenders of the psychological model, the social model borders on tri-theism (the belief in three separate gods). To some defenders of the social model, the psychological model borders on modalism (reducing the three Persons to three modes of one person). Still others argue that since models are only models, not exact replicas of reality, we may affirm both models as valid in capturing distinct perspectives on a God whose full reality defies exhaustive description.
Related Reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70085/700850eb3bbca1958f3f722069df053cecd28843" alt=""
“Whatever it means, it cannot mean that.”
pure9 via Compfight Roger Olson wrote a great article a couple of days ago entitled Why (High) Calvinism Is Impossible. He points out that there is no way to understand God as “good” while also believing in double predestination. The idea that God predestines some to heaven and a vast majority to hell for his “glory”…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70085/700850eb3bbca1958f3f722069df053cecd28843" alt=""
Why Believe that There Is a God?
“Why should we believe in God in the first place?” This was a question that Greg’s father asked of Greg. While there are many ways to respond, Greg’s offered what is called “the anthropological argument.” Here is an excerpt from Letters from a Skeptic. _____________________ My basic line of reasoning is this: We human beings…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/30a3f/30a3f90071d49fec43842fe9d7e1d1549657a1cf" alt=""
The Trinity and the Crucified God
God has always been willing to stoop to accommodate the fallen state of his covenant people in order to remain in a transforming relationship with them and in order to continue to further his sovereign purposes through them. This is revealed in the life and death of Jesus. Out of love for humankind, Jesus emptied…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70085/700850eb3bbca1958f3f722069df053cecd28843" alt=""
How NOT to be Christ-Centered: A Review of God With Us – Part III
In the previous two posts on Oliphint’s God With Us, we’ve seen that Oliphint is trying to reframe divine accommodations in a Christ-centered way, but that what he means by this is not that he is going to derive his understanding of God from Christ, but that he is going to use the “hypostatic union”…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebee5/ebee5eb61f6abc871e2d148fec04785ff42a3237" alt=""
Making God in Our Own Image
In this video, Greg introduces the idea of how we make God into our own image instead of allowing God to define himself through the revelation of Jesus. In an interview performed by Travis Reed from theworkofthepeople.com, we have a basic, quick introduction to a core element of Greg’s theology. This is a great piece to…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70085/700850eb3bbca1958f3f722069df053cecd28843" alt=""
The Hexagon of Opposition
Throughout the western philosophical and theological tradition, scholars have assumed that the future can be adequately described in terms of what will and will not happen. In this essay I, Alan Rhoda and Tom Belt argue that this assumption is mistaken, for the logical contradictory of will is not will not but might not. Conversely,…