What is Monarchical Trinitarianism?
Header Image: God as the sovereign king on his throne
Monarchical Trinitarianism, also referred to as the “Monarchy of the Father,” is a theological perspective that asserts the Father as the sole source (or monarch) within the Trinity. This view maintains a clear distinction of roles among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while upholding their unity in essence. It is essential to distinguish this from Monarchianism, a heretical belief condemned in the 4th century, which posited that God is a single person rather than three distinct persons.
The Eternal Begottenness of the Son
The term “created” used by the early pre-Nicene Fathers does not align with the Arian view, which posits that the Son was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), making Him a creature. As Arius infamously declared, “there was a time when the Son was not”. Rather, the Fathers articulated that the Son was begotten out of the Father, emphasising His divine origin and eternal existence within the Father’s bosom (cf. John 1:18 in Greek). As Justin Martyr explains, “For Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 46). This highlights that the Son, the Word, existed eternally with the Father before being begotten and manifested.
Similarly, Hippolytus expounds on this concept, noting that “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world … For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His word in the times determined by Him, and by Him He made all things. … And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom cometh this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God.” (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Chapter 10–11). Here, Hippolytus underscores the eternal existence of the Word within God, proceeding from the Father and being of the same essence.
The Procession of the Holy Spirit
The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is another essential aspect of Monarchical Trinitarianism. The Spirit, like the Son, derives His essence from the Father, ensuring that He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Tertullian speaks to this procession in his work, Against Praxeas, explaining how the Word and Spirit derive their essence from the Father.
But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. … Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, while it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8).
Looking at how Tertullian describes this doctrine, we can see how he has gone to lengths to carefully explain how the relationship within the Trinity exists together and relate to one another, while keeping intact the source and essence of divinity united and uncompromised. When we talk about these things, we use terms like “ontological” and “economy” to help to describe the Godhead. Ontology is the study of being, and what makes something what it is by nature. The economy of the Trinity refers to the outworking and activity of the divine Persons.
This points us to the distinction between the Father’s primacy and “monarchy” as the divine source, and the “economy” between the Persons in their roles in salvation and redemptive history. Ontologically the Persons of the Trinity are the same as they share in the same essence of the Father, and thus co-equal and co-eternal, but in terms of how they relate to one another and to humanity, there is a type of subordination. As Jesus said in John 5:19–23, “the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.”, similar also to how Jesus said that only the Father knows the hour of the End, and that the Son doesn’t know (Mark 13:32).
The One True God
Central to Monarchical Trinitarianism is the recognition of the Father as the One True God, or άυτόθεος (autotheos), meaning self-existent. He is the uncaused, unbegotten source of divinity, from whom the Son and the Spirit derive their being. The early Fathers were clear that this does not diminish the divinity of the Son and the Spirit but rather establishes the order within the Godhead. Origen articulates this succinctly in his De Principiis, “…it may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is rightly termed the image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness from that which is in the Father.” (Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2.13).
While Origen’s language reflects a certain subordination in terms of order or generation, not essence, it points to the Father’s role as the uncreated fountainhead of divinity. This view no doubt comes from the New Testament itself, from such verses as Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:6–8, and the following:
For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection’, it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:27–28).
The Distinction from Monarchianism
It is crucial to differentiate Monarchical Trinitarianism from Monarchianism, despite the similar sounding names. Monarchianism, which shares similar theology with Modalism/Sabellianism, was condemned as heresy in the 4th century. It denied the distinct personhood within the Godhead, positing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely different modes or aspects of one God. This view was rejected by the early church for undermining the distinct personal relationships and the eternal generation and procession within the Trinity.
Monarchians were opposed by “Logos theologians”, such as Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria.
Catechism of the Orthodox Faith
The Orthodox Church holds more prominently to the Monarchy of the Father in their Trinitarian doctrines. According to the Catechism of the Orthodox Faith, the Monarchy of the Father is articulated as follows:
God the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds from any other Person, he is the cause, source and principle. This is called the Monarchy of the Father. (Catechism of the Orthodox Faith, 094)
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit share equal majesty as being the eternal, uncreated Savior and Lord. The Father is true God, the Son equally true God, and the Holy Spirit true God. This ontological or essential equality was expressed by the Church by the expression “homoousion” (of the same essence) to condemn Arianism and affirm that the Son is co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father. This does not negate different roles or functions. (Catechism of the Orthodox Faith, 095)
In this view, when the Son says that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), he is referring to the fact that the Father is the cause and origin. Various Church Fathers have understood this verse in this regard:
“The Son does not say, ‘My Father is better than I,’ lest we should conceive him to be foreign to his nature, but ‘greater,’ not indeed in greatness nor in time, but because of his generation from the Father himself” (St Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, 1.58)
“Since the Son’s origin (arche) is from the Father, in this respect the Father is greater, as cause and origin. This is why the Lord says, ‘My Father is greater than I.’ Indeed, what else does the word Father signify unless being the cause and origin of that which is begotten of Him?” (St Basil, Against Eunomius, 1.25)
“Superior greatness belongs to the cause, equality to the nature… To say that [the Father] is greater than [the Son] in his humanity is certainly true, but it is not the point here, since it is no wonder that God is greater than man” (St Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration, 30.7)
“If anyone says that the Father is greater in so far as He is the cause of the Son, we will not dispute this. But this, however, does not make the Son to be of a different essence” (St John Chrysostom, Homily, 70)
In summary, the perspective of the Orthodox Church, and various theologians in the early church, explain the Monarchy of the Father through His supreme greatness as the “cause, source, and principle” while simultaneously affirming the co-equality of the Persons within the Trinity, since they share the same divine essence. Anything “lesser” in the Son or Spirit is due to their cause, function or role rather than their ontological reality.
Biblical Foundations and Theological Consistency
The biblical foundation for Monarchical Trinitarianism is evident in Scriptures such as Proverbs 8:22–30, which speaks of Wisdom (often interpreted as a prefiguration of Christ) being brought forth before the creation of the world. The Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:15–17 refers to Christ as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created”, affirming the Son’s role in creation and preexistence. Additionally, John’s Gospel affirms the divinity of Christ, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
These passages, alongside the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, confirm the historical orthodoxy of Monarchical Trinitarianism, which maintains the unity and co-equality of the Trinity while acknowledging the Father as the source. This theological framework provides a robust understanding of the relational dynamics within the Godhead, affirming the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit from the Father, without compromising the divine essence shared among the three Persons.
In conclusion, Monarchical Trinitarianism, grounded in the early church’s teachings and biblical exegesis, offers a coherent and historically rooted articulation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It emphasises the Father’s unique role as the source of divinity while affirming the full deity and consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit, thus preserving the unity and diversity within the Godhead.
Sources & Further Reading
- Hippolytus of Rome: The Extant Works and Fragments: Dogmatical and Historical (Roberts-Donaldson translation) (earlychristianwritings.com)
- Justin Martyr: First Apology | Patristics.info
- CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian) (newadvent.org)
- Catechism of the Orthodox Faith
- Monarchianism | Modalism, Sabellianism, Unitarianism | Britannica
- Sabellianism | Monarchianism, Modalism & Patripassianism | Britannica
- What’s the Difference between the Ontological and the Economic Trinity? (ligonier.org)
- The Relationship Between Jesus and Sophia | The Sacred Faith: Timeless Truths for Modern Minds
- CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book I (Origen) (newadvent.org)
- The Sacred Faith: Trinity Articles
Leave a comment Like Back to Top Seen 10.1K times Liked 0 times
Enjoying this content?
Support my work by becoming a patron on Patreon!
By joining, you help fund the time, research, and effort that goes into creating this content — and you’ll also get access to exclusive perks and updates.
Even a small amount per month makes a real difference. Thank you for your support!
x
Subscribe to Updates
If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 853 subscribers today!
My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books
Subscribe to Blog updates
Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS 
All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.
Related Posts
Luke J. Wilson | 01st July 2024 | Trinity
The Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian faith, defining God as one Being in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, throughout history, various misunderstandings and false teachings — known as heresies — have arisen, challenging this core doctrine. Understanding these heresies can strengthen our faith and deepen our appreciation for the truths held by the Church since its earliest days. What Is the Trinity? Before diving into the heresies, let’s briefly review what we mean by the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one essence in three distinct Persons: The Father: The Creator and sustainer of all. The Son (Jesus Christ): God incarnate, who lived, died, and was resurrected for our salvation. The Holy Spirit: The presence of God active in the world and within believers. This concept is rooted in Scripture and has been affirmed by the Church through various councils and creeds. Common Historical Heresies Arianism What It Taught: Arius, a priest in the early 4th century, claimed that Jesus Christ was not of the same substance as the Father. He taught that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the Father. Church’s Response: The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father. This is reflected in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… of one Being with the Father.” Patristic Quote: Athanasius, a staunch defender against Arianism, wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (On the Incarnation, 8:54). Modalism (Sabellianism) What It Taught: Sabellius proposed that God is one Person who reveals Himself in three different modes or aspects: as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. This denies the distinctiveness of the three Persons. Church’s Response: Modalism was rejected because it undermines the relational aspect of the Trinity. The distinct Persons interact with each other, as seen in Jesus’ baptism where the Father speaks, the Son is baptised, and the Spirit descends like a dove. Patristic Quote: Tertullian argued against Modalism by affirming the distinctiveness within the Godhead: “We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation… there is the Son, who has issued from the Father, and the Spirit, who has issued from both Father and Son” (Against Praxeas, 2). Nestorianism What It Taught: Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop, suggested that Jesus Christ was two separate persons — one human and one divine — rather than one Person with two natures. Church’s Response: The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD declared that Jesus is one Person with two distinct yet united natures: divine and human. This ensures that Jesus is fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between humanity and divinity. Patristic Quote: Cyril of Alexandria emphasised the unity of Christ: “Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.” (Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch). Docetism What It Taught: Docetists believed that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion and that He only seemed to suffer and die on the cross. Church’s Response: The Church affirmed that Jesus’ incarnation and suffering were real, as this is essential for our salvation. Jesus’ true humanity allows Him to truly represent us and atone for our sins. Patristic Quote: Ignatius of Antioch stressed the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering: “He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and powe...
Luke J. Wilson | 16th November 2023 | Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity, which asserts the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has deep roots in the early Christian writings of the first three centuries. While the full articulation of the Trinity developed over time, culminating at the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, references to the equality of these three persons can be traced back to influential documents and the teachings of early Church Fathers in the centuries leading up to this pivotal moment in Church History. Early Church Beliefs and Teachings One of the earliest Christian documents, the Didache, believed to have been written in the late first or early second century, provides a clear reference to the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In chapter 7, it instructs the baptismal formula to be in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, emphasising their equal importance and authority in the Christian faith. While this is basically repeating Scripture (Matt 28:19), it demonstrates that the understanding of a 3-fold name of God to baptise in was a common practice in the early Christian communities. The writings of prominent early Church Fathers further affirm the concept of the Trinity. Clement of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 46, written around AD 96, emphasises the unity in God, Christ, and the Spirit, stating, “Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace poured out upon us?”. Clement provides an important link back to the Apostles, too, as Origen of Alexandria (AD 185—284) and Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260—340) maintained that Clement of Rome was the same Clement mentioned by the apostle Paul in Philippians 4:3. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130—200) also tells us that “this man [Clement], as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes” (Against Heresies 3:3). So, his letter provides important context when discussing this topic and what apostolic teaching was. Likewise, Justin Martyr, writing around AD 150, in chapter 13 of his First Apology writes about the triune nature of God, and how Jesus is in “second place” within the Godhead: Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. Origen's work "De Principiis" (On First Principles), written around AD 220, also displays an early understanding of the equality of the three Persons within the Godhead. In Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 7 of this work, Origen discusses the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Trinity: But there is nothing in the Trinity that can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification. First Use of the Word "Trinity" The first recorded use of the term "Trinity" is often attributed to the early Christian theologian Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD) in the Latin form "Trinitas". Tertullian was a prolific writer and is known for his contributions to early Christian theology. One of the passages where he addresses the concept of the Trinity is from his work "Against Praxeas" (Adversus Praxean). In this treatise, Tertullian defends the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while maintaining the unity of the G...
Luke J. Wilson | 04th November 2023 | Trinity
I recently received a question about the nature of Jesus and the incarnation, which delves into the mystery of the Trinity: "Sorry to trouble you, but I have only one question: Is God the Father and Jesus His Son the same, God Himself in the flesh when He walked the earth? I am still struggling with this concept. When Jesus asked His Father, was He essentially talking to Himself?" Thanks so much for the question, and it is a good question when asked genuinely. It is obviously a very deep and complex topic that covers a lot of Scripture (and history) to fully make sense of, but I’ll try and keep this brief to cover the key points. To gain a better understanding of this, we should turn to John 1 and explore the relationship between Jesus and the Father, as well as consider insights from early church fathers and theological scholarship: John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through Him, and apart from Him, not one thing was created that has been created." This passage from John's Gospel presents the profound nature of Jesus, referred to as "the Word." He is both God and with God, emphasising His divinity and unity with the Father. Early church fathers, such as Athanasius, emphasised the divinity of Christ and His role in the economy of salvation. Genesis 1:1, 3 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. … Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." In Genesis, God's creative act through His spoken word underscores the creative power of the Word. Early theologians like Tertullian, who coined the term "Trinity," and later scholars, such as Augustine, explored the concept of the Triune God. Psalms 33:6 "The heavens were made by the word of the LORD, and all the stars, by the breath of His mouth." This verse highlights the creative power of God's Word, which aligns with the understanding of Christ as the divine Word. Early church fathers, like Irenaeus, played a role in affirming Christ's divinity and His significance in the salvation narrative. Moving forward, in the book of Daniel, we encounter Messianic visions that describe the Son of Man, who is granted authority and a kingdom similar to God's own. This foreshadows the incarnation and the fulfilment of Daniel's vision. Daniel 7:13-14 "I continued watching in the night visions, and I saw One like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him. He was given authority to rule, and glory, and a kingdom; so that those of every people, nation, and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed." Ancient Jews recognized this as the concept of "the two powers in heaven," possibly implying a binitarian understanding that acknowledges two distinct persons within God: the Father and His Word. Only in the New Testament period do we see the full recognition of the Holy Spirit as God, rather than a separate or lesser being (John 14:15-31). The New Testament further clarifies these theological concepts, especially regarding the incarnation: John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." Philippians 2:6-7 "[Jesus], who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men." So, when Jesus was praying, He was communicating with the Father, emphasising the distinction between them, even though they are one God. This concept is encapsulated in the notion of the Trinity, often summarised as "one what, three who's." These Biblical references and insights from early ...
Luke J. Wilson | 04th January 2022 | Trinity
The doctrine and concept of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. John, who was very close to Jesus and obviously knew him well, alludes to this teaching frequently in his Gospel, too. For example: John 1:1; John 8:58; John 10:30; and John 10:38. Yet, despite this, and numerous other examples throughout the New Testament which point towards the threefold nature of God, plenty of myths and legends abound online and in books which state that the divinity of Jesus (and therefore the Trinity) were invented at the Council of Nicaea. But any serious reader of Church History will see and know that that is complete nonsense. Christians have recognised the divinity of Jesus since the earliest times, even if they didn’t use the word “Trinity”. First use of the word “Trinity” The word Trinity was first used as early as A.D. 170 by Theophilus of Antioch, a Patriarch of Antioch, when writing about the creation account and how it relates to the nature of God: In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. — Theophilus, Of the Fourth Day, Chapter XV Then in the early third century, around A.D. 208–210, Tertullian was the first to use “Trinity”, “person”, and “substance” to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity … yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost … they are susceptible of number without division … which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons… — Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 2, 3 Earlier still, we can find Trinitarian language used about God in 1 Clement (~95), the Epistle of Barnabas (~70–96) and the letters of Ignatius (108–110) long before Nicaea codified the terminology. Not only are these very early texts, but the authors are links back to the Apostles themselves, having sat under, and learnt from them. Could they have got such a core belief wrong so soon after learning from Paul or John? It’s highly unlikely. So, to display this as plainly as possible, and to act as a proof against those who would like to rewrite history and say that “the Church invented the Trinity/deity of Christ at Nicaea”, below is a large selection of quotes from Apostolic period onward showing that Christians everywhere for all time have believed Jesus was the divine Son and Word of God, incarnate in flesh, yet still recognised him as God and creator. Quotes From the Early Church The Didache (c. 70) And concerning baptism, baptise this way: Having first said all these things, baptise into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. … But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. — Didache 7:1, A.D. 70. Clement of Alexandria (c. 95-140) Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace which was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? — 1 Clement 46:6, ~A.D. 95 Brothers, we ought to think of Jesus Christ, as we do of God, as ‘Judge of the living and the dead’ — 2 Clement 1:1, ~A.D. 95–140 Ignatius of Antioch (c. 108-110) …to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia … and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God… — Letter to the Ephesians 1, A.D. 108–110 For our God, Jesus Chr...
Luke J. Wilson | 23rd January 2025 | Science
Have you ever wondered why God asks us to resist temptation and practise self-control? At first glance, it might seem like God is just trying to limit our enjoyment of life, especially when the world tells us to “follow your heart” and “give in to what feels good.” But what if I told you that resisting temptation is not about taking away your joy, but about protecting and blessing your life — spiritually, emotionally, and even mentally? I was recently watching a TV series with my wife (called Perception, if you’re interested) about a neuroscience professor who consults for the FBI. The series often gives some interesting facts about the brain and human behaviour, and in one episode the main character capped off the episode by talking about how resisting temptations benefits your mental health. This piqued my interest, as it made me think of the obvious Scriptural connections, so I looked it up to see if the episode was accurate. And it was! A 2017 neuroscience research study highlights how beneficial self-control and resisting temptation are for your brain and mental health. These findings echo the timeless truths of Scripture, showing us that God’s design for self-control is not just a moral obligation but a pathway to wholeness and flourishing as a healthy person. The Science Behind Resisting Temptation The study on self-control and temptation explored the brain’s salience network — the system responsible for detecting what’s important — and found something really very interesting: people better at resisting temptation have a healthier dynamic between this network and other parts of the brain, such as the visual system. In other words, their brains are better at ignoring distractions and focusing on what truly matters. Here are some of the benefits of self-control revealed by the study: Improved Focus — Resisting temptation strengthens your ability to stay on task and avoid distractions. Emotional Resilience — Self-control helps regulate emotions, making you less reactive and more at peace. Mental Clarity — It improves how your brain processes information, aiding decision-making. Protection from Harm — It reduces the risk of mental health issues like depression, addiction, and impulsive behaviour which may help mitigate some symptoms of ADHD by strengthening attention regulation and executive function. Spiritual Growth—Though not a part of the study, self-control aligns with God’s call for holy living and leads to greater spiritual maturity. This isn’t just science talking; it’s evidence of God’s amazing design for your body and mind which has been testified to in the Scriptures for thousands of years, long before neuroscience could confirm it. I couldn’t help but be struck by this connection when I came across this study. What Does the Bible Say? The New Testament repeatedly highlights the importance of self-control and resisting temptation. These teachings are not arbitrary rules to suck the “fun” out of life, but divine guidance to help you thrive. Let’s explore how the Bible speaks to this: Self-Control is a Gift from GodThe Bible teaches that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23) and that God has given us a spirit of “power and of love and of self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7). The ability to resist temptation is not something we muster up alone; it’s a gift God gives to help us grow in Him and rely on His strength. Resisting Temptation Brings FreedomJames 1:14–15 warns us that temptation, if left unchecked, leads to sin and ultimately to death. Science backs this up, showing that unchecked impulsivity can lead to destructive behaviours like addiction and emotional instability. God’s commands to resist temptation protect us from harm and lead us to freedom in Christ (John 8:36). Your Mind MattersRomans 12:2 urges us to “be transformed by the renewing of your minds.” Resisting temptat...
Luke J. Wilson | 01st July 2024 | Trinity
The Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian faith, defining God as one Being in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, throughout history, various misunderstandings and false teachings — known as heresies — have arisen, challenging this core doctrine. Understanding these heresies can strengthen our faith and deepen our appreciation for the truths held by the Church since its earliest days. What Is the Trinity? Before diving into the heresies, let’s briefly review what we mean by the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one essence in three distinct Persons: The Father: The Creator and sustainer of all. The Son (Jesus Christ): God incarnate, who lived, died, and was resurrected for our salvation. The Holy Spirit: The presence of God active in the world and within believers. This concept is rooted in Scripture and has been affirmed by the Church through various councils and creeds. Common Historical Heresies Arianism What It Taught: Arius, a priest in the early 4th century, claimed that Jesus Christ was not of the same substance as the Father. He taught that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the Father. Church’s Response: The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father. This is reflected in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… of one Being with the Father.” Patristic Quote: Athanasius, a staunch defender against Arianism, wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (On the Incarnation, 8:54). Modalism (Sabellianism) What It Taught: Sabellius proposed that God is one Person who reveals Himself in three different modes or aspects: as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. This denies the distinctiveness of the three Persons. Church’s Response: Modalism was rejected because it undermines the relational aspect of the Trinity. The distinct Persons interact with each other, as seen in Jesus’ baptism where the Father speaks, the Son is baptised, and the Spirit descends like a dove. Patristic Quote: Tertullian argued against Modalism by affirming the distinctiveness within the Godhead: “We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation… there is the Son, who has issued from the Father, and the Spirit, who has issued from both Father and Son” (Against Praxeas, 2). Nestorianism What It Taught: Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop, suggested that Jesus Christ was two separate persons — one human and one divine — rather than one Person with two natures. Church’s Response: The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD declared that Jesus is one Person with two distinct yet united natures: divine and human. This ensures that Jesus is fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between humanity and divinity. Patristic Quote: Cyril of Alexandria emphasised the unity of Christ: “Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.” (Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch). Docetism What It Taught: Docetists believed that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion and that He only seemed to suffer and die on the cross. Church’s Response: The Church affirmed that Jesus’ incarnation and suffering were real, as this is essential for our salvation. Jesus’ true humanity allows Him to truly represent us and atone for our sins. Patristic Quote: Ignatius of Antioch stressed the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering: “He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and powe...
Luke J. Wilson | 27th June 2024 | Eucharist
This past Sunday at church, we were looking at Genesis 14 in the sermon. There’s a lot going on in this chapter with nine different kings all at war fighting one another, and Abram and Lot somehow mixed up in the middle of it (this is before Abram is renamed to Abraham). Sodom gets invaded, Lot gets taken captive (along with everyone else) and then Abram mounts a daring rescue with 318 of his men! It’s really quite action-packed for such a short chapter. I don’t know about you, but I always think of Abraham as this kindly old man, not some tribal warrior ready to go all “Taken” on his enemies (Gen 14:14–16). Abraham, probably It’s in the midst of all this action that we meet a mysterious character who pretty much just turns up out of nowhere: Melchizedek, king of Salem. He is one of those characters from the Old Testament whose actions reverberate down through history into the New Testament era and beyond and into our present-day worship. Despite the number of kings fighting all across Canaan, Melchizedek doesn’t appear to be a part of these conflicts and only enters the scene when it’s all over, and Abram has rescued Lot and subdued the king who captured Sodom. Then “the king of Sodom went out to meet [Abram] at the Valley of Shaveh, that is, the King’s Valley.” (Gen 14:17), which is modern-day Kidron Valley, just outside of Jerusalem. So the meeting was local and close to Melchizedek, but still doesn’t explain what happens next to Abram: Genesis 14:18–20And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth,and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” The blessing of bread and wine by Melchizedek connects us with the divine thread that will flow through all time and history: the then-future Passover and, ultimately, with Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist. This connection underscores a sacred continuity that we, as Christians, continue to partake in today until Jesus returns. Melchizedek: Priest and King Melchizedek appears in Genesis 14:18–20, where he is described as the king of Salem and a priest of the Most High God. His encounter with Abram (Abraham) is brief but significant. He brings out bread and wine and blesses Abraham. He then responds by giving Melchizedek a tenth of everything. Both of these acts point to aspects of the Law, tithes and sacrifices, which at this point in time had not yet been given, which leaves us with more unanswered questions regarding what this priesthood of Melchizedek was (and its origins), and also why Abraham would give a tenth like a tithe. Salem, which is understood to be the ancient name for Jerusalem, means “city of peace”. This is highly significant as it links to the messianic prophecy of Jesus being the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). The connection between Melchizedek being the king of Salem and Jesus being in the lineage of David, who reigned in Jerusalem, ties the notion of peace directly into the divine narrative. Melchizedek’s role as a king and priest in the city of peace prefigures the ultimate role of Jesus as Messiah. Jesus, the Prince of Peace, not only fulfils the royal lineage through King David but also the priestly order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:2–3 elaborates on Melchizedek’s name and title, explaining that Melchizedek “means ‘king of righteousness’; next, he is also king of Salem, that is, ‘king of peace’.” This dual kingship of righteousness and peace perfectly summarises Jesus’ ministry and mission. Psalm 110:4 further cements Melchizedek’s significance by declaring the Messiah as “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”. This eternal priesthood signifies a lasting peace and righteousness that Jesus embodies and imparts to His followers (John 14:27). Thus, Melchizedek’s brief appearance becomes a profound for...
Luke J. Wilson | 22nd June 2024 | Salvation
I recently made a video doing a response to something the televangelist “prosperity gospel” preacher Jesse Duplantis said in one of his recent videos. He was using Psalm 49:16 as a proof-text to say it’s ok that he is super wealthy, but clearly missing the context of the whole Psalm as it is speaking against those who boast and trust in their riches! Here’s the video if you want to watch it, it’s only 1:57 long (don’t forget to subscribe to me on YouTube or TikTok as that’s where I’m posting a lot more of my content recently): But this did get me thinking about something to do with what Jesus said in his ministry and how his sacrifice fulfils what the rest of Psalm 49 was lamenting and making a point about. The Psalmist writes in verses 6-9: …those who trust in their wealth boast of the abundance of their riches? Truly, no ransom avails for one’s life, there is no price one can give to God for it. For the ransom of life is costly, and can never suffice, that one should live on forever and never see the grave. These verses highlight a stark reality (and something these prosperity preachers seem to overlook): no amount of earthly wealth can purchase eternal life or prevent the inevitable decay of death. Human riches, no matter how vast, are powerless in the face of the ultimate cost of redemption. As Christians, this message resonates deeply with our understanding of salvation through Christ’s sacrifice. The Cost of Redemption The Psalmist’s lament about the futility of relying on wealth for redemption points to a universal human condition: the insufficiency of human efforts to secure eternal life. The idea that “no ransom avails for one’s life, there is no price one can give to God for it.” (v.7) highlights that redemption is beyond human capacity and ability. The price is too high, and no payment is ever enough to achieve eternal life or to avoid corruption. This recognition of human limitation prepares us to appreciate the magnitude of Christ's redemptive work. Christ as Our Ransom In the New Testament, we see the fulfilment of what the Psalmist longed for—the provision of a ransom that could truly redeem us. Jesus Christ, through His life, death, and resurrection, became the ultimate ransom for humanity. Mark 10:45 tells us, “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” This declaration by Jesus Himself reveals the purpose of His mission: to pay the price we could not. The concept of ransom in the New Testament is deeply connected to the idea of liberation from sin and death. The Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:5-6 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all…”. Jesus’s sacrifice was the only sufficient payment for our sins, satisfying the demands of divine justice and reconciling us with God. The Incorruptible Inheritance The Psalmist’s concern that no payment is ever enough “that one should live on forever and never see the Pit” (v.9) is answered in the resurrection of Jesus. By rising from the dead, Jesus demonstrated His victory over corruption and death, offering us the hope of eternal life. Paul highlights this in one of his sermons, in Acts 13:35-37, by using another Psalm that speaks of Jesus not seeing “the pit” or corruption in the grave: “You will not let your Holy One experience corruption” (cf. Ps 16:10). Peter also writes in 1 Peter 1:18-19, "You know that you were ransomed from the futile conduct inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” Our inheritance through Christ is incorruptible, secured not by perishable wealth but by His imperishable sacrifice. Living in the Light of Redemption As Christians, understanding that our redemption is secured by Christ’s sacrifi...
Recent Posts
Luke J. Wilson | 20th May 2025 | Islam
You are not alone. Around the world, many Muslims — people who already believe in one God, pray, and seek to live righteously — are drawn to know more about Jesus (ʿĪsā in Arabic). Some have heard He is more than a prophet. Some have sensed His presence in a dream or vision. And some simply long to know God more deeply, personally, and truly. So what does it mean to become a Christian? And how can you take that step? This guide is for you. 1. What Christians Believe About God and Jesus ➤ One God, Eternal and Good Christians believe in one God — the same Creator known to Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. But we also believe God is more personal and relational than many realise. In His love, He has revealed Himself as Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit — not three gods, but one God in three persons. ➤ Jesus Is More Than a Prophet Muslims honour Jesus as a great prophet, born of the virgin Mary. Christians also affirm this — but go further. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word of God (Kalimat Allāh), who became flesh to live among us. He performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead — and lived without sin.Jesus came not just to teach but to save — to bring us back to God by bearing our sins and rising again in victory over death. 2. Why Do We Need Saving? ➤ The Problem: Sin All people — no matter their religion — struggle with sin. We lie, get angry, feel jealous, act selfishly, or fail to love God fully. The Bible says: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Sin separates us from God. And no matter how many good deeds we do, we can never make ourselves perfect or holy before Him. ➤ The Solution: Jesus Because God loves us, He did not leave us in our sin. He sent Jesus, His eternal Word, to live as one of us. Jesus died willingly, offering His life as a sacrifice for our sins, then rose again on the third day. “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) 3. How Do I Become a Christian? Becoming a Christian is not about joining a Western religion. It’s about entering a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. Here is what the Bible says: ✝️ 1. Believe in Jesus Believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for your sins, and that He rose again. “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9) 💔 2. Repent of Your Sins Turn away from sin and ask God to forgive you. This is called repentance. It means being truly sorry and choosing a new way. “Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out.” (Acts 3:19) 💧 3. Be Baptised Jesus commands His followers to be baptised in water as a sign of their new life. Baptism represents washing away your old life and rising into a new one with Jesus. “Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.” (Acts 2:38) 🕊️ 4. Receive the Holy Spirit When you believe in Jesus, God gives you the Holy Spirit to live within you, guiding you, comforting you, and helping you follow His will. “You received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Romans 8:15) 🧎 5. Begin a New Life As a Christian, you are born again — spiritually renewed. You begin to grow in faith, love, and holiness. You read the Bible, pray, fast, and gather with other believers. Your life is no longer your own; you now live for God. 4. What Does a Christian Life Look Like? Jesus said: “If anyone wants to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24) This means: Loving God with all your heart Loving your neighbour — even your enemies Forgiving others ...
Luke J. Wilson | 05th May 2025 | Politics
When we think about David and Saul, we often focus on David’s rise to kingship or his battle with Goliath. But hidden within that story is a deep lesson for today’s generation about leadership, resistance, and the power of revolutionary love. At a recent youth training event (thanks to South West Youth Ministries), I was asked how I would present the story of David and Saul to a Christian teenage youth group. My mind turned to the politics of their relationship, and how David accepted Saul’s leadership, even when Saul had gone badly astray. David recognised that Saul was still God’s anointed king — placed there by God Himself — and that it was not David’s place to violently remove him. Gen-Z are more politically aware and engaged than previous generations, and are growing up in a world where politics, leadership, and social issues seem impossible to escape. We live in a world where political leaders — whether Trump, Putin, Starmer, or others — are often seen as examples of failed leadership. It’s easy to slip into bitterness, cynicism, or violent rhetoric. These kids are immersed in a culture of activism and outrage. As Christians, we’re called to care deeply about truth and justice and approach leadership differently from the world around us (Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 1:17; Micah 6:8). The story of David and Saul offers pertinent lessons for our modern lives. Respect Without Endorsement David’s respect for Saul was not blind loyalty. He did not agree with Saul’s actions, nor did he ignore Saul’s evil. David fled from Saul’s violence; he challenged Saul’s paranoia; he even cut the corner of Saul’s robe to prove he had the chance to kill him but chose not to. Yet throughout, David refused to take matters into his own hands by force. Why? Because David understood that even flawed authority ultimately rested in God’s hands, he trusted that God would remove Saul at the right time. This is echoed later in the New Testament when Paul writes in Romans 13 that “there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God”, something even Jesus reminded Pilate of during his trial (John 19:10–11). In other words, even flawed leadership can be part of God’s bigger plan, whether for blessing or discipline. Even when leaders go bad, our call as believers is to maintain integrity, respect the position, and resist evil through righteousness — not rebellion. David and Saul: A Lesson in Respect and Restraint Saul was Israel’s first king — anointed by God but later corrupted by pride, fear, and violence. David, chosen to succeed him, spent years running for his life from Saul’s jealous rage. One day, David found Saul alone and vulnerable in a cave. His men urged him to strike Saul down and end the conflict. But David refused: “I will not raise my hand against my lord; for he is the Lord’s anointed.” (1 Samuel 24:10) Instead of killing Saul, David cut off a piece of his robe to prove he could have harmed him, but didn’t. In doing so, he demonstrated a real form of nonviolent resistance. He stood firm against Saul’s injustice without resorting to injustice himself, and acted in a way that could try to humble Saul instead. Peacemaking Is Not Passivity There is a modern misconception that peacemaking means doing nothing and just letting injustice roll all over us. But true biblical peacemaking is not passive; it actively resists evil without becoming evil. Interestingly, David’s actions toward Saul also foreshadow the type of nonviolent resistance Jesus later taught. When Jesus commanded His followers to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and love their enemies, he was not calling for passive submission but offering what scholar Walter Wink describes as a “third way” — a bold, peaceful form of resistance that uses what he calls “moral jiu-jitsu” to expose injustice without resorting to violenc...
Luke J. Wilson | 21st April 2025 | Easter
Over the years, I’ve encountered many Christians who’ve quoted from Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons as if it were a solid historical resource. The book claims that the Roman Catholic Church is not truly Christian but rather a continuation of ancient Babylonian religion. It’s self-assured and sweeping, and for many people, it seems to explain everything, from Marian devotion to Lent and Easter, to Christmas, as rooted in paganism. But is it accurate? In short: no, it really isn’t. Hislop’s work is a classic example of 19th-century pseudohistory — a polemical piece, written to prove a point, not to explore any historical truth. Flawed Methods and Wild Claims Hislop argues that most Catholic practices — from the Mass and clerical robes to festivals like Christmas and Easter — were somehow borrowed from Babylonian religion. The problem being that Hislop doesn’t rely on primary sources or credible historical data. Instead, he draws connections based on word similarities (like Easter and Ishtar) or visual resemblances (like Mary and child compared with mother-goddess statues from ancient cultures). But phonetic resemblance isn’t evidence, and neither is visual similarity. For example, if I say “sun” and “son” in English, they may sound alike, but they aren’t the same thing. That’s the level of reasoning at work in much of The Two Babylons. Hislop often lumps together completely different ancient figures — Isis, Semiramis, Ishtar, Aphrodite — as if they were all just variations of the same deity. He then tries to say Mary is just the Christian version of this pagan goddess figure. But there’s no credible evidence for that at all. Mary is understood through the lens of Scripture and Christian theology, not through pagan myth. The earliest depictions of Mary and the Christ-child date back to the second century and do not resemble any of the pagan idols. But, again, the common accusations are based on superficial similarities of a woman nursing a child. That’s going to look the same no matter who or what does that! Oldest depiction of Mary. Dura-Europos Church, Syria, 2nd century What About Lent and Tammuz? One of Hislop’s more popular claims is that Lent comes from a Babylonian mourning ritual for the god Tammuz, mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14. He argues that early Christians borrowed the 40-day mourning period and just rebranded it. But this doesn’t line up with the evidence. Lent developed as a time of fasting and repentance leading up to Easter — especially for new believers preparing for baptism. The number forty comes from Scripture: Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness, Moses’ fast on Sinai, and Elijah’s journey to Horeb. Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Athanasius saw it as a time for self-denial and spiritual renewal — not mourning a pagan god. Yes, there are pagan festivals that involve seasonal death and rebirth stories. But similarity does not mean origin. If that logic held, then even Jesus’ resurrection would be suspect because pagan cultures also told resurrection-like stories. Yet the gospel stands apart — not because of myth but because of history and revelation. Why Hislop’s Work Persists Even though The Two Babylons is poor scholarship, it’s unfortunately had a long shelf life. That’s partly because it appeals to a certain kind of suspicion. If you’re already sceptical about the Catholic Church, Hislop offers an easy explanation: “It’s all pagan!”. But history isn’t ever that simple. And theology — especially the theology handed down through the ages by the faithful— isn’t built on conspiracy and apparent obscure connections, but on Christ and the truth of the Scriptures. Interestingly, even Ralph Woodrow, a minister who once wrote a book defending Hislop’s ideas, later retracted his views after digging deeper into the evidence. He eventually wrote a book called The Babylon Connect...
Darwin to Jesus | 16th April 2025 | Atheism
Guest post by Darwin to Jesus Dostoevsky famously said, “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.” For years, as an atheist, I couldn’t understand what he meant, but now I do… Here’s a simple analogy that shows why only theism can make sense of morality: Imagine you just got hired at a company. You show up, set up your desk, and decide to use two large monitors. No big deal, right? But then some random guy walks up to you and says: “Hey, you’re not allowed to do that.” You ask, “What do you mean?” They say, “You’re not permitted* to use monitors that big.” In this situation, the correct response would be: “Says who?” We’ll now explore the different kinds of answers you might hear — each one representing a popular moral theory without God — and why none of them actually work. Subjective Morality The random guy says, “Well, I personally just happen to not like big monitors. I find them annoying.” Notice that’s not a reason for you to change your setup. Their personal preferences don’t impose obligations on you. This is what subjective morality looks like. It reduces morality to private taste. If this were the answer, you’d be correct to ignore this person and get back to work — big monitors are still permitted. Cultural Relativism Instead, they say, “It’s not just me — most people here don’t use big monitors. It’s not our culture.” That’s cultural relativism: right and wrong are just social customs, what is normal behavior. But notice customs aren’t obligations. If the culture were different, the moral rule would be different, which means it isn’t really moral at all. You might not fit in. You might not be liked. But you’re still permitted to use big monitors. Emotivism Here after being asked “says who?” the person just blurts out, “Boo, big monitors!” You reply, “Hurrah, big monitors!” That’s the entire conversation. This is emotivism. On this moral theory when we talk about right and wrong we’re actually just expressing our personal feelings towards actions, I boo rape, you hurrah rape. But shouting “boo!” at someone doesn’t create real obligations. You’re still permitted to use large monitors. Utilitarianism Here, the person says, “Your big monitors lower the overall productivity of the office. You’re not permitted to use them because they lead to worse consequences.” This is utilitarianism: morality is based on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But even if that’s true — so what? Who says you’re obligated to maximize group productivity? And what if your monitors actually help you work better? Utilitarianism might tell you what leads to better outcomes, but it doesn’t tell you why you’re morally obligated to follow that path — especially if it comes at your own expense. You’re still permitted to use large monitors. Virtue Ethics Here they say, “Using big monitors just doesn’t reflect the virtues we admire here — simplicity, humility, restraint.” This is virtue ethics. Morality is about becoming the right kind of person. But who defines those virtues? And why are you obligated to follow them? What if your idea of a virtuous worker includes productivity and confidence? Without a transcendent standard, virtues are just cultural preferences dressed up in moral language. If you don’t care about virtue or their arbitrary standards, then you have no obligation. You’re still permitted to use large monitors. Atheist Moral Realism But what if they say, “Listen, there’s a rule. It’s always been here. It says you can’t use monitors that large.” You ask, “Who made the rule?” They say, “No one.” You ask, “Who owns this company?” They say, “No one owns it. The company just exists.” You look around and ask, “Where is the rule?” They say, “You won’t find it w...
Powered by WebBoss.io 3.7.1
Copyright © 2025 The Sacred Faith: Timeless Truths for Modern Minds. All Rights Reserved.
