Thoughts on Conciliatory Trinitarianism?

[Reformed Sojourner]

I’m examining Dr. Joshua Sijuwade’s Conciliatory Trinitarianism and wondering whether the early Reformed scholastics would have recognized this framework as orthodox. What strengths or potential dangers do you see in Sijuwade’s approach? Please see a summary of a presentation he gave on this topic below.

Summary: Conciliar Trinitarianism — An Exploration of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Core Thesis

The presentation argues for a Conciliar (Creedal + Patristic) understanding of the Trinity:

There is one God—the Father—and two relationally distinct divine persons, the Son and the Spirit, who are homoousios (of the same divine nature) with the Father.

This view emphasizes biblical language, Nicene-Constantinopolitan orthodoxy, and philosophical coherence.

1. Key Definitions

Homoousios

The Son and Spirit share the same divine nature as the Father—therefore each possesses all divine attributes (power, knowledge, goodness, eternality, etc.).

Relational Distinctions:

Defined by relations of origin:

• Father — unbegotten, uncaused
• Son — eternally begotten of the Father
• Spirit — eternally proceeds from the Father

Meaning of “God”

• Nominal sense: “God” = the proper name/title for the one fundamental divine person, the Father.
• Predicative sense: “God” = describes a person who possesses the divine nature (Father, Son, Spirit).

Thus:

• Father = God (nominally & predicatively)
• Son & Spirit = God (predicatively)

2. Biblical Foundations

A. The Father as “the One God”

Scripture overwhelmingly identifies the Father specifically as:

• “the only true God” (John 17:3)
• “One God, the Father” (1 Cor 8:6)
• “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 11:31; Eph 4:6)

New Testament usage frequently substitutes “God” for “Father,” showing that the word “God” most often refers not to the Trinity as a whole, but to the Father.

B. The Son’s Full Divinity

Using the HANDS acronym:

• Honor — receives worship due only to God
• Attributes — eternal, omniscient, omnipotent
• Names — called God, Lord, Savior
• Deeds — Creator, Judge, forgiver of sins
• Seat — enthroned with God

Conclusion: Scripture ascribes full deity to the Son.

C. The Spirit’s Full Divinity

The same HANDS pattern shows:

• Spirit receives divine honour
• possesses divine attributes
• bears divine names
• performs divine deeds (creation, regeneration, inspiration)
• shares the divine throne

Conclusion: The Spirit is fully divine.

3. Historical Foundations

Creeds

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) affirms:

• One God, the Father
• One Lord Jesus Christ, true God of true God, begotten not made, homoousios with the Father
• The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and is worshiped with the Father and Son

Church Fathers (especially the Cappadocians)

Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus repeatedly teach:

• The Father is the one God (source/monarchia)
• The Son and Spirit are fully divine due to sharing His nature
• The persons are distinct, but share the one divine essence

Quotes emphasize the monarchy of the Father as central to early Christian monotheism.

4. Philosophical Coherence

The “Logical Problem of the Trinity” is addressed by clarifying:

• “God” in the nominal sense refers uniquely to the Father
• “God” in the predicative sense describes the divine nature held by all three persons

Thus:

• One fundamental divine person (Father) = one God
• Three divine persons = each fully divine
• No contradiction

5. Can the Son be called “God”? — YES

Because:

• Predicatively the Son possesses the divine nature
• NT authors use “God” this way when referring to Christ

Scholars such as Murray Harris, Zizioulas, Thomas Hopko, and John Behr support this distinction.

6. Can the Son be called YHWH? — YES

Because “YHWH” is used:

• Nominally: Proper name for the Father
• Metonymically: Applied to the Son when He embodies, reveals, or acts with the Father’s authority

Scripture applies YHWH texts to Jesus in this extended/metonymical sense (e.g., Phil 2:10–11).

Conclusion:

• Father = YHWH (nominally)
• Son = YHWH (metonymically) because He shares and manifests the one divine nature

7. Avoiding Heresies

This model avoids:

• Modalism — by affirming real personal distinctions
• Tritheism — by affirming only one fundamental divine person
• Arianism/Subordinationism — by affirming full, equal divinity of Son and Spirit

8. Overall Conclusion

This Conciliar Trinitarian framework:

• Matches the biblical pattern
• Aligns with early creedal and patristic theology
• Maintains monotheism through the Father’s monarchy
• Affirms the full divinity of Son and Spirit
• Resolves logical tensions by clarifying the senses of “God” and “YHWH”

It is presented as a scripturally faithful, historically grounded, and philosophically coherent expression of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.

 

[EvanF]

6. Can the Son be called YHWH? — YES

Because “YHWH” is used:

• Nominally: Proper name for the Father
• Metonymically: Applied to the Son when He embodies, reveals, or acts with the Father’s authority

Scripture applies YHWH texts to Jesus in this extended/metonymical sense (e.g., Phil 2:10–11).

I have heard it argued that because the Son is the Word of God, that the one who the prophets and Israel interacted with in the old testament as Jehovah was the Son. This interpretation would mean that Jehovah is at least as properly the name of the Son as it is the name of the Father, or perhaps more properly the name of the Son.

 

[jwright82]

I’m examining Dr. Joshua Sijuwade’s Conciliatory Trinitarianism and wondering whether the early Reformed scholastics would have recognized this framework as orthodox. What strengths or potential dangers do you see in Sijuwade’s approach? Please see a summary of a presentation he gave on this topic below.

Summary: Conciliar Trinitarianism — An Exploration of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Core Thesis

The presentation argues for a Conciliar (Creedal + Patristic) understanding of the Trinity:

There is one God—the Father—and two relationally distinct divine persons, the Son and the Spirit, who are homoousios (of the same divine nature) with the Father.

This view emphasizes biblical language, Nicene-Constantinopolitan orthodoxy, and philosophical coherence.

1. Key Definitions

Homoousios

The Son and Spirit share the same divine nature as the Father—therefore each possesses all divine attributes (power, knowledge, goodness, eternality, etc.).

Relational Distinctions:

Defined by relations of origin:

• Father — unbegotten, uncaused
• Son — eternally begotten of the Father
• Spirit — eternally proceeds from the Father

Meaning of “God”

• Nominal sense: “God” = the proper name/title for the one fundamental divine person, the Father.
• Predicative sense: “God” = describes a person who possesses the divine nature (Father, Son, Spirit).

Thus:

• Father = God (nominally & predicatively)
• Son & Spirit = God (predicatively)

2. Biblical Foundations

A. The Father as “the One God”

Scripture overwhelmingly identifies the Father specifically as:

• “the only true God” (John 17:3)
• “One God, the Father” (1 Cor 8:6)
• “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 11:31; Eph 4:6)

New Testament usage frequently substitutes “God” for “Father,” showing that the word “God” most often refers not to the Trinity as a whole, but to the Father.

B. The Son’s Full Divinity

Using the HANDS acronym:

• Honor — receives worship due only to God
• Attributes — eternal, omniscient, omnipotent
• Names — called God, Lord, Savior
• Deeds — Creator, Judge, forgiver of sins
• Seat — enthroned with God

Conclusion: Scripture ascribes full deity to the Son.

C. The Spirit’s Full Divinity

The same HANDS pattern shows:

• Spirit receives divine honour
• possesses divine attributes
• bears divine names
• performs divine deeds (creation, regeneration, inspiration)
• shares the divine throne

Conclusion: The Spirit is fully divine.

3. Historical Foundations

Creeds

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) affirms:

• One God, the Father
• One Lord Jesus Christ, true God of true God, begotten not made, homoousios with the Father
• The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and is worshiped with the Father and Son

Church Fathers (especially the Cappadocians)

Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus repeatedly teach:

• The Father is the one God (source/monarchia)
• The Son and Spirit are fully divine due to sharing His nature
• The persons are distinct, but share the one divine essence

Quotes emphasize the monarchy of the Father as central to early Christian monotheism.

4. Philosophical Coherence

The “Logical Problem of the Trinity” is addressed by clarifying:

• “God” in the nominal sense refers uniquely to the Father
• “God” in the predicative sense describes the divine nature held by all three persons

Thus:

• One fundamental divine person (Father) = one God
• Three divine persons = each fully divine
• No contradiction

5. Can the Son be called “God”? — YES

Because:

• Predicatively the Son possesses the divine nature
• NT authors use “God” this way when referring to Christ

Scholars such as Murray Harris, Zizioulas, Thomas Hopko, and John Behr support this distinction.

6. Can the Son be called YHWH? — YES

Because “YHWH” is used:

• Nominally: Proper name for the Father
• Metonymically: Applied to the Son when He embodies, reveals, or acts with the Father’s authority

Scripture applies YHWH texts to Jesus in this extended/metonymical sense (e.g., Phil 2:10–11).

Conclusion:

• Father = YHWH (nominally)
• Son = YHWH (metonymically) because He shares and manifests the one divine nature

7. Avoiding Heresies

This model avoids:

• Modalism — by affirming real personal distinctions
• Tritheism — by affirming only one fundamental divine person
• Arianism/Subordinationism — by affirming full, equal divinity of Son and Spirit

8. Overall Conclusion

This Conciliar Trinitarian framework:

• Matches the biblical pattern
• Aligns with early creedal and patristic theology
• Maintains monotheism through the Father’s monarchy
• Affirms the full divinity of Son and Spirit
• Resolves logical tensions by clarifying the senses of “God” and “YHWH”

It is presented as a scripturally faithful, historically grounded, and philosophically coherent expression of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.

What I find strange in it all is the use of the word "nominal". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are substantially one in essence and three in person's. They share the same substance or essence in a absolute mutual indwelling but are three persons.
Nominal means essentially fake or merely linguistic and that seems to open the door for heresy. We must not tinker with the classical language. They worked it out for us. Of course I could be misunderstanding.
[automerge]1764528610[/automerge]
Ok after looking it up, only God the Father is the one God, nominally, and the other person's are not (in some sense). But all three persons are the one God and yet three persons, don't muck around with the language.

 

[MW]

Reformed scholastics probably would have seen it as suspect. My reading of them is that they work comfortably within an Augustinian way of explaining the Trinity. The major point of contention is the monarchy of the Father. I am gathering the distinction between the "nominal" and "predicative" sense of "God" is intended to support the Cappadocian idea of monarchy.

The Reformed in general, beginning with Calvin, not just the scholastics, identified the one God with the one divine essence, not with a single person. The divine nature is possessed equally and fully by each of the three persons. The Trinity is "one God in three persons." In this light it is subordinationist to make the Father the fundamental source of divinity. For Calvin the Son is autotheos. He is God in and of Himself. While the Son's personal property of sonship is from the Father, His deity is not. The scholastics solidify this position by maintaining that the communication of the divine essence from the Father to the Son terminates on the person.

The biblical language of monarchy is better accounted for by the pactum salutis. In the Reformed system it is fully acknowledged that the Father is the sender of the Son. But this is based on mutual and voluntary agreement. It is not part of the divine nature itself. The different functions of the Persons are of course "appropriate" to their "order" in the Trinity, but in all ad extra works the persons remain undivided.

 

[Reformed Sojourner]

Reformed scholastics probably would have seen it as suspect. My reading of them is that they work comfortably within an Augustinian way of explaining the Trinity. The major point of contention is the monarchy of the Father. I am gathering the distinction between the "nominal" and "predicative" sense of "God" is intended to support the Cappadocian idea of monarchy.

The Reformed in general, beginning with Calvin, not just the scholastics, identified the one God with the one divine essence, not with a single person. The divine nature is possessed equally and fully by each of the three persons. The Trinity is "one God in three persons." In this light it is subordinationist to make the Father the fundamental source of divinity. For Calvin the Son is autotheos. He is God in and of Himself. While the Son's personal property of sonship is from the Father, His deity is not. The scholastics solidify this position by maintaining that the communication of the divine essence from the Father to the Son terminates on the person.

The biblical language of monarchy is better accounted for by the pactum salutis. In the Reformed system it is fully acknowledged that the Father is the sender of the Son. But this is based on mutual and voluntary agreement. It is not part of the divine nature itself. The different functions of the Persons are of course "appropriate" to their "order" in the Trinity, but in all ad extra works the persons remain undivided.

In the broader patristic and conciliar sense, Sijuwade’s model seems orthodox—it aligns with Nicene-Cappadocian teaching, maintains monotheism, and affirms the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit.

From a Reformed scholastic perspective, it might be viewed with caution because it emphasizes the Father as “God” in a nominal sense. Scholastics would likely be concerned about tying “God” hypostatically to the Father, since it could be interpreted as subordinationist, even if Sijuwade intends otherwise. While there may be hesitancy regarding this view of the Trinity, it does not appear heretical.

The “monarchy of the Father” seems intended as relational rather than ontological. The Father is the source in terms of eternal generation and relations of origin, while all three Persons equally possess the divine essence. Eternal generation does not confer deity—the Son is fully God in Himself.

Thus, it seems Sijuwade’s Cappadocian-style monarchy can be reconciled with Reformed orthodoxy, provided “God” in the nominal sense refers to relational origin rather than the divine essence itself. I find this view logically inviting, but I want to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy and aligned with the confessionally Reformed standard. Any additional input would be welcome.

 

[MW]

Thus, it seems Sijuwade’s Cappadocian-style monarchy can be reconciled with Reformed orthodoxy, provided “God” in the nominal sense refers to relational origin rather than the divine essence itself.

Turretin: The Son is properly called Autotheos. XL. Although the Son is from the Father, nevertheless he may be called God-of-himself (autotheos), not with respect to his person, but essence; not relatively as Son (for thus he is from the Father), but absolutely as God inasmuch as he has the divine essence existing from itself and not divided or produced from another essence (but not as having that essence from himself). So the Son is God from himself although not the Son from himself. Hence it is evident how unjustly Genebrardus and other papists charged Calvin with heresy here. For in order to confute the heresy of Valentinus Gentilis (who attributed divine essence to the Father alone [whom therefore he called the primary God and autotheon] and said the Son and the Holy Spirit received their essence from the Father), he said that the Son no less than the Father is autotheon, but with respect to essence alone (which is no less self-essence [autousia] in the Son than in the Father), but not with respect to the person (which Bellarmine approves, “De Christo,” 2.19 in Opera [1856], 1:217–19).

There is a rigorous distinction between person and essence. The Son's person, His "Sonship," is from the Father. But His divine essence is not. The Son is autotheos with respect to His essence. It is self-essence in the Son just as it is in the Father.

I don't think it is simply a matter of philosophical preference. The Reformed tradition made a choice for an Augustinian model that grounds unity in the numerically one essence with the specifical goal to protect the autotheos of the Son. I would imagine the Filioque comes into the equation as well.

 

[JvMill]

How does this portion of Calvin fit in this picture?

“Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It is as follows:—When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit.”

1.13.20

@MW have you read Barrett’s simply Trinity? If I remember correctly he spoke of the relations of origin having to do with the communication of the divine essence. Are you saying this is Eastern?

 

[MW]

How does this portion of Calvin fit in this picture?

For Calvin calling the Father God is appropriate because of the order of subsistence. Otherwise, "When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant."

@MW have you read Barrett’s simply Trinity? If I remember correctly he spoke of the relations of origin having to do with the communication of the divine essence. Are you saying this is Eastern?

Yes; but being "simply" Trinity the book doesn't really go into this issue. No, eastern has to do with the Father as the fount of divinity.

 

[Reformed Sojourner]

I don't think it is simply a matter of philosophical preference. The Reformed tradition made a choice for an Augustinian model that grounds unity in the numerically one essence with the specifical goal to protect the autotheos of the Son. I would imagine the Filioque comes into the equation as well.

Yes. Sijuwade’s model fits the Eastern Orthodox side of the Filioque debate. By grounding unity in the relations of the divine persons and affirming the monarche of the Father, his view supports the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone—without needing the Filioque to secure the Son’s deity. He recently converted from RCC to EO.