Articles

The central claim of Trinitarian doctrine is that there is one God and three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that Christianity teaches three gods or that one person merely appears in three different forms.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not based upon a single proof-text. It is derived from the wider testimony of the New Testament. Christ commands baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each presented in divine terms. The Councils of Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381 did not create this teaching; they provided more precise language for expressing the faith already confessed by the Church.

The terminology used by the Church is important for understanding the doctrine. Ousia refers to the one divine essence, while hypostasis refers to the distinct persons. The Cappadocian Fathers, including Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, developed this terminology so that the Church could distinguish the unity of God from the distinction of the three persons.

The question of whether the Trinity amounts to tritheism is considered in the article “Is the Trinity Three Gods?” This article is intended as a basic introduction before addressing the more detailed objections.

The earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament provide evidence that Christian communities already had established practices concerning baptism, fasting, and the Eucharist. The Didache, commonly dated to around the first or early second century, is one of the important sources for this period.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century, describes the Eucharist as a participation in Christ and presents the local bishop as an important centre of unity within the Christian community. These descriptions provide evidence concerning how Christians understood worship and Church authority at an early stage.

The formal creeds were produced later, including the Nicene Creed in 325 and the expanded Constantinopolitan formulation in 381. They were not intended to create Christian belief from nothing. They provided precise language for doctrines that the Church already confessed and defended. The earliest sources therefore provide evidence of substantial continuity in Christian belief and practice.

The Library contains further information about the Didache and other primary documents from the early Christian period.

Orthodox Christianity does not treat worship and veneration as the same act. Worship, latria, belongs to God alone. Veneration, proskynesis, refers to the honour given to a person represented by an icon. The distinction is therefore between the worship due to God and the honour shown to the saints and other persons represented in Christian imagery.

The theological case for icons is closely connected with the Incarnation. Christians believe that God became truly human and visible in Jesus Christ. For this reason, Orthodox theology holds that depicting Christ is not equivalent to worshipping an image. The question of images must also be understood in light of the difference between the Old Covenant, in which God had not yet become incarnate, and the Christian confession that the Son became man.

The question of icons was the subject of significant controversy during the Iconoclast period. From approximately 726 to 843, icons were at various times prohibited and destroyed by imperial authority. St. John of Damascus was an important defender of their use, and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 affirmed the legitimacy of venerating icons. The restoration of icons in 843 is commemorated in the Orthodox Church as the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

A fuller profile of St. John of Damascus and further information about the Iconoclast controversy are available in the Library.

The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Latin phrase filioque, meaning “and the Son,” was later added in the Western Church. The addition became controversial because it concerned both the wording of a shared creed and the theological understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

There are two major issues involved in the dispute. The first concerns ecclesiastical authority. The creed was received as a statement of the faith of the whole Church, while the Western addition was made without the agreement of the Eastern churches. Orthodox criticism therefore concerns not only the wording itself but also the authority to alter an ecumenical creed.

The second issue is theological. Orthodox theology teaches that the Father is the single source within the Trinity, both of the Son and of the Spirit. Orthodox critics therefore argue that describing the Spirit as proceeding from the Son as well can obscure the distinction between the persons and the Father’s unique role as the source within the Trinity.

The Catholic explanation understands the Father and Son as acting together as one principle in the procession of the Spirit. The Filioque dispute therefore involves genuine differences in both theology and ecclesiology. It became one of the important issues associated with the division between Eastern and Western Christianity, alongside disputes concerning papal authority and other matters.

The phrase “original sin” is often used to describe the doctrine that humanity inherits the consequences of Adam’s sin. Some Western theological traditions have also described this in terms of inherited guilt. Orthodox Christianity generally distinguishes the consequences inherited from Adam from personal guilt for Adam’s particular act.

Orthodox theology uses the term ancestral sin to describe the condition inherited from Adam. Humanity inherits mortality, corruption, and a tendency toward sin, but a person is not personally guilty of Adam’s individual act. The distinction concerns the difference between inheriting the consequences of the Fall and being personally responsible for the original transgression.

Part of the later disagreement concerns the interpretation and translation of Romans 5:12. The Greek wording has been understood by Eastern Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom in terms of death and corruption entering human existence, rather than as a statement that an infant personally inherits Adam’s legal guilt. Different traditions have therefore developed different theological readings of the passage.

This distinction has consequences for several areas of theology, including infant baptism and the nature of salvation. Orthodox theology generally understands salvation as healing and restoration from mortality and corruption rather than merely the removal of inherited legal guilt.

Orthodox Christianity understands baptism as the ordinary means by which a person enters the Church and participates sacramentally in the life of Christ. Baptism is therefore more than a symbol, while its significance should not be reduced to a mechanical formula.

The word “necessary” requires qualification in this context. Orthodox Christianity does not teach that an unbaptized infant or a catechumen who dies while preparing for baptism is automatically condemned. The Church teaches the importance of baptism while also recognizing the freedom and mercy of God. Orthodox tradition has also discussed the concept of baptism of blood in relation to those who die for the faith before receiving sacramental baptism.

The account of the repentant thief is commonly cited in this discussion. Although the thief was not baptized, Christ tells him that he will be with Him in paradise. Orthodox theology has understood this passage as evidence that God is not mechanically restricted by the ordinary sacramental order when He chooses to act with mercy.

The Orthodox position therefore holds that baptism is the ordinary path given by Christ to the Church and should be received accordingly. At the same time, the Church does not claim to place limits upon the mercy of God in cases where the ordinary sacramental order has not been fulfilled.

Genesis 1 presents a broad account of creation, while Genesis 2 gives greater attention to the garden and to humanity. A difficulty arises if both chapters are treated as though they were intended to provide one continuous chronological sequence. The difficulty is reduced if the chapters are understood as providing different forms of description.

Genesis 1 has a structured literary form, including a pattern of forming and filling. Genesis 2 narrows its attention to humanity and the garden and discusses humanity’s relationship with the earth, with other human beings, and with God. There is also a grammatical question in Genesis 2:19. The Hebrew verb may be understood as “formed” or, in context, “had formed,” which can affect how the sequence of events is interpreted.

This interpretation does not depend upon a modern attempt to remove a contradiction after the fact. Ancient Near Eastern literature can present a broad account followed by a more focused description of a particular subject. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can therefore be understood as complementary accounts with different purposes rather than as two independent chronological narratives that must use identical structure.

Matthew states that Judas hanged himself. Acts describes his body falling and breaking open. The two accounts can be understood as describing different stages of the same event rather than two mutually exclusive accounts of his death.

This interpretation was not developed only in response to modern criticism. A possible reconstruction is that Judas died by hanging and that his body later fell when the means by which he was suspended failed. Matthew would then describe the manner of his death, while Acts would describe the condition of his body afterward. Neither account explicitly claims to provide every detail surrounding the event.

Acts 1:18 also permits discussion of the precise meaning of the Greek description of Judas’s fall. The wording can be interpreted as describing what happened to him at that place rather than requiring the conclusion that he personally performed the fall. The two accounts can therefore be read as describing different stages of the same event.

Matthew and Luke do not provide identical lists of names. Matthew traces the line through Solomon, while Luke traces it through Nathan. The question is therefore whether the genealogies were intended to serve exactly the same purpose.

Matthew’s genealogy can be understood in relation to the royal line and the claim that Jesus is the heir of David. Luke’s genealogy has been interpreted in several ways, including the early tradition associated with Julius Africanus that connects it with Mary’s family line. Ancient Jewish genealogies could also serve legal, familial, or theological purposes rather than functioning as modern biological records.

It is not necessary to establish one exact reconstruction in order to recognize that genealogies in the ancient world could be presented according to different purposes. Names could be omitted, lines could be traced according to legal relationships, and genealogical records could emphasize particular claims. A difference between two genealogies therefore becomes a contradiction only if both writers are making the same claim in exactly the same way.

The objection can be stated as follows: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, while Christianity also teaches that there is one God. The classical response distinguishes the meaning of “person” from the meaning of “being” or “essence.”

The Cappadocian Fathers used the terms ousia and hypostasis to express this distinction. Ousia refers to the one divine essence, while hypostasis refers to the distinct persons. The three persons do not each possess one third of the divine nature. Each possesses the one divine essence fully, without dividing it into separate beings. The analogy with created human persons is limited because created natures are not identical to the divine nature.

The doctrine therefore does not teach that there are three divine beings. It teaches one divine being existing eternally as three persons. It also differs from the idea that one person merely appears in three different forms, which the Church historically rejected. The doctrine is difficult to understand because it concerns the unique nature of God, but difficulty should be distinguished from logical contradiction.

Samuel states that the Lord moved David to number Israel, while Chronicles states that Satan incited David. These descriptions do not necessarily refer to two separate events. They can describe divine permission and the immediate agency of a hostile spiritual being.

A similar pattern appears elsewhere in Scripture. God may permit an action while another agent performs it. In the account of Job, for example, Satan acts within limits permitted by God. The account in Chronicles can therefore identify the immediate tempter, while Samuel emphasizes the divine judgment and providence within which the event occurred.

The two accounts can therefore be understood as emphasizing different aspects of the same event. One emphasizes divine judgment and providence, while the other identifies Satan as the immediate tempter. Divine permission and the activity of created agents are not necessarily mutually exclusive in the biblical account.

Matthew names two women, Mark names three, Luke does not specify a number, and John gives particular attention to Mary Magdalene. These differences do not by themselves demonstrate that the accounts are contradictory, because the writers do not claim to provide identical lists of every person present.

The Gospel writers could select particular individuals according to the purpose of their accounts. John’s attention to Mary Magdalene, for example, follows her movements and her interaction with Peter and John. Different accounts can therefore mention different people without claiming that those people were the only individuals present.

If every account contained exactly the same names in exactly the same order, this would not necessarily prove that the accounts were false, but it would provide a different type of historical evidence. Differences in selective reporting are compatible with independent accounts, although they should not by themselves be treated as proof of authenticity.

Numbers teaches that God does not change His mind as human beings do. Genesis describes God as regretting the creation of humanity, and Exodus describes God as relenting from judgment. The interpretation of these passages depends upon the type of language being used and the theological point being made.

The classical Christian explanation appeals to divine immutability. Numbers emphasizes God’s faithfulness to His promises, while passages concerning regret or relenting describe God’s response to changing human circumstances. The change is therefore understood in terms of the relationship between God and creatures rather than as a change in God’s divine nature.

Scripture frequently uses human language to describe divine actions, including anger, regret, and relenting. This allows finite human beings to understand the relationship between an unchanging God and a changing created order. Orthodox theology therefore distinguishes between God’s unchanging essence and His actions toward creatures within time.

This objection arises because the Old Testament contains accounts of judgment and violence, while Jesus teaches love of enemies and mercy. The question is whether these themes are actually inconsistent with one another.

The broader texts of both Testaments contain both mercy and judgment. The Old Testament includes passages describing God’s compassion, including Psalm 103 and the book of Hosea. The New Testament also contains teachings concerning judgment, including several statements from Christ and the descriptions found in Revelation. Both Testaments therefore contain themes of divine mercy and divine judgment, although particular passages may emphasize one more strongly than the other.

The Old and New Testaments can therefore be read as a continuous account of God’s relationship with humanity. The severity of certain Old Testament passages must be understood within their historical and covenantal context, while the New Testament presents the fulfillment of themes already present in the Old Testament. This does not remove every difficulty raised by these passages, and some questions remain matters of serious theological discussion.

The absence of the exact sentence “I am God” does not settle the question. Claims about Jesus’ identity also appear in His actions, His statements concerning Himself, and the responses of those who heard Him.

In Mark 2, Jesus forgives sins and then heals a paralytic, responding to the objection that only God can forgive sins. In John 8:58, Jesus says, “before Abraham was, I am,” a statement connected by many Christian interpreters with the divine name revealed to Moses. At His trial in Mark 14, Jesus responds to the question of whether He is the Christ with language associated with Daniel 7, after which the council treats His statement as blasphemous. These passages form an important part of the Christian argument concerning Jesus’ divine identity.

The Christian argument therefore does not depend upon Jesus using the exact sentence “I am God.” It depends upon the combined significance of His words, actions, and the responses of those around Him. Whether His claim was true is a separate question from whether the Gospel accounts present Him as making such a claim.

The argument begins with the traditional Christian understanding of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. The question is therefore why suffering and evil exist if God possesses these attributes.

One response concerns free will. If human beings are genuinely free, they must have the ability to choose wrongly as well as rightly. A world in which wrongdoing is impossible in every respect would also lack the same kind of moral freedom. This does not explain every form of suffering, but it addresses the role of human wrongdoing in the problem of evil.

For free will to have genuine moral significance, a person must have the ability to choose between alternatives, including the possibility of choosing wrongly. The existence of this possibility does not by itself explain all suffering, but it provides part of the traditional Christian response to moral evil.

The moral argument raises a related question concerning objective morality. If moral values are objectively true, there must be some basis for their truth that is not dependent merely upon individual preference. Theistic arguments identify this foundation with God, while non-theistic moral realists propose other explanations.

Atheism can provide accounts of why suffering occurs, but the philosophical question of why suffering is objectively wrong is different. Many atheists accept objective moral realism and therefore argue that objective moral facts can exist without God. The disagreement concerns what ultimately grounds those facts.

If God already knows what a person will choose tomorrow, it can appear that the person cannot choose otherwise. The traditional response is that certainty of knowledge is not the same as causation. God’s knowledge of an action does not necessarily cause the action to occur.

Knowing that an action will occur is not the same as causing the action. Orthodox thinkers such as St. Maximus the Confessor have emphasized that God does not know events by observing the future as human beings observe events. God knows all times in an eternal act of knowledge. This allows the distinction between divine foreknowledge and the created person’s exercise of freedom.

This distinction does not resolve every question concerning grace, providence, and human freedom. Those subjects have been debated within Christian theology for centuries. It does, however, show that the statement “God knows a future choice, therefore the choice is not free” requires an additional argument establishing that knowledge itself causes the choice.

Orthodox theology teaches that no creature can comprehend God’s essence, while Scripture and the Fathers also speak about human beings knowing God and participating in divine life. The essence and energies distinction is intended to account for both claims.

A common analogy used by the Fathers is fire. The light and heat produced by fire are not a separate substance replacing the fire itself. In Orthodox theology, the divine energies refer to God as He acts and gives Himself to creation. This allows the Church to speak of genuine communion with God, including theosis, while maintaining a distinction between the Creator and the creature.

The distinction is also relevant to discussions of divine simplicity, immutability, and divine action. Orthodox theology uses it to explain how God can remain unchanged in His essence while genuinely acting within creation and being experienced by human beings. The distinction developed through centuries of theological reflection, particularly in the writings associated with St. Gregory Palamas.

A contingent thing is something that exists but does not have to exist. It depends upon conditions or causes outside itself. The contingency argument asks whether the universe as a whole also requires an explanation for why it exists rather than nothing.

The argument from contingency holds that a collection of contingent explanations cannot provide a complete explanation if there is no necessary reality underlying them. A necessary reality would exist by its own nature rather than depending upon something else. Classical theism identifies this necessary foundation with God, not as another object within the universe but as the ground of the universe’s existence.

Even if the argument succeeds, further reasoning is required to establish the personal and specifically Christian understanding of God. The contingency argument is therefore best understood as an argument for a necessary foundation of reality. Its further theological conclusions require additional philosophical or theological arguments.

People who do not believe in God can live moral lives, and this fact does not by itself settle the philosophical question. The issue is whether moral claims are objectively true and, if they are, what explains their objective status.

The moral argument begins with the claim that objective moral values and duties exist. A naturalistic worldview may explain the development of human moral instincts through evolution and social cooperation, but this is different from explaining why a moral claim is objectively true. Theistic versions of the argument ground moral obligation in the character of a necessarily existing and perfectly good God.

The argument is contested. Secular moral realists argue that objective moral facts can exist without God, while other philosophers reject the existence of objective moral values altogether or explain them in different ways. The important question is therefore not whether atheists can be moral, but which account provides the strongest explanation of objective moral obligation.

For Aquinas, “motion” means change rather than merely movement through space. Something changes from potentiality to actuality because something already actual causes that change.

Aquinas reasons that each changer depends upon something prior that is already actual. The argument concerns the present order of causation rather than an infinitely long sequence of historical events. Aquinas argues that this series cannot consist entirely of dependent changers without a first unmoved cause, because each member would otherwise depend upon another source for its actuality.

Aquinas identifies the first unmoved mover with God. This should not be understood simply as the first event in a temporal chain. The argument concerns the cause upon which the present order of change depends, rather than an event that occurred at the beginning of time.

The argument establishes, if its premises are accepted, an unmoved mover rather than every attribute of the God of Christian revelation. Aquinas treats the First Way as one part of a broader philosophical case. The argument also depends upon Aristotelian concepts of potentiality and actuality, which remain subjects of philosophical debate.

An efficient cause is that which produces an effect. A carpenter produces a chair, while fire produces heat. Because nothing can produce itself, caused things depend upon causes that are distinct from themselves.

If every caused thing depends upon another cause, the argument asks whether this series can regress without a first efficient cause. Aquinas argues that it cannot, because the effects further down the series would lack an ultimate source of causation. The argument therefore concludes that there must be an uncaused efficient cause.

The Second Way is related to the contingency argument but asks a different question. The contingency argument asks why contingent things exist, while the argument from efficient causation asks what produces an effect. Aquinas concludes that the series of efficient causes ultimately depends upon a first uncaused cause, which classical Christian theology identifies with God.

As with the First Way, the argument establishes an uncaused cause only if its premises and reasoning are accepted. Further arguments are required to establish that this cause is personal, triune, and identical with the God described by Christian revelation.

Anselm begins with the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being. He argues that a being existing in reality is greater than a being existing only as an idea, and therefore concludes that God must exist.

The modern modal version, associated with Alvin Plantinga, defines God as a maximally great being whose power, knowledge, and goodness are maximal in every possible world. If such a being is possible, then it exists in at least one possible world. Because maximal greatness includes necessary existence, the being would then exist in every possible world, including the actual world.

The argument has received several objections. Gaunilo famously argued that similar reasoning could be used to establish the existence of a perfect island. Defenders of the ontological argument respond that an island does not possess an intrinsic maximum in the same way that the concept of maximal greatness is intended to apply to God.

The principal point of dispute in the modal argument is its possibility premise. If the existence of a maximally great being is genuinely possible, the subsequent modal reasoning is intended to lead to necessary existence. Critics therefore focus heavily on whether the initial possibility claim can be established independently.

William Paley’s classical version compares the ordered parts of a watch with the apparent order of nature and argues that such order points toward a designer. Modern versions of the argument generally focus on the physical constants and conditions of the universe rather than biological organisms alone.

The modern fine-tuning argument concerns physical quantities such as the strength of gravity, the mass of the proton, and the cosmological constant. The argument holds that certain ranges of these values appear to permit the formation of stars, chemistry, and life, while other values would not. The philosophical question is whether this apparent fine-tuning requires an explanation beyond the physical universe itself.

Several explanations have been proposed. A theistic explanation appeals to a designing intelligence. A multiverse explanation proposes that many universes with different physical constants may exist, making it unsurprising that at least one permits life. Other responses question whether the degree of fine-tuning has been established as strongly as the argument sometimes assumes.

The force of the argument therefore depends upon how these competing explanations are assessed. The existence of a multiverse has not been directly observed, while the designer hypothesis raises its own philosophical questions. Both positions remain subjects of debate among philosophers and physicists.

The argument therefore has two principal premises: whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist. If both premises are true, the conclusion follows that the universe has a cause. Much of the philosophical debate concerns whether the premises are justified.

The first premise is supported by the ordinary observation that things which begin to exist have causes. The argument then asks whether the universe itself could be an exception and begin to exist without a cause. Critics may challenge whether causal principles that apply within the universe can necessarily be applied to the origin of the universe as a whole.

The second premise is supported by both scientific and philosophical considerations. The standard Big Bang model describes a universe with a finite age in its observable history, while philosophical arguments have been offered against the existence of an actually infinite series of past events. These arguments remain subjects of debate.

If both premises are accepted, the argument concludes that the universe has a cause beyond space, time, and matter. This does not by itself establish every attribute of the Christian God. Some defenders argue that a personal cause is a better explanation for a finite beginning than an impersonal mechanism whose conditions would have existed eternally, while critics dispute whether this additional inference succeeds.

Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared to more than 500 people and that many of those witnesses were still alive when he wrote. No independent surviving source confirms the event. This limitation should be acknowledged when assessing the historical argument.

The absence of independent corroboration does not by itself establish that the claim is false. Much of the surviving evidence for ancient history comes from a limited number of surviving sources, while many earlier documents have been lost. Paul’s letter is also relatively early compared with many other ancient historical sources, while the creed preserved in 1 Corinthians 15 is commonly regarded by many scholars as originating very early in the Christian movement.

It is also important to consider what type of evidence could reasonably be expected to survive. Roman administrative records do not provide detailed accounts of the religious experiences of small groups of people in provincial regions. Surviving Roman references to Christianity appear later and generally concern the existence or treatment of Christians rather than providing independent verification of specific resurrection claims.

The evidence therefore does not establish the claim by itself. What remains is an early Christian source that reports a large group of witnesses, without independent confirmation or contradiction. It should therefore be treated as one historical piece of evidence among others rather than as a complete proof of the resurrection.

The claim that the disciples experienced visions is different from the claim that nothing happened after Jesus’ death. The question is therefore whether the historical evidence is better explained by visions alone or by the Christian claim that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

The empty tomb is one difficulty for a purely visionary explanation. If Jesus’ body remained in the tomb, producing the body could have provided a straightforward challenge to the earliest resurrection proclamation. The historical question is therefore whether the empty tomb tradition is sufficiently early and reliable to form part of the explanation.

The Gospel accounts emphasize the bodily nature of the resurrection. Luke describes the risen Jesus eating with His disciples, while John describes His interaction with Thomas. At the same time, the accounts describe unusual properties associated with the risen body. The Christian claim is therefore not simply that Jesus returned to ordinary biological life, but that His body was transformed.

Paul’s description of a “spiritual body” in 1 Corinthians 15 is sometimes interpreted as referring to a non-physical existence. In Paul’s terminology, however, “spiritual” can describe what animates or characterizes the body rather than its material composition. Paul contrasts the natural body with the spiritual body, which allows the passage to be understood as describing a transformed bodily existence rather than a bodiless spirit.