Within Christianity, the Doctrine of the Trinity is at the foundation of all theology and is the central claim with regard to the understanding of God. Whereas many attributes of God can be arrived a through the realm of reason, such as existence thereof, infinity, omnipotence, omniscience, simplicity, and even that there is only one God, the Doctrine of Trinity can only be derived through Revelation itself.
Historically, the misunderstanding of the Trinity has been the source of the most notorious heresies, like Arianism, which rejects the Trinity’s assertion that there is One God in Three Persons, while other heresies fail to reconcile (or attempt to rationalize) how a being can be 100% God and 100% Man. This would include Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Docetism. The ecumenical councils were significant in that they precisely defined the Trinity to rebuff these heresies, yet the success of these councils did not stop these errors from reoccurring or new errors from emerging, like that of Unitarianism during the Reformation.
Despite all the confessions and creeds, there are still people within the church who fail to understand the Doctrine of the Trinity. This leads to the prevalence of the “state of water” analogy being commonly employed to explain the Trinity, which results in the heresy of Modalism. Although not as bad, then there are those who attempt to reinvent the understanding of the doctrine.
This would be where David Reece lands. Reece is the pastor of Puritan Reformed Church in Phoenix, AZ, and is slated to speak at Joel Webbon’s conference in April. Recently, Reece made a giant blunder when it came to his expression of the Trinity.
The key error is that Reece asserts that there are “three wills ontologically” in the Trinity. He would go on to describe the Divine Persons as being Three different “thinkers,” who are both academically deficient and irreverent.
During the debates in the early Church, these terms were rigorously debated and defined within their linguistic and philosophical paradigms. In many ways, this doctrine is a philosophical framing of a core truth revealed in Scripture that is defined using terms whose definitions were formulated within Greco-Roman philosophy. Thus, terms like Nature, Essence, Will, and Person (Greek: Hypostasis, Latin: Persona), were all defined within the Koine Greek language of which the creeds were written.
Where Reece grievously errs is that he asserts that there are distinct Wills within the members of the Godhead simply because each person must have His own will to be a person. Within the orthodox Trinitarian understanding, there are Three Persons in One God, with one Will, Essence, Substance, and Nature. The Three Persons Subsist as One. The Will is tied to the Essence and Nature, not the Person. Contrary, three Wills would equal three gods, or Tritheism. The emphasis on a singular Will was the basis for which the Church argued against the charge of Tritheism. Furthermore, in order for there to be unity in the Godhead, there must be unity of will. Since God is simple, meaning that He cannot be “broken down” into components or parts, for God to have three wills would undermine this divine attribute.
The Trinity is the manifestation of the attributes of God in three distinct persons, meaning Christ shares in the attributes of God concerning His divine nature. Calvin defines a Person as, “a subsistence in the Divine essence” (ICR 1.13.6) Subsistence means a “mode of existing proper to substance,” which is to distinguish from existing apart from (Turretin IET 3.23.4).
Though Christ, having both a divine and human nature, possesses the same divine attributes according to His divine nature, including the Will of the Father (John 5:19). His human nature submits to His divine nature in Gethsemane. This is not a conflict of wills, but Christ willingly taking on the abhorrent cup of the Father’s wrath to fulfill His role as Mediator. The various councils and creeds throughout history thoroughly defined the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ. The Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly describes God to be of “a most Pure Spirit” while describing God as having “a most righteous will.” There is no possible implication to the notion of multiple wills within the godhead. Let not the Church reinvent its core doctrine.
7 Responses
“This leads to the prevalence of the “state of water” analogy being commonly employed to explain the Trinity, which results in the heresy of Modalism”
One clarification. Modalism also seems to be similar to dispensationalism in a way, suggesting that God only appeared in certain forms for certain times. The state of water analogy is just an analogy, and as all Analogies, they break down if you push them to far (Calvinism is an Analogy believe it or not and sufferes the same fate). The point about the state of water, is that in the physical world we have a substance everyone knows about called water that can exist simultaneously as both Liquid Water, Vapor, and Ice. This is actually not what Modalism teaches.
Modalism has at its core, that God is a shape shifter taking on different forms whenever it pleases him to do so. (For example, the burning bush, the visit to Abram before Soddom and Gomorah, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost would be examples they’d look at). However, the Modalist’s theology leads to questions about God’s consistency, the idea that God might be deceptive in how he deals with man, but the Water analogy if used correctly doesn’t do that, No matter which physical of state water is in at a given time it remains at its core water. (All matter is this way)
The reason some of us use the Water Analogy is people are more likely to be familiar with all three states of water, than say other elements on the periodic table. So while you are right Modalism is a Heresy, suggesting the Water Analogy always misleads would be incorrect, if someone is mislead is because they misunderstand the analogy in their own heart, and, frankly highly likely, that as I said any analogy breaks down if pushed too far (models are the same way).
The point that may need more emphasis when using the Water Analogy is, that if we have this example in creation that God Made, how much more Glorious is the Trinity which itself is the nature of God. Anytime we focus too much on the material world and think that’s all there is, we are likely in error, so I think its good to remind people of this.
As for Reece, yeah, three different wills, is not something that can be proven from scripture, at most you might think Jesus and The father had wills that were at odds with each other, but that would be a confusion of the human nature of Christ realizing what was about to happen on the Cross, and as a human acknowledging things. It did not change the Will of God, which is the will of the entire God Head. I continue to be baffled at how some theologians act like God has all these different wills, without realizing what they are saying. I suspect some of the modern translations of scripture have lead to this confusion.
cue dave s rant
Can you elaborate on this: “Calvinism is an Analogy believe it or not and suffers the same fate”? I’m a Calvinist. I’m just trying to understand what you mean. Thanks.
Nestorianism is simply the Definition of Chalcedon minus the interpolation of the term theotokos into it by the pagans. Ephesus was monophysitism which is why it strawmanned Nestorius as splitting Christ into two persons literally because he recognized the two natures of Christ remain distinct rather than mix into one new nature.
Whether this theonomist dude is teaching 3 gods depends on if he embeaces Calvin’s view of each person being “a se” or not. By Tertullian’a model of the Trinity where the Son and Holy Spirit are derivative persons (internally derivative) it wouldn’t be tritheism if one asserted 3 wills that happen to agree, i.e. thag the Son and Holy Spirit are allowed their own will but it aligns with the Father’s; because their derivative (internally derivative) relationship to the Father makes them one God. But in Calvin’a view where each person is “a se” of “from himself” you already have 3 gods whether you assert 3 wills or not. The proper understandinf is given in the Athanasian Creeda, that the Father alone is “a se” or “from himself” and the Son and Holy spirit are both from the Father (and it has the filioque, that the Son is from the Father ALONE but the Holy Spirit from the Father and son; but even for those who reject the filioque, both the Son and Holy Spirit are from the Father so not “a se”). Aseity is a personal property and uncreatedness a substance property. The divine substance shared by the 3 pwrsons is uncreated, but only the person of the Father is “from himself” being the original person, and the other two are “from the Father” being derivative persons from the Father. That’s the ancient pre-Calvin, and pre-Lateran (i.e. Vatican) councils in the 1100s, orthodoxy.
Could be that he is saying limited atonement originates from taking an analogy too far. I.e. the idea thag if Jesus died for someone they’re automatically saved and cannot lose their salvation. Scripture doesn’t teach “Jesus took my whippin so God can’t punish me no matter what, nah nah nah boo boo.” Nor does it say Christ died only for the elect. These doctrines come from pushing the analogy of substitution for a condemned criminal too far. Might not be what he’s saying, but its another way that Calvinism merely is the result of taking an analogy too far. When Scripture says Christ died for us it iust means he died as a sacrifice for everyone’s sins but still only those who accept that sacrifice get to be saved by it; it doesn’t require or teach limited atonement.