Today, within evangelical theology, there has been a retrieval of classical, pro-Nicene trinitarian theology, which has been of great advantage for the church because it has resulted in a more faithful understanding and contemplation of the glory and majesty of our triune God. However, in noting that classical theism has been retrieved, this also implies that it was not always so. And it is this observation that I want to reflect on in this article. My goal is to recount briefly some of the changes that have occurred within evangelical theology over the past fifty years, specifically in the doctrine of God. This recovery demonstrates how many within evangelical theology have returned to a more robust understanding of theology proper in continuity with the history of the church, which has been an important and welcomed development for the church.
Let me recount this recovery of classical theism in four steps. First, I will discuss how there was a consistent affirmation of classical, pro-Nicene orthodoxy from the early church to the time of the Enlightenment in the late seventeenth century. However, a shift away from classical theism occurred due to the rise of theological liberalism in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries. Second, I will recount some of the orthodox responses to theological liberalism that continued to uphold classical, pro-Nicene theism at the end of the nineteenth-early twentieth centuries. Third, I will sketch how and why within evangelical theology there was a slight departure from classical theism in the twentieth century, or minimally, that there was not a full articulation of classical theism in its historic form. Fourth, I will discuss how classical, pro-Nicene theism was recovered within evangelical theology over the last couple of decades leading to our present moment.
Classical Trinitarian Theism from Nicaea to the Enlightenment
In speaking of classical theism, I am referring to the trinitarian theism of the Nicene Creed (381) and the Chalcedonian Definition (451). In both of these creedal affirmations, the one, true, and living God of Scripture who subsists in three persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is affirmed and confessed. In the West, classical trinitarian theism is associated with such theologians as Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, the Reformers, and the post-Reformed tradition, as represented by the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) and the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). In the East, classical trinitarian theism is represented by Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians such as Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. This is not to say that there is complete uniformity among all these representatives, but it is to say that there is more continuity than not in terms of our doctrinal understanding of the triune God as simple, independent and self-sufficient (divine aseity), immutable, impassible, eternal, omniscient, and so on. Classical trinitarian theism, then, is in contrast to other conceptions of God that see him as changing in relation to creation, that see him as becoming dependent on creation for knowledge due to the creation of humans with libertarian freedom, and/or that make some kind of limitation on God’s sovereignty in relation to the world. These views of God are reflected in current non-orthodox panentheistic views, and even by many within the Arminian tradition.
In relation to the doctrine of the Trinity, classical theism affirms that the divine persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—subsist in the same, identical simple divine nature and thus are God equal with each other. Given that the divine persons equally, fully, and totally subsist in and share the same divine nature, they cannot be distinguished by divine attributes nor by a distinct will. All three persons, namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit subsist in and share the same nature. Instead, Father, Son, and Spirit are only distinguished by their eternal, immanent, and necessary personal relations and properties. Thus, what distinguishes the Father as Father is that he is “unbegotten” and that as Father he eternally and necessarily generates the Son, which means that he communicates to him the entirety of the divine nature. As such, the Father and Son are distinguished by their personal relations, yet God equal with one another, or in the language of the church homoousios (of the same nature). Furthermore, what distinguishes the Son as Son is that he is eternally from the Father and as the eternally begotten Son, the Father communicates or shares with him the entirety of the divine nature. As such, both Father and Son are fully and equally God. Lastly, what distinguishes the Spirit as Spirit is that he eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. In this eternal procession, the Father and the Son communicate and share with him the one undivided nature so that Father, Son, and Spirit are fully and equally the one true and living God yet distinguished by their personal relations and personal properties.
This understanding of the Trinity, and specifically, the eternally ordered relations between the divine persons is in contrast to various “social” views of the Trinity. Despite the term “social” referring to a number of diverse views, the common denominator among “social” views is that the Trinity is viewed as a society or community of three divine persons. Most who affirm a “social” view define a divine person as a “distinct center of knowledge, will, love, and action,” which results in the divine persons not only having distinct wills and agency but also eternally distinguished by these distinct wills. This understanding of the divine persons is in contrast to historic theology. Historically, the church has taught that the divine persons are only distinguished by their personal relations and that they all share the same will. For classic theism, the faculty or capacity of will is located in the divine nature, which all three persons have in common, and which all three persons equally share. In the end, social views have a number of serious consequences, but inevitably they redefine God’s inseparable agency, and in Christology affirm that Christ only has one divine will, instead of a divine and human will. In both of these latter affirmations, social views stand in opposition to classical trinitarian theology.1
1. For a discussion of these points, see Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, vol. 1 (Brentwood: B&H Academic, 2024), 593–723.
Until the Enlightenment and the rise of theological liberalism in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries, classical trinitarian theism was the orthodox, historic view of Christian theology. Theological liberalism was a radical departure from historic Christianity. In its early years, many within this movement argued for a deistic conception of God. Later, in light of the embrace of Darwinian evolutionary thought, theological liberalism began to affirm various panentheistic conceptions of God as represented by such people as Georg Hegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and later process theism. But prior to the Enlightenment, there was a consistent affirmation of the doctrine of God that is represented by the expression of classical, pro-Nicene trinitarian theism.2
2. For a discussion of this era, see Wellum, Systematic Theology, 31–78.
Orthodox Responses to Theological Liberalism
As theological liberalism dominated the academy and began to influence the church, orthodox Christians responded to it. There were numerous responses but specifically I am thinking of two.
First, in Europe, and specifically the Netherlands, there was the Reformed, or sometimes called, neo-Calvinist response to liberalism by such people as Herman Bavinck and Geerhardus Vos, who was born in the Netherlands but later came to America and taught at Princeton Theological Seminary.3 Both of these men (along with others) taught a classical trinitarian theism in continuity with the history of the church from the Patristic era through the medieval era, the Reformation, and post-Reformation Reformed orthodoxy. Both responded to the theological liberalism that rejected the authority of Scripture and redefined every Christian doctrine including the doctrine of God.
3. See Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008); Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 5 vols. (Bellingham: Lexham, 2012–2016).
Second, in North America, Reformed theology also responded to theological liberalism as represented by Princeton Theological Seminary and such people as Charles Hodge, Alexander Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, and J. Gresham Machen. As the twentieth century began, others joined in to respond to theological liberalism, which resulted in what is known as the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies that reached their head in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, J. Gresham Machen wrote a strong rebuke of theological liberalism in his famous Christianity and Liberalism.4 Ultimately, this book, along with Machen’s stand against liberalism within the Presbyterian church, resulted in his removal from Princeton, his starting of what became the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and his founding of Westminster Theological Seminary. For the most part, those who responded to theological liberalism assumed and operated with a classical understanding of God, although there were some slight modifications in understanding trinitarian personal relations as reflected by the work of B. B. Warfield.
4. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009 [1923]).
It should also be noted that there was a response to theological liberalism from within its own circles, not merely from those outside of it. As the Bible’s authority was lost, and every Christian doctrine was redefined, what remained was not Christianity but, as Machen had argued, another religion. The triune God of Scripture was rejected, human depravity was denied, and Jesus was not viewed as God the Son incarnate, our only Lord and Savior, but simply as a great religious teacher. However, after the disaster of the World Wars, people like Karl Barth (and others) spoke up. Barth rediscovered the “strange new world of the Bible” in his preaching through Romans, and he realized that what he had been taught from his liberal teachers was not theology but anthropology. In response, Barth sought to return to orthodoxy and historic Christianity by proclaiming the triune God of Scripture, but for a variety of reasons, it was not a complete return. Barth appreciated the Reformers, specifically Martin Luther and John Calvin, but he created a wedge between them and those in the medieval era as well as those in the post-Reformation era. He, and others who followed in his path, viewed “classical theism” with suspicion and too “rationalistic” in orientation. As such, from the Barthian tradition, in contrast to theological liberalism, trinitarian theology was recaptured but more in a social trinitarian cast. Theologians who were influenced by Barth (but also went their own direction) such as Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and others began to embrace a more panentheistic trinitarian theology, thus rejecting classical, pro-Nicene theology. Others in the process tradition, which was greatly influenced by evolutionary thought, did likewise. In addition, this kind of thinking was also picked up by various strands of liberation theology, which taught some version of the Trinity, but more of a God who is immanent in the world, bringing about various moral revolutions.
In the twentieth century, all of these movements were responses to theological liberalism, but by mid-century, there was a strong social trinitarian emphasis that dominated much of theology.
The Doctrine of God in Twentieth Century Evangelical Theology
For the most part, as evangelical theology emerged in the twentieth century out of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies, the historic doctrine of God remained intact. Key fundamentals or truths of historic Christianity were affirmed and defended such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, and the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross. Yet, in the defense of these doctrines, there was not as much focus on the doctrine of God as there was in defending biblical authority, writing excellent biblical commentaries, and apologetically interacting with the current thought of the day. The historic doctrine of God was affirmed, but, at least in my view, it did not receive the same amount of attention as other areas.
Obviously, one must exercise care in making sweeping judgments about this lack of focus on theology proper in evangelical theology in the twentieth century. So, in what follows, I am speaking autobiographically about my experience in this regard. But what I experienced in my theological education at the end of the twentieth century I think is true of what occurred within evangelical theology at large in relation to the doctrine of God.
I had the privilege of receiving an excellent theological education at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School from 1985 to the mid-1990s. During my time at TEDS, historic Christianity was wonderfully taught and defended. However, in theology proper, as well as Christology, such articulation and defense of these doctrines was not rooted in historical theology as it ought to have been. In fact, much of my education revealed a strong influence of social trinitarian emphases, especially in thinking about the divine persons as having distinct wills and agency. In discussions regarding the Trinity and Christology, there was not much discussion regarding the crucial theological distinction between nature-person, how divine persons should be defined, how divine persons relate to each other, and such concepts as inseparable trinitarian agency. It was basically taken for granted that divine persons are understood as those who have distinct wills and agency, without much discussion of how all of this was discussed, defined, and parsed out in historical theology.
In the early 2000s, as I had the incredible privilege of beginning to work on my Christology for the Foundations in Evangelical Theology Series, edited by John Feinberg and published by Crossway, I had to go back and do a lot of homework on historical theology. At TEDS, I was taught orthodox Christology and was grounded in a biblical and theological defense of the true deity and true humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but not much was covered in terms of the richness of Christology from the Patristic through the post-Reformation era. Post-Chalcedonian councils were mentioned (e.g., Constantinople [553, 681]) but not developed in terms of their contribution to our understanding of the hypostatic union, two wills in Christ (dyothelitism), and so on. Such concepts as inseparable operations, the extra Calvinisticum, a careful definition of nature and person, was not covered as it probably should have been. In saying this, I am not blaming anyone for this lack in my theological education. My point is simply this: many important points were emphasized, and historic Christianity was defended well (which I am very thankful for), but there was a lack of historical discussion of the doctrine of God and a clear delineation of classical trinitarian theism.
In fact, for the most part, at the end of the twentieth century, “classical theism” as a concept was a bit ambiguous. Often the term was viewed more negatively than positively. Why? Because at this time, “classical theism” was viewed more in terms of the God of the philosophers than the God of Scripture. This is not to say that “classical theism” was rejected. But it is to say that it was viewed with caution. For this reason, this is why some conservative evangelical theologians began to question such staples of the classic doctrine of God such as divine simplicity, impassibility, some aspects of immutability, one will in God, and inseparable trinitarian agency. These doctrines were not outright rejected, but often they were redefined. As people wrestled with God’s relation to the world, process theism and panentheism were rightly rejected, but “classic” formulations were also recast. Even major theological monographs on the doctrine of God published at the end of the century did not view, for example, divine simplicity and impassibility positively.
In fact, on some of these points, there was a strong influence on the doctrine of God from Christian philosophy in the analytic tradition. Christian philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff were having great success in bringing Christian philosophy back to the universities, but they were also questioning such doctrines as divine simplicity, aseity, impassibility, immutability, and God’s relation to time. In other words, at the end of the twentieth century, it was fairly common to question some of the staples of “classic theism.” Obviously, there were exceptions to this trend, even within Christian philosophy. One thinks of the work of Paul Helm who strongly defended “classic” theism and the doctrines of divine eternity, simplicity, impassibility, and so on. Yet, within conservative evangelical theology, classic theism was not a term that was clearly defined and always viewed positively.5
5. Paul Helm, Eternal God: A Study of God without Time, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
Not surprisingly, within evangelical theology, open theism emerged at this time.6 In the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, open theism was a major discussion within evangelical theology as proponents of open theism sought to recast the entire historic doctrine of God. In their sights was “classical” theism, which they rejected as a “Greek” concept of God that downplayed God’s real relations to the world. In their formulation, open theism rejected divine simplicity, aseity, timelessness, impassibility, immutability, and even God’s ability to know future free actions of humans. They affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity but fully embraced social trinitarianism and affirmed three wills in God that moved in a decidedly “kenotic” direction. Open theism taught that as a result of God’s decision to create the world, and especially creatures with libertarian freedom, God chose to make himself dependent on the world, thus requiring an open future that even God does not fully know. On these points, open theism had not only redefined some aspects of the historic doctrine of God; they basically rejected it wholesale.
6. See Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994).
At the same time all of these ideas were in the air, the orthodox version of God within conservative evangelical theology was predominately a slight modification of some of the staples of classical theism (e.g., divine simplicity, impassibility), and in terms of trinitarian theology, an embrace of eternal relational authority submission (ERAS) among the divine persons within God. In fact, at TEDS (and most conservative evangelical seminaries), ERAS was taught as a kind of default view. It strongly emphasized much of the classic doctrine of God, but with a few tweaks here and there. Significantly, ERAS was also taught in conjunction with larger debates regarding male headship in marriage, and authority roles in the church between men and women tied to the debate between complementarians and egalitarians.
On the complementarian side, for some, one of the key theological arguments for it was a Trinitarian argument. This argument depends on a specific view of how the divine persons are distinguished from each other within God due to their eternal relations and ordered authority roles. Egalitarians balked at this understanding but for many of them, they too made a trinitarian argument. Yet contrary to classical, pro-Nicene theology, people like Millard Erickson argued that personal relations between the divine persons did not entail authority roles and differences. In fact, they went so far as to deny any ordered relations at all (i.e., divine taxis among the person). Thus, on both sides of the complementarian-egalitarian debate, the Trinity was appealed to, but often, from both sides, contrary to the precision of historic Christian theology.
Returning to the view of ERAS, in agreement with Nicene orthodoxy, ERAS affirms that the divine persons are equally and truly God since they share the one undivided divine nature. Also, ERAS agrees with the classical view that the divine persons are distinguished by their eternally ordered relations of origin (i.e., paternity, filiation, and spiration). However, in contrast to Nicene orthodoxy, ERAS contends that the eternal relations between the Father, Son, and Spirit also entail a hierarchy of authority roles, thus resulting in the eternal priority of the Father’s authority, the Son’s eternal submission to the Father’s will, and the Spirit’s eternal submission to the will of the Father and the Son. For ERAS, these ordered authority relationships do not result in any ontological subordination within God since the divine persons share the one divine nature. Instead, these hierarchical authority roles are the means by which the divine persons are distinguished as persons. As ERAS is applied to human relationships, specifically the relationship between males and females, it was easy to make the following argument: analogous to the Trinity, men and women are ontologically equal as image-bearers but functionally distinguished by their authority role differences in marriage, the church, and the larger society.
My point in recounting this history of the doctrine of God discussion in evangelical theology in the twentieth century, is to note some of the context to the recovery of classical trinitarian theology at the end of the century. There is much to give God thanks for in the solid theological education received by conservative theological institutions. Indeed, we stand on the shoulders of our teachers, many of them who were giants. But in the doctrine of God, there were some obvious deficiencies that need to be remedied, and this is what occurred at the beginning of the twenty-first century within evangelical theology.
The Recovery of Classical, Pro-Nicene Theism
As noted, at the end of the twentieth century, this was pretty much the status of the doctrine of God within evangelical theology. Orthodoxy was affirmed, but on the conservative side, there were some redefinitions of classical doctrines and an embrace of ERAS as the best way to think of the eternal relations among the divine persons. Conservative evangelicals rejected open theism and responded to it as outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Egalitarians defended their view by appealing to the Trinity, but not always in ways consistent with classical theology.
However, at the end of the twentieth century, a retrieval occurred in the doctrine of God by a renewed study of historical theology, and in my view, this retrieval was both important and essential. Patristic scholars questioned the thesis of some that Eastern and Western views of the Trinity differed. For example, British theologian Colin Gunton argued this incorrect view. He contended that Eastern views of the Trinity were more social, while Western views, following Augustine, were more modalistic in orientation. However, as people like Lewis Ayres and Michel René Barnes went back to the historical record, they demonstrated that there was a consistent classical, pro-Nicene theism that both East and West affirmed.7
7. For example, see Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
This revisiting the historic doctrine of God also occurred in Reformation studies. People like Richard Muller (and many others) demonstrated that there was not a divide between the Reformers and the post-Reformed theologians. In contrast to people like Barth (and others) who tended to pit the Reformers and the post-Reformed against each other, Muller demonstrated a continuity of theology, especially in theology proper, from the medieval era through the Reformation and into the post-Reformation era.8 Thus, for example, in the post-Reformation era, Francis Turretin, John Owen, Petrus van Mastrich, etc. were not modifying the Reformers but instead articulating what they said in precision, albeit in scholastic categories. But what they were not doing was distorting Scripture and imbibing too much Greek philosophy. Instead, they were articulating the doctrine of God in continuity with the history of the church from the Patristic era to their own in faithfulness to Scripture.
8. See Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003).
As this retrieval in the doctrine of God occurred, one of the fallouts that occurred in conservative evangelical theology was the questioning of ERAS, which reached its head in 2016. This questioning of ERAS especially occurred in how ERAS distinguishes the divine persons eternally within God by hierarchical authority roles and relationships. Historically, classic, pro-Nicene trinitarian theology affirmed that the only way to distinguish the divine persons is by their eternally ordered relations, but these ordered relations do not entail a hierarchy of authority roles between the divine persons. Instead, divine authority is what the Father, Son, and Spirit have in common because they equally share and subsist in the one undivided divine nature, and their exercise of authority is consistent with their personal relations to each other, or according to their personal mode of subsistence. But this understanding does not require a hierarchy of authority between the divine persons, or an eternal submission of one will to another, given that all three persons share the same will. In fact, as the church acknowledged both in Trinitarian theology and Christology, if the Son is eternally distinguished by his submission and obedience to the Father’s will, this would seem to require that the Father and Son have distinct wills—a point that Nicene and Christological orthodoxy rightly rejects.
Interestingly, as classical theism has been retrieved and viewed as the more biblical and theologically viable position, a number of egalitarians have concluded that since one of the key theological arguments used to warrant complementarianism is no longer valid, this in turn requires a corresponding rejection of complementarianism. At least, this is the argument of Kevin Giles. But Giles’ argument does not follow. Although ERAS was used by some to defend complementarianism, complementarianism is not dependent on it, as I have argued elsewhere.9 In fact, for a vast number of complementarians, including myself, we do not argue for a complementarian view based on an ERAS view of the Trinity. Instead, we affirm a classical trinitarian view yet argue that Scripture teaches a complementarian view regarding the relationship between men and women in creation, the home, and the church. As such, an ERAS view of the Trinity is not required to uphold a complementarian view. Complementarianism stands on its own due to the teaching of Scripture. Although Scripture will draw an analogous relationship between theology proper and creaturely relationships, what must always be preserved is that these relationships are only analogical due to the Creator-creature distinction.
9. Stephen J. Wellum, “Does Complementarianism Depend on ERAS? A Response to Kevin Giles, ‘The Trinity Argument for Women’s Subordination,'” Eikon 5, no. 1 (2023): 58–65.
Concluding Reflection
What are we to learn from this survey of the doctrine of God within evangelical theology over the last century? I offer two lessons.
First, it was necessary to recover and retrieve the classical trinitarian doctrine of God within evangelical theology. As stated, we must give God thanks for our theological teachers. None of us are what we are apart from them. Yet, for all the strengths of evangelical theology in the twentieth century, it was not perfect, and this is most clearly demonstrable in the doctrine of God. With the recovery of classical trinitarian theism, a hole has been filled, and we can be thankful for this. All of us have more to learn, and this is why the church needs to constantly go back to Scripture, learn from the past, and in the best sense of retrieval, speak historic Christian theology into our context with even greater biblical fidelity and theological precision.
Second, it was not only necessary to recover some areas that were lacking in the doctrine of God for the health of evangelical theology but more significantly, it was necessary to do so for the glory of God and the life and health of the church. Our doctrine of God is everything precisely because the God of the Bible is everything! Speaking rightly about him, glorying in who he is, applying the truth of the majesty and perfection of our triune God to all areas of our life is not only that which pleases God but which is the very lifeblood of the church. If we get our doctrine of God wrong, then all other areas of Christian theology inevitably will be affected. Contemplating who our triune God is in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ is not only our great delight but also that which is our privilege and joy for all eternity. Not everything in retrieval theology is always biblical, good, and wise, but in the area of the doctrine of God, the retrieval of classical trinitarian theology has been a welcomed delight.
