The Trinity – Delusion or Truth? – A Defense of the Trinity Doctrine against one form of Unitarianism

Rooted in the first seven ecumenical councils of the undivided Church

1. Authority of the Undivided Church

I affirm the doctrinal authority of the first seven ecumenical councils on historical grounds: these councils were received by the undivided Church before the East–West schism of 1054, and they express the universal Christian consensus on the foundational doctrines of the faith. The majority of Christians worldwide — Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant traditions — still affirm these councils. In this sense, I affirm the authority of the Church to define doctrine for the faithful during the period when it was united, without taking a confessional stance on later developments.

2. The Trinity

I affirm the Trinitarian faith expressed in the early creeds: one God in three Persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

On the filioque clause, I do not take a confessional stance. Scripture speaks of the Spirit being sent by both the Father and the Son, and also of the Spirit proceeding from the Father. I recognize that the Greek and Latin traditions use the word “proceed” differently, and that both expressions of Trinitarian theology are historically legitimate. My aim is to welcome readers from Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and Protestant backgrounds without elevating this difference into a barrier to fellowship or understanding.

3. Christology: One Person, Fully God and Fully Man

I affirm the shared Christological faith expressed by both the 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) and the 4th Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon).

Ephesus, following St. Cyril of Alexandria, taught the formula “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” emphasizing the unity of Christ’s Person against Nestorian interpretations of “two natures” that tended toward a two‑Person Christ.

Chalcedon taught that Christ is “one Person in two natures, divine and human, united without confusion or division,” emphasizing the full reality of Christ’s humanity and divinity against Eutychian interpretations that blurred the distinction.

These formulas are not contradictory; they express complementary aspects of the same truth. Even those who prefer the Coptic formula acknowledge that “one nature fully God and fully man” necessarily implies the full reality of Christ’s divinity and humanity. Likewise, those who affirm Chalcedon recognize that Cyril’s formula safeguards the unity of Christ’s Person.

I do not deny either expression, because human language ultimately falls short of describing the mystery of the Incarnation. Both formulas point to the same truth: Jesus Christ is one divine Person who is fully God and fully man.

4. Theotokos (Mother of God)

I affirm the title “Mother of God” (Theotokos) as defined at Ephesus. This wording safeguards the unity of Christ’s Person: the one born of Mary is the same Person who is God.

I recognize that some Christians hesitate to use this title not because it is false, but because it can be misunderstood as implying that Mary is divine or the source of Christ’s divinity. My aim is to affirm the underlying truth while welcoming Christians from all traditions who express that truth in different ways.

5. Scripture and the Faith of the Early Church

I affirm the authority of Scripture as the inspired witness to God’s revelation and the foundation of Christian doctrine.

I also affirm the early creeds — the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the definitions of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (681), and Nicaea II (787) — as faithful expressions of the biblical faith.

6. Later Doctrinal Developments

I do not deny Catholic doctrine, but I cannot in conscience affirm certain later doctrinal developments as infallibly defined. My stance is one of principled non‑affirmation rather than rejection, grounded in Scripture and the witness of the early Church. I welcome readers from all Christian traditions who share the historic faith of the undivided Church.

7. Purpose of My Work

My apologetics work seeks to defend historic Christian orthodoxy and engage respectfully with Jewish, Unitarian, and other non‑Trinitarian arguments. My aim is to present a thoughtful, Scripture‑centered perspective that is faithful to the earliest Christian witness while remaining open to dialogue with all Christian traditions.