What do you think?
Rate this book
One God, Three Persons, Four Views: A Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Dialogue on the Doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity has become synonymous with mystery in the minds of many. How is it best understood? Is it logically coherent, or is it contradictory? In this book, four leading scholars take up these and other questions about the Trinity in a multidisciplinary approach spanning biblical studies, historical theology, and philosophy. Each puts forth his own view, then in turn defends it from critiques. The result is a wide-ranging, in-depth but accessible look at the doctrinal heart of the Christian faith.
376 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 31, 2024
10 people are currently reading
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 24, 2025
First of all, many thanks to Wipf and Stock Publishers for providing a review copy in .pdf format, and to my friend Esteban for actually buying me an original Kindle version. I 100% recommend this book to anyone looking for a fresh and modern approach to the Trinity discussions that have been around for thousands of years.
This book will be my go-to source for my Trinity studies and discussions for many years to come—and it has to be, because I admittedly did not comprehend or digest every single argument and detail completely.
In recent years, I have found myself leaning more towards "Social Trinitarianism" due to the great impact and influence of William Lane Craig on my apologetics journey and ministry. However, though he was the most difficult to understand and follow among the authors, Beau Branson really challenged me with his incredible defense of "Monarchical Trinitarianism". Throughout the whole book, I almost always felt that his model and arguments were the most convincing and satisfying⸻plus the most traditional / orthodox view traced back to the Church Fathers. ("Almost always", because the closing chapter was very confusing and weak.) I wonder-if I had this impression despite the fact that I probably comprehended the least from him-would I become strongly convinced of MT if I actually go through it a couple more times and digest it fully?
Then, unsurprisingly, the second most convincing was William Hasker's, because it felt like a blend of MT (with the acceptance of the "Eternal Generation" and "Eternal Procession") and ST with the Trinity-the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-as God having three sets of cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood and fully divine.
Furthermore, William Lane Craig did make a strong case for "Biblical Trinitarianism", presenting and defending verses from the Bible that point us to a Tri-Personal God-or in his terms, to the fact: "God is an immaterial, tri-personal being.".
I have always appreciated Dale Tuggy and found him genuine, and although reading his presentation in isolation felt compelling at times, the responses against him felt sufficient and satisfactory in refuting most of his claims in defense of his Unitarian position.
Last but not least, even the recommended books and articles cited by the authors in their footnotes—and the bibliography itself—are enough to keep me going and diving even deeper than I already have which I surely will.
This book will be my go-to source for my Trinity studies and discussions for many years to come—and it has to be, because I admittedly did not comprehend or digest every single argument and detail completely.
In recent years, I have found myself leaning more towards "Social Trinitarianism" due to the great impact and influence of William Lane Craig on my apologetics journey and ministry. However, though he was the most difficult to understand and follow among the authors, Beau Branson really challenged me with his incredible defense of "Monarchical Trinitarianism". Throughout the whole book, I almost always felt that his model and arguments were the most convincing and satisfying⸻plus the most traditional / orthodox view traced back to the Church Fathers. ("Almost always", because the closing chapter was very confusing and weak.) I wonder-if I had this impression despite the fact that I probably comprehended the least from him-would I become strongly convinced of MT if I actually go through it a couple more times and digest it fully?
Then, unsurprisingly, the second most convincing was William Hasker's, because it felt like a blend of MT (with the acceptance of the "Eternal Generation" and "Eternal Procession") and ST with the Trinity-the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-as God having three sets of cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood and fully divine.
Furthermore, William Lane Craig did make a strong case for "Biblical Trinitarianism", presenting and defending verses from the Bible that point us to a Tri-Personal God-or in his terms, to the fact: "God is an immaterial, tri-personal being.".
I have always appreciated Dale Tuggy and found him genuine, and although reading his presentation in isolation felt compelling at times, the responses against him felt sufficient and satisfactory in refuting most of his claims in defense of his Unitarian position.
Last but not least, even the recommended books and articles cited by the authors in their footnotes—and the bibliography itself—are enough to keep me going and diving even deeper than I already have which I surely will.
October 2, 2025
One God, Three Persons, Four Views
The one where four professors of philosophy present their Trinitarian views (or in Dale Tuggy’s case, Unitarian view) and engage with the views of their counterparts.
My biggest disappointment is that no one was found to present a Latin/Thomist flavor of Trinitarianism. The editor of the book lamented this lack as well. I would particularly liked to have seen someone (James Dolezal would be my vote) of that persuasion interact with Beau Branson and vice versa. William Hasker and William Lane Craig offered slightly different Social Trinitarian views, Beau Branson presented his case for what he calls Monarchian Trinitarianism, and Dale Tuggy his denial of Trinitarianism altogether.
William Hasker, the one author I had not heard of before, wrote the opening essay and didn’t get off to a great start. He claimed Gregory of Nazianzen said, “When we say God, we mean Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” but the relevant footnote simply said “Quoted by Wright, ‘On Whether or How Far We Can Know God.’” Not sure what do to with that. I really wanted to see the context of this alleged quote but came up empty-handed. Why quote someone quoting an early church father as if you’re quoting an early church father? He then uses Gregory of Nyssa in support of his claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different wills (albeit in harmony) but I don’t think this was what Gregory meant in the referenced passage (Not Three Gods: To Ablabius.) Gregory went to lengths in that passage to describe activities, operations, or attributes of the three persons to be spoken of in the singular because they are undivided and mutual. If Hasker wants to deny inseparable operations and posit each divine person as having a separate center of consciousness and a separate will, that’s his prerogative but I strenuously question his attempt to use Gregory of Nyssa to say it. Beyond that his chapter had some good contributions. He sums up his position, “The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the three Persons are together a single concrete being—that they share between them a single trope of deity, a single concrete instance of the divine nature. This claim can be modeled by the notion of a single mental substance, or soul, supporting simultaneously theee distinct conscious lives, three streams of experience.”
William Lane Craig followed with his chapter spending the bulk of his time arguing for the full deity of Christ most especially with careful exegesis of every passage in the NT where Jesus is clearly or may be referred to as ho theos, that is God with a definite pronoun. I really enjoyed that portion of his chapter. Moving onto his model, he seeks to have a very basic description, and sums up his version of the Trinity which he calls “tri-personal monotheism” with the terse statement “God is an immaterial, tri-personal being.”
Beau Branson begins the next chapter by saying he can’t speak about the Trinity itself, but can speak on the doctrine of the Trinity. His interlocutors’ replies seemed to find this very weird or even hypocritical, but I just took this as him following in the Cappadocians footsteps and saying the divine essence itself is ineffable, but the doctrine of the Trinity has been spoken of in human language (for Scriptural and historic polemical reasons) and we can say something more confidently about that even if we (obviously) can’t completely figure out God. Branson argued for Monarchial Trinitarianism (monarche meaning one-source) where God the Father is God[ultimate source] but eternally generates the Son and from whom the Spirit proceeds eternally, all equally divine and properly called God as there is one God[nature] and that the three persons act inseparably. He says “Despite differences in their metaphysics, the fathers we have in view all agree that: There is only one God[Ultimate Source], the Father, and: The Trinity is one God[Nature], because the divine nature is undivided among the Trinitarian hypostases. Furthermore (as we will see below), they also hold: The Trinity is one God[power/action] because the Trinitarian operations are also undivided (or ‘inseparable’) among the Trinitarian hypostases. Thus, no matter how we disambiguate “God,” the result is that Trinitarianism worship only one God.” I really enjoyed chewing on Branson’s contribution for his philosophical parsing out of certain ambiguities and as I do think he holds a pretty historical position.
Dale Tuggy gave the fourth and final “model” which denies Trinitarianism altogether, claims the Father alone is God, and neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is fully divine. I think William Lane Craig’s work to the deity of Christ and his direct response to Tuggy was pretty effective. Beau Branson’s argument about the early church’s use of nomina sacra (writing Lord, God, Jesus, and Christ as the first and last letters with a horizontal over line) was also helpful. Tuggy responded that he didn’t need to defend his Christology because this was a book about the Trinity, but the point is relevant that if Jesus was worshipped and honored as God it doesn’t seem reasonable to state that the early church only believed the Father is God. Of course, much more could be said about Tuggy’s back and forth with the other authors, but those are my quick highlights. I’m fundamentally unimpressed and uninterested in the position.
After the four initial essays, there was a direct response from each author to the other three. Finally, each author gave a few closing remarks and responses. I think the format worked well for this project. Some of the responses were quite passionate. Which sometimes led to a little humor. Overall, I enjoyed it, most especially Branson and Craig’s contributions.
The one where four professors of philosophy present their Trinitarian views (or in Dale Tuggy’s case, Unitarian view) and engage with the views of their counterparts.
My biggest disappointment is that no one was found to present a Latin/Thomist flavor of Trinitarianism. The editor of the book lamented this lack as well. I would particularly liked to have seen someone (James Dolezal would be my vote) of that persuasion interact with Beau Branson and vice versa. William Hasker and William Lane Craig offered slightly different Social Trinitarian views, Beau Branson presented his case for what he calls Monarchian Trinitarianism, and Dale Tuggy his denial of Trinitarianism altogether.
William Hasker, the one author I had not heard of before, wrote the opening essay and didn’t get off to a great start. He claimed Gregory of Nazianzen said, “When we say God, we mean Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” but the relevant footnote simply said “Quoted by Wright, ‘On Whether or How Far We Can Know God.’” Not sure what do to with that. I really wanted to see the context of this alleged quote but came up empty-handed. Why quote someone quoting an early church father as if you’re quoting an early church father? He then uses Gregory of Nyssa in support of his claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different wills (albeit in harmony) but I don’t think this was what Gregory meant in the referenced passage (Not Three Gods: To Ablabius.) Gregory went to lengths in that passage to describe activities, operations, or attributes of the three persons to be spoken of in the singular because they are undivided and mutual. If Hasker wants to deny inseparable operations and posit each divine person as having a separate center of consciousness and a separate will, that’s his prerogative but I strenuously question his attempt to use Gregory of Nyssa to say it. Beyond that his chapter had some good contributions. He sums up his position, “The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the three Persons are together a single concrete being—that they share between them a single trope of deity, a single concrete instance of the divine nature. This claim can be modeled by the notion of a single mental substance, or soul, supporting simultaneously theee distinct conscious lives, three streams of experience.”
William Lane Craig followed with his chapter spending the bulk of his time arguing for the full deity of Christ most especially with careful exegesis of every passage in the NT where Jesus is clearly or may be referred to as ho theos, that is God with a definite pronoun. I really enjoyed that portion of his chapter. Moving onto his model, he seeks to have a very basic description, and sums up his version of the Trinity which he calls “tri-personal monotheism” with the terse statement “God is an immaterial, tri-personal being.”
Beau Branson begins the next chapter by saying he can’t speak about the Trinity itself, but can speak on the doctrine of the Trinity. His interlocutors’ replies seemed to find this very weird or even hypocritical, but I just took this as him following in the Cappadocians footsteps and saying the divine essence itself is ineffable, but the doctrine of the Trinity has been spoken of in human language (for Scriptural and historic polemical reasons) and we can say something more confidently about that even if we (obviously) can’t completely figure out God. Branson argued for Monarchial Trinitarianism (monarche meaning one-source) where God the Father is God[ultimate source] but eternally generates the Son and from whom the Spirit proceeds eternally, all equally divine and properly called God as there is one God[nature] and that the three persons act inseparably. He says “Despite differences in their metaphysics, the fathers we have in view all agree that: There is only one God[Ultimate Source], the Father, and: The Trinity is one God[Nature], because the divine nature is undivided among the Trinitarian hypostases. Furthermore (as we will see below), they also hold: The Trinity is one God[power/action] because the Trinitarian operations are also undivided (or ‘inseparable’) among the Trinitarian hypostases. Thus, no matter how we disambiguate “God,” the result is that Trinitarianism worship only one God.” I really enjoyed chewing on Branson’s contribution for his philosophical parsing out of certain ambiguities and as I do think he holds a pretty historical position.
Dale Tuggy gave the fourth and final “model” which denies Trinitarianism altogether, claims the Father alone is God, and neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is fully divine. I think William Lane Craig’s work to the deity of Christ and his direct response to Tuggy was pretty effective. Beau Branson’s argument about the early church’s use of nomina sacra (writing Lord, God, Jesus, and Christ as the first and last letters with a horizontal over line) was also helpful. Tuggy responded that he didn’t need to defend his Christology because this was a book about the Trinity, but the point is relevant that if Jesus was worshipped and honored as God it doesn’t seem reasonable to state that the early church only believed the Father is God. Of course, much more could be said about Tuggy’s back and forth with the other authors, but those are my quick highlights. I’m fundamentally unimpressed and uninterested in the position.
After the four initial essays, there was a direct response from each author to the other three. Finally, each author gave a few closing remarks and responses. I think the format worked well for this project. Some of the responses were quite passionate. Which sometimes led to a little humor. Overall, I enjoyed it, most especially Branson and Craig’s contributions.
November 6, 2025
This book is well worth your time. The essays are top notch. Craig and Hasker's responses to the Unitarian arguments were crushing. The three-star rating comes from the fact that (as the introduction states openly), none of the authors represent the Western/Latin/thomistic perspective, which is arguably the most historically common view.
This absence isn't just regrettable; it's a giant hole in a book that is supposed to represent the major views in dialogue. How can you represent the major views without even presenting what is arguably the dominant view throughout Christian history?
All that said, the essays which are included (especially those by Craig and Hasker) are truly excellent and well worth the time reading and the money spent.
This absence isn't just regrettable; it's a giant hole in a book that is supposed to represent the major views in dialogue. How can you represent the major views without even presenting what is arguably the dominant view throughout Christian history?
All that said, the essays which are included (especially those by Craig and Hasker) are truly excellent and well worth the time reading and the money spent.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews