On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God

by Matthew Barrett, Tom Parks (reader)

Modern theology claimed that it ignited a renaissance in trinitarian theology. Really, it has been a renaissance in social trinitarianism. Classical commitments like divine simplicity have been jettisoned, the three persons have been redefined as three centers of consciousness and will, and modern agendas in politics, gender, and ecclesiology determine the terms of the discussion. Contemporary trinitarian theology has followed the spirit of this trajectory, rejecting doctrines like eternal generation which were once a hallmark of Nicene orthodoxy and reintroducing subordinationism into the Trinity.

Motivated by the longstanding need to retrieve the classical doctrine of the Trinity, theologian Matthew Barrett brings together Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox scholars to intervene in the conversation. With over forty contributions, this ecumenical volume resurrects the enduring legacy of Nicene orthodoxy, providing a theological introduction that listens with humility to the Great Tradition.

The distinct yet united voices of On Classical Trinitarianism summon the next generation to move past modern revisionism for the sake of renewing classical trinitarian theology today. Together, they demonstrate that Nicene orthodoxy can endure in the modern world and unite the church catholic.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity

1 pages, Audio CD

Published October 1, 2024

About the author

Matthew Barrett (MDiv, PhD, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is associate professor of Christian theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and the executive editor of Credo Magazine. He is the author of numerous books, including God's Word Alone, 40 Questions about Salvation, Reformation Theology, John Owen on the Christian Life, and Salvation by Grace. He is also the host of the Credo podcast where he talks with fellow theologians about the most important doctrines of the faith. He lives in Kansas City.

Reviews

[Samuel G. Parkison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally finished working my way through this mammoth. A real treasure, and not just because of chapter 39 😎

[Hobart · Rating 5 out of 5]

This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
WHAT DOES THE COVER SAY ABOUT THIS?
There's no way that I can do this justice easily, so I'll just borrow the Publisher's Website's copy:
Modern theology claimed that it ignited a renaissance in trinitarian theology. Really, it has been a renaissance in social trinitarianism.

Classical commitments like divine simplicity have been jettisoned, the three persons have been redefined as three centers of consciousness and will, and modern agendas in politics, gender, and ecclesiology determine the terms of the discussion. Contemporary trinitarian theology has followed the spirit of this trajectory, rejecting doctrines like eternal generation which were once a hallmark of Nicene orthodoxy and reintroducing subordinationism into the Trinity.

Motivated by the longstanding need to retrieve the classical doctrine of the Trinity, theologian Matthew Barrett brings together Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox scholars to intervene in the conversation. With over forty contributions, this ecumenical volume resurrects the enduring legacy of Nicene orthodoxy, providing a theological introduction that listens with humility to the Great Tradition.

In On Classical Trinitarianism, you find contributions from a wide range of scholars, including:

Katherin Rogers
Andrew Louth
Gilles Emery
Steven Duby
Gavin Ortlund
Adonis Vidu
Carl Trueman
Matthew Levering
Fred Sanders
Scott Swain
Karen Kilby
Amy Peeler
Thomas Joseph White

The distinct yet united voices of On Classical Trinitarianism summon the next generation to move past modern revisionism for the sake of renewing classical trinitarian theology today. Together, they demonstrate that Nicene orthodoxy can endure in the modern world and unite the church catholic.

DO NOT FOLLOW MY EXAMPLE HERE
I read this (until the last week or so) at a rate of 1-2 chapters a day (with the occasional day of 3 or 4 chapters) in a vain attempt to finish the book in under a month, so I could post about it before release day.

This should be read much slower—it wouldn't hurt to read each chapter at the same pace I did, but only one at a time. Then you should go back and read it again, slower this time—maybe taking notes—and maybe one more time after that before moving on. That's how I'm going to do it next time.

One thing I think I did do right was that I read this from front to back. Generally, this book builds from chapter to chapter. The first part, in particular, "Retrieving Nicene Trinitarianism" should be read before the rest—those 11 chapters dive deep into the historical material—with an emphasis on the first few centuries of the Church.

HIGHLIGHTS AND LOWLIGHTS
Frequently when I talk about a book like this I'll talk about the highlights, the chapters I liked more, or I thought were more convincing than others. And I'll mention the ones that weren't so successful in my eyes.

I don't think I can do that with this one—they were all great. Some were more interesting than others, but...that's really an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing and will probably vary each time I read the book. Some touched on things I've been reading lately, some were authors I wanted to read/read more of. That kind of thing.

Instead, I'll talk about the difficulty in reading. Chapter 2, The Nicene Creed: Foundation of Orthodoxy could be given to any High School class. Carl Trueman's "Reforming the Trinity? The Collapse of Classical Metaphysics and the Protestant Identity Crisis," was only a little tougher. And the final chapter, Michael Horton's "Biblicism and Heterodoxy: Nicene Orthodoxy, Ecclesiastical Accountability, and Institutional Fidelity," was also pretty accessible.

Chapter 6 "Maximos and John Damascene: Mid-Byzantine Reception of Nicea" was so filled with Greek that I couldn't get much out of it. But "The Unbegotten Father", Chapter 22, was also Greek-rich, and I struggled, but I did get a lot out of it (but would translations in the footnotes have been so bad?). I thought Chapter 17, "Three Persons, One Will" was pretty hard reading, too—but so, so helpful. I don't know if anything topped Chapter 6, but Chapter 25 "No Impassibility, No Eternal Generation: Retrieving a Pro-Nicene Distinctive" maybe came close. But it's also one of my favorite chapters.

The rest of the chapters are somewhere in between those extremes, closer to the latter than the former set. None are unapproachable for the non-professional. But you do need to be prepared for some struggles.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT ON CLASSICAL TRINITARIANISM?
I loved this book. I've been talking with friends about it for weeks (actually, some of us started talking about it months ago). It's a real blessing for The Church and individual believers.

I learned so, so much—and know when I read it more slowly, I'll learn so much more. I have notes throughout about looking into this idea or that idea some more. There are also a handful of books from the footnotes that I need to go buy (and that handful will likely multiply on my next read). I got some clarification on positions I already held or leaned toward—and I'm more convinced of them all now, and can explain them better. I was confronted by ideas I hadn't reckoned with before—or ways of looking at tried and true subjects that I hadn't considered before, and now can't help but see everywhere.

I think the critiques of Social Trinitarianism, Eternal Functional Subordinationism (and related positions), attacks on Eternal Generation or the Impassibility of God and so on were so valuable—and the wide range of chapters and topics that led to them shows how large an impact these positions can have—and the way they are out of step with pro-Nicene Theology.

This book takes work—and it should—but it's worth every ounce of effort you expend. You will be rewarded for your efforts—I have been already, and I took the easy way through it. I'll be returning to these pages again and again—I heartily recommend this and encourage you to give it a read.

9.5 out of 5 stars. (It loses a half star for all the untranslated Greek)

Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from IVP Academic—thanks to both for this.

[Derrick Kenyon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible. Barrett gathers an impressive lineup of contributors who provide excellent articles on the doctrine of God. This book was a delight to read. Highly recommend.

[Alex McEwen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review coming soon, but I need to digest this one a little bit

[Richard Lawrence]

... in the end finishing this felt a bit too much like a task. I'll aim to write up more detailed comments later, some chapters are brilliant some a bit meh. Other reviewers disagree but I don't think it hangs together as a set that well and I wouldn't recommend it as a standard reference work or textbook.

[Jess Moss · Rating 5 out of 5]

Frankly, I didn’t know so much goodness, truth, and beauty pertaining to the Trinity could be extrapolated from the Scriptures.
Color me edified

- “Exegesis without dogmatics… obedience to the Enlightenment dictum that we must never read dogma into the Bible. It assumes that we can start the exegetical process with no theological presuppositions whatsoever.”

- “The persons of the Trinity are not so reciprocal and symmetrical that they are interchangeable. There is a distinct ‘directionality’ to the personal relations—what is traditionally called the ‘relations of origin’—that cannot be sacrificed at the altar of promoting egalitarianism in the Trinity and in human society.”

[Noah Lykins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Classical Trinitarianism clearly, historically, scripturally, and creedally defines the Trinity using vocabulary from Nicene-Constantinopolitan wisdom to retrieve the immanent/ontological doctrine of God. Long story short; acknowledging the distinctions of relation between the coequal persons of the Trinity is best done by holding to the Father’s eternal paternity, the Son’s eternal generation/filiation, and the Holy Spirit’s eternal spiration. Process theology, Open theism, and Biblicism fall short of understanding Scripture by framing theology inside the confines of revisionist social agenda.

Some of my favorite, key quotes:

114: “Distinctions between divine persons are grounded in eternal relations of origin.”

118: “…the doctrine of the Trinity is, first and foremost, an intimate and personal doctrine… to engage the heart by arresting the mind with the divinely related persons of the Trinity and their indivisible work…”

261: “Critics of the strong doctrine of simplicity sometimes misconstrue it as claiming there are no distinctions in God. If this characterization were true then simplicity would be utterly incompatible with an orthodox view of the Trinity.”

345: “…to interpret properly the scriptural use of “Word” or “Son” one must do so as dogmatically defined by Nicea’s homoousion.”

422: on the phrase before all ages - “Begetting is something that took place before every one of the aeons, a Greek word that certainly emphasizes the notion of temporality but also has a fully cosmic scope. Its function here is clear: begetting is a kind of action that does not take place within any of the aeons… It is before them, not just another aeon earlier in a sequence, but in a qualitatively transcendent way. The anti-subordinationist thrust of the phrase is evident: there was no time when the Son did not exist, and no time when the Father had not begotten him.”

448: “Protestant evangelicals today have presented themselves as a sure refuge against the tide of modernism, noted most of all by their self-conscious adherence to biblical authority. However, their departure from the historic Protestant confessional heritage on perfections like impassibility reveals an irony—indeed, a profound inconsistency: the influx of modern theology in the Protestant evangelical camp is deep, penetrating doctrines of first importance to Christian orthodoxy, including the doctrine of God. Claim as they will that they are anti-modernist, they have not abided by the classical confession of God that modernism opposes. They have presented a picture of God that resembles modern theology's theistic personalism and mutualism, however unwitting may be their intention.”

463: “If we are going to measure all things by comprehension and suppose that that which is incomprehensible to our reasoning does not exist at all, the reward of our faith will be gone, the reward of hope will be gone.”

542 & 543: “As we grow in love and knowledge of God, "The appropriated names neither explain nor dissipate the mystery, but rather give an inkling of the mystery in an indirect way, as in a mirror. while waiting for the beatific vision." Thus, divine incomprehensibility always serves as a spiritual disciplinary measure for the proper deployment of our pro-Nicene grammar… we confess that the Persons are fully realized in their immanent processions and relations of origin, and the practice of appropriation thereby functions to manifest their prior modes of subsistence, but it cannot constitute the eternal triune relations that are already complete in and of themselves.”

⭐️ 623: “Kant and Hegel, and those who follow in the wake of their metaphysical revolution, reject the idea that the biblical doctrine of God is the true starting point for all science and philosophy. Theology in the last two centuries has been done in the context of the following metaphysical constraints: reason operates independently of faith, naturalism is true, nominalism is the way things are, knowledge of things in themselves is impossible so knowledge of the natures of things is impossible, nothing has a fixed nature, all is in flux, and progress is only possible through reason devising social structures that facilitate human freedom. This is the philosophical context in which the supposed renaissance of trinitarian theology took place in the twentieth century. It was not really a renaissance of the Nicene tradition because it occurred within the context of this grand revision of metaphysics. The reason so much of twentieth-century trinitarian theology is not Nicene is not that it denies the reality of the three persons; it affirms the three persons vigorously. The reason it is not Nicene is that it fails to affirm the oneness of the transcendent Creator by identifying the persons with the one God of both Israel and classical theism.”

641: “Another way to define “biblicism” would be to say that it is exegesis without dogmatics. It is obedience to the Enlightenment dictum that we must never read dogma into the Bible. It assumes that we can start the exegetical process with no theological presuppositions whatsoever.”

663: “The persons of the Trinity are not so reciprocal and symmetrical that they are interchangeable. There is a distinct "directionality" to the personal relations—what is traditionally called the
"relations of origin"—that cannot be sacrificed at the altar of promoting egalitarianism in the Trinity and in human society.”

675: “There is also this sense of rebelling against the Middle Ages and the scholastics. Luther is reacting against the via moderna, the theological approach in which he was trained. Calvin is reacting against the men of the Sorbonne school. Both have a desire to get rid of that gobbledygook metaphysical language and the confidence that simply laying out the Bible will be sufficient to carry orthodoxy forward. But that proves a false hope, and eventually metaphysical language reappears in their corpus within their lifetime because they realize that such language does something important. That is, the doctrine of the Trinity depends upon the kind of finely tuned language developed by the Cappadocian fathers and the scholastics of the Middle Ages in order for it to be stable and coherent.”

716: “Because he (Jesus) was not required to die, but honored God by remaining obedient (in his human nature), though he knew he would be killed for it, he earned a reward, which was passed on to us as justification. In contrast, if in all acts the Father commands and the Son submits, the logic of satisfaction falls apart. Any command by God results in an obligation to obey, so if the Son's death was not a human action in harmony with inseparable divine action but was rather a distinct filial act of submission to the Father's command, then the Son's death was nothing but that which he was obligated to fulfill for his own righteousness' sake. Earning no reward, he would thus not have earned our justification. From a Reformed perspective, the same principle can be extended into the voluntary active obedience of Christ throughout his incarnate ministry, for the purpose of the incarnation was, in part, the Son's voluntary acceptance of Adam's federal role, substituting his obedience for Adam's sin. If the Son was already subject to the requirements of the covenant, it is not clear how he could fulfill it for Adam."

⭐️ 734: “Regardless of how someone like Rahner may have intended for his rule to function, in the hands of Ware and other social trinitarians, it has seriously minimized (if not erased) the categorical distinctions between who God is in himself and what God does in time. This methodological commitment is what Ware has in common with other theological revisionists like Isaak Dorner or Jürgen Moltmann, and it coinheres with an ambivalence for metaphysics and a projection of the Trinity's economy back up onto the Trinity's ontology. Incidentally, this is why it is virtually impossible for theologians who embrace EFS to meaningfully retain classical doctrines like divine immutability and simplicity: the impulse to project God's economy up onto God's ad intra life leads consistently to a revision not only of triune relations, but of theology proper wholesale.”

743: “Of course, this does not mean that God became triune, nor does it mean that we do not have warrant to go back to the Old Testament in light of the New in order to recognize the adumbrations of the Trinity there. It is simply to affirm there is no trinitarian dogma without the incarnation and Pentecost, because without the incarnation and Pentecost, the church would not know God to be triune. This may be simple enough for Christians who have inherited two millennia of creedal and confessional trinitarianism, but for ancient Jewish monotheism it was rightly received as a shock. If we are to develop a dogmatic account of the divine missions," Butner reminds us, "we must begin from a position of surprise, returning to the scandal and stumbling block of the salvific work of God (1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Peter 2:8)."

746: “Every classical theologian agrees that God does not spare the divine Son in the gospel. We affirm the singularity of the Subject: everything that happens to Christ in the economy happens to the divine Son. That is not controversial. But classical theologians— in step with orthodox councils like Chalcedon further elaborate that it is the divine Son in virtue of his human nature who is not spared.”

Two lil nit picks:

1. General index is unfortunately very limited in scope. It leaves out many important terms that would be SO helpful for future reference (leaves out dyothelitism, projectionism, theologians referenced in the text and in footnotes, various heresies like Nestorianism). I anticipate referencing this book in the future and I wish there was more to work with here. I’ve underlined, circled, annotated, and highlighted each chapter like crazy, hopefully this will suffice.

2. The authors seem to miss out on responding to other highly relevant critiques of classical trin. outside of EFS/ERAS. I wonder if some of the attacks against Nicene vocabulary are still in their infancy (in adoption by laity especially) and if the more complex, highly intellectual criticisms will soon be making their way into the mainstream theology as EFS has. One example is a logical argument against divine simplicity, called Modal Collapse (propagated by Mullins and Hasker). This idea is overshadowed in CT by repeatedly kicking Grudem, Ware, and Frame. I understand this book can’t address everything that distorted evangelicalism is throwing at orthodoxy — but I think this project would benefit from a follow up at some point. Who knows, maybe Barrett’s systematic will go deeper here. 🤞🏼

To close - enjoy this brief summary of the great story that drove me to read this chunky book. From chapter 39:

“…justification is the sturdy foundation upon which redemption lies, and communion in the beatific vision shines as redemption's telos. Within this framework, penal substitution harmonizes well Christus Victor, recapitulation, and the participatory and restorative elements of salvation. Gregory of Nazianzus said, "That which He has not assumed He has not healed," and the Protestant-Reformed tradition agrees. Despite what some may insist upon, a Reformed soteriology is able to synthesize the biblical descriptions of forensic justification in order to cohere with, and make sense of, this "healing," To summarize, in Adam, all humanity is corrupted, dead, guilty, put under subjection to sin and the powers of darkness, and fallen; but in Christ, a new humanity is healed, resurrected, declared righteous, liberated from sin and the powers of darkness, and restored to participatory fellowship with God. This happens through the life, death, descent, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Whereas Adam broke covenant with his God, and therefore condemned himself and his posterity, God the Son intervened by taking on the form of a new Adam to keep covenant with God on behalf of his posterity. Key soteriological elements involved in justification are therefore (a) covenant, (b) federal headship, and (c) active and passive obedience. Fallen humanity needed a covenant head to obey on our behalf where Adam and Israel (and every other Old Testament "Adam") failed to obey on our behalf. Fallen humanity needed both the passive obedience of one who could bear up under the consequence of our (and our head's) covenant breaking (i.e., suffering and death, and fallen humanity also needed the active obedience of one who could keep covenant with God and thereby secure the blessings of covenant keeping. This, only God could do because of sin's ubiquitous impact on all humanity, and this, only man could do because of the covenantal shape of the task. Thus, the God-man Jesus Christ. When covenant-breakers are united to Christ by faith, the redemption that Christ accomplished in the historia salutis is applied personally by the Spirit. This application of redemption accomplished includes, as Calvin called it, the "duplex gratia" —the double grace-of justification and sanctification, with the latter logically rooted in the former. Thus, we are "healed" in Christ at every level-both declaratively at the forensic level, and progressively at the mystical level, whereby we are transformed into Christ forever.”

[Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms · Rating 5 out of 5]

InterVarsity Press sent me a copy of "On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God" ed. Matthew Barrett in exchange for an honest review.

2025 marks the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. Yet many modern evangelicals have either rejected or forgotten the essential truths enshrined in the creed. This magnificent volume seeks to remedy that by collecting 40 essays that together form a robust defense of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The presentation is excellent. It looks great on the shelf and feels great in the hand. The pages are a double-column format, which makes sense because, as is, the volume is 781 pages. The essays are written by a diverse array of scholars, representing various theological traditions and institutions. It goes to show that despite our differences, theology proper (as beautifully expressed in the Nicene Creed) is a truly ecumenical concern. Given the length and detail of the arguments, this book is a serious undertaking, one not for the faint of heart. Nevertheless, it ought at very least to be essential reading for our church leaders. On the whole, I heartily recommend this book as a terrific defense of the Christian view of God.

[Wyatt Brandt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Massive. Multi-faceted picture and defense of classical trinitarianism. A lot was over my head, but I learned a ton. They’re individual essays, so a lot was repeated. I was familiar with Grudem and Ware’s eternal functional subordinationism (EFS) or eternal relations of authority and submission (ERAS). I also knew of some of the social models that describe the persons as three distinct centers of consciousness from people like Moltmann, but learned of some new ones like Volf and Lane Craig. It increased my confidence in the classical view of Nicaea and I will definitely return for reference.

Chapters I was the most helped by:

34. Renaissance or Revision? Metaphysical Departures from Classical Trinitarian Theism (Craig A. Carter)

17. Three Persons, One Will (Stephen J. Wellum)

29. Trinity and Appropriations: Meaning, Practice, and Significance (Josh Malone)

40. Biblicism and Heterodoxy: Nicene Orthodoxy, Ecclesiastical Accountability, and Institutional Fidelity (Michael Horton)

[Aaron J. Gregas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very helpful volume of classical theism. There are many great essays throughout. Iron’s on Eternal Generation and Horton’s on Biblicism is worth the price of the book.

[Michael Kenan Baldwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having thought I'd just be dipping into this, I quickly realised this book was better than I had expected. Of course the line up is extremely impressive, featuring outstanding historical theologians like Andrew Louth & Gilles Emery. But often unwieldy edited books of essays like this fail to come together and for various reasons I wasn't confident this would be any different. What emerges is a chorus of high-level, historically-grounded, theologically careful & insightful chapters on the trinity robustly rejecting both social trinitarianism and any attempts to introduce hierarchy or functional subordination in place of Nicene trinitarianism. The main weakness is the lack of philosophical engagement with critics of e.g. eternal generation.

The contributions by Fred Sanders, James Dolezal & Glenn Butner underline their status as the real deal among evangelicals today and among the few to approach philosophical problems. Perhaps the two best chapters, however, were by writers I'd never heard of before: John Baptist Ku's 'The Unbegotten Father' was absolutely outstanding, and Josh Malone's 'Trinity & Appropriation' was not far behind.

With the exception of the chapter on Anselm which rehearses Barth's implausible interpretation (Anselm is doing the opposite of what he says he's doing), the first section on history is stellar. Fairbairn charts how Tertullian landed on or coined the key Latin vocabulary that would take far longer to fix in the Greek world, but he neglects divine sonship, struggling to distinguish the Son & Spirit from the Father in eternity. Origen was the first figure to plumb the depths of divine sonship & begetting, yet leaves the Son looking suspiciously subordinate & almost an eternal creature. Amy Brown Hughes & Shawn Wilhite bring out neglected writings of Athanasius: De Decretis & Letters to Serapion, while Carl L. Beckwith shows how Hilary of Poitiers is the first theologian to spell out in detailed exegesis the proper meaning of John 5:19. Keith E. Johnson's chapter argues persuasively that Colin Gunton was wrong to rail against Augustine's teaching of the trinity. In a similar vein, Katherin Rogers' chapter is a steely rebuke of William Hasker's practically polytheistic social trinity.

The introduction and chapters by Kurtz, Ortlund & Carter can be skipped without loss. Most disturbing was Karen Kilby's suggestion that the doctrine of the trinity is not "a descriptive, first-order teaching....of the way God really is. It can instead be taken as grammatical...for how to read the biblical stories....how to think and talk about the experience of prayer...important as a kind of structuring principle of Christianity...not because it gives a picture of what God is like in se."
That should tell you everything you need to know about the brand of theology called 'radical orthodoxy' pioneered by the likes of John Milbank. But it should also make contemporary evangelicals reconsider more deeply the conception of doctrine as 'grammar'.

The author granted the most space is Thomas Weinandy: here he addresses impassibility & the Trinity with trademark authority but seems to skate past all patristic scholarship of the last 20 years. Charles Lee Irons makes an exegetical case for monogenes meaning 'only begotten', not 'one and only'. But I wasn't hugely convinced because of something that gives me real pause: this week I noticed for the first time that the Latin Apostles' Creed translates monogenes with 'unicum' not 'natus' or 'genitum'. One to think about!

Elsewhere, Thomas Joseph White gives a balanced critique of Barth's trinitarianism, as Adonis Vidu does of Eastern Orthodoxy's pneumatology. Holmes number 1 explains the profundity of why the Holy Spirit never says "I". Carl Trueman's chapter is very accessible & enjoyable to read, while Michael Horton closes the book by cutting into the biblicism of John Frame, and he does it with panache.

[Jimmy Reagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The subtitle “Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God” tells what we have here. Forty authors giving forty articles covers that subject from every vantage point imaginable. The list of authors is something of a who’s-who as well. Still, it’s a book more likely to have one pick and choose which articles to read rather than reading cover to cover. It’s an incredibly learned resource.

It’s something of a polemic too. These authors are passionate for Nicene Doctrine, perhaps to a fault. I say that because you’d think that it would moor itself to Scripture first and then show how Nicene doctrine is true to Scripture. You would also think it would call for allegiance to Scripture rather than the writings of the Nicene Council. I think the case could probably be made, so why not make it? Here it was just assumed. Still, some of us feel that there are times that Greek philosophy has too much influence, and that viewpoint would never be accepted in this book.

Along the same lines, deep doctrinal understanding is assumed. A newer Christian trying to learn doctrine would not need to begin here. This book is for those already a bit seasoned in theology.

After those caveats, this book is a tremendous resource. There are so many articles that give such opportunity to wrestle with these great things. Several I read had some things that I would not fully agree with, but they gave excellent opportunity to hone my thinking. There were several articles that really interested me, and were quite helpful to me, addressing what has become the battle between classical trinitarianism and social trinitarianism. For the record, I would lean toward classical trinitarianism.

This book will be quoted for years. I simply can’t think of another book on trinitarianism that comes close to this volume in depth. It is a treasure trove of learning. If you can’t learn from this book, you aren’t even trying.

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

[Aaron Carlberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

My oh my...this is one of those books that you buy thinking you will "get through it" and move on. No way, this will be one of my reference works for a long time. Outlining errors in how we think about God is important to knowing who we worship (and why).

On a side note, I am more impressed every time I read something Matthew Barret puts out (he is the editor, but also the co-author of chapter 30). IMHO chapters 18, 39, and 40 are the best.

Anyway, great job all authors, and looking forward the next thing Barret does (after I finally finish The Reformation as Renewal...that's a hefty read as well).

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is if not an exhaustive at the very least a comprehensive defense of classical trinitarianism, to be distinguished from social trinitarianism. This book will be a good primer for the beginner (with some work) as it covers the range of historical, systematic and contemporary theology. It also has some insights throughout for the more advanced reader of the book. While there will likely be more like these, this is really all one needs for a full-throated defense of classical trinitarianism. Feel free to take a gander at my review through Westminster Journal in the coming months for more details.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rating: 4.5 / 5 ⭐

Probably 75-80% of this was over my head and listening to the audiobook, likely did not help with my reading comprehension. However, I found this collection of essays incredibly interesting, uplifting, and empowering and it has helped renew my convictions and desire to affirm the Nicene Creed holding fast to Orthodoxy. At times this did feel like a bit of a hit piece on Wayne Grudem and other social trinitarian proponents, but ultimately, I would agree that they deserve it.

[Aidan LeCompte · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book provides an extremely comprehensive analysis of trinitarian thought, how it developed, and how it has changed in modern times. The writers make a strong case for Christianity to return to Nicene orthodoxy, challenging social trinitarianism, eternal functional subordination, and process theology. This book challenged the way that I think about God and understand His triune nature. This is such a timely book and a must read for those who have the time needed to take on such a work.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolute treasure-trove. There is some range of stylistic quality, but the level of technicality, expertise and research is consistently high. The reader of this book gains a profound understanding of the history, the dogmatics, and current-day relevance of Nicene thought.

Full video review here: https://youtu.be/eQdmLrBgycY

[Anna Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read while kids were gone and Matt was teaching at a men’s conference…plus in and off the rest of the month! So helpful