Support via Patreon | Subscribe

What is Monarchical Trinitarianism?

Header Image for: What is Monarchical Trinitarianism?

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

 

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 8.5K times   Liked 0 times

Contribute on Patreon

Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!

Subscribe to Updates
My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

x

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 831 subscribers today!

My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to Blog updates



Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

How Old Was Jesus When He Died? A Fresh Look At The Historical Clues

| 2 days ago | History

How Old Was Jesus When He Died? A Fresh Look At The Historical Clues

We often hear that Jesus was “about 33 years old” when he was crucified and only had a three-year ministry. But have you ever wondered how precise that number is, or why we assume that was his age, especially when Scripture doesn’t specify? Table of Contents The Gospel of Luke: “About Thirty” Early Church Testimony: Irenaeus and the Longer Ministry Historical Anchors: Birth, Pilate, and the Crucifixion Window The Death of Herod Cross-referencing with Pilate, Caiaphas, and Jesus When Did Tiberius Begin to Reign? 1. From his co-regency with Augustus (AD 11–12) 2. From the death of Augustus (AD 14) How Does This Affect Jesus’ Age and Ministry Start? Astronomy and the Timing of Passover Estimated Lengths of Jesus’ Ministry Why This Matters In Summary Further Reading I’ve long wondered about this, especially when the Pharisees accused Jesus of not being close to fifty, which seems odd if he was only in his early 30s. Then I later discovered Irenaeus also had similar thoughts in the second century, and the plot thickened! I’ve had this rumbling around in the back of my mind for a few years now and slowly chewed it over. So now I’m going to try and present the evidence, rather than rely solely on tradition and assumptions, and piece together what the Gospels, early Church Fathers, historical data, and even astronomy can tell us about the potential age of Jesus and the length of his ministry. What follows is a deeper, richer look at the life and death of Jesus and what we can learn by following the evidence. The Gospel of Luke: “About Thirty” Luke 3:23 tells us plainly: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. This statement has historically been the anchor point for dating Jesus’ ministry. Most take this to mean he was around 30 at his baptism, which marked the beginning of his public ministry. Something to bear in mind here is that Luke isn’t exact and only says “about thirty”, so he could have been slightly younger or older at the time. But being around the age of 30 would align with the requirements of priests, which Jesus was also fulfilling the role of (Hebrews 2:17; Numbers 4:1–4; Numbers 8:23–25). But from there, it’s traditionally assumed that Jesus ministered for just three years before his death, mainly based on the Gospel of John, which mentions three Passovers (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55). However, John also says at the end of his Gospel in John 21:25: But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. This is a clear reminder, even if John is being hyperbolic here: not everything was recorded. Considering that the Synoptic Gospels only mention one Passover, the number of Passovers we read about in John may not reflect the total number Jesus experienced during his ministry. They may also serve a theological point (three being a prominent number in Scripture) rather than a chronological one. Early Church Testimony: Irenaeus and the Longer Ministry In the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon and disciple of Polycarp (who had also known the Apostle John and was likely his disciple), made an interesting claim about the age of Jesus — and backed it up by saying it was verified by the Apostle John himself! In Against Heresies (2.22.4–6), Irenaeus wrote: …our Lord possessed [old age] while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify, those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. … Some of them, moreover, saw not only John but the other apostles also, and heard the same account from them, and bear testimony to this statement. He argued that the line in John 8:57: Then the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraha...

Doubting Defying Jihad: Questioning the Popular Conversion Story

| 12th March 2025 | Islam

Doubting Defying Jihad: Questioning the Popular Conversion Story

This is a guest post by “KingsServant” In 2019 a book called Defying Jihad was published by Tyndale House, the reputable Christian publisher telling the story of “Esther Ahmad” a pseudonym used by the author alongside her co-author Craig Borlase, who has previously written alongside, well known Christian personalities such as Matt Redman the singer and Andrew Brunson, an American pastor imprisoned by the Turkish government. As I began to read this book over this past year I was expecting an encouraging account of how a former Jihadi found Christ and escaped her previous accomplices. Very quickly, however, I became uncomfortable, her descriptions of her background involved allegedly committed Muslims doing very un-Islamic things and the unnamed militant group doing unusual things that didn’t fit my knowledge gained from years of study of Islam and interactions with Muslims, including extremists. As my doubts about the authenticity of the book solidified, and yet I couldn’t find anyone else who had questioned these things before me, or on the other hand provided verification of her story. I decided to contact Craig. During our brief and cordial email exchange he told me that he had been in touch with people who knew Esther after she escaped her family home, but so far has not suggested he has any other lines of evidence confirming any of the key elements of her account before that time. As a result, I am writing this article to draw attention to the aspects that raise suspicion. According to “Esther’s” story, she was raised in Pakistan where she was sent to an extremist madrassa (or Muslim school) for girls, there they were shown images of victims of violence and told that Christians and Jews were responsible - the emphasis on Jews and particularly Christians by a militant group based in Pakistan is strange. All the terrorist groups in Pakistan direct their efforts towards Hindus (especially in Kashmir) or other Muslims, since Christians are such a tiny minority there. Things rapidly become even stranger when a Mullah displays weapons to the group of girls telling them “… one day you will get to handle these” as the book continues describing them being encouraged to aspire to physical violence towards Jews and Christians specifically, the description of “Aunt Selma” volunteering for and dying fighting Jihad is likewise out of place. Islamic terrorist groups very rarely recruit women for combat roles, as Devorah Margolin describes Hamas and ISIS as departing from convention by encouraging female participation in violence and even then in only a very restricted way under particular circumstances with a specific fatwa (or Islamic ruling) being issued.1 On page 33, the militant group leader “Anwar” suggests that Esther could find a husband in the west to bring him to Islam. It is strictly forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non Muslim man, the idea that they would be encouraged by a scholar to date is about as unbelievable. In a conservative Pakistani culture, she would more likely find herself the victim of a so-called “honour killing” for such a thing.2 After her initial chance encounters with her future husband “John” (not as a result of trying to follow “Anwar’s” advice), on page 92 it is recorded that he said to her “… I’m not against your faith and beliefs…”, it’s the kind of thing that we might expect a liberal in the west to say, but not a Pakistani believer who knows that Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for sinners. Following her conversion according to her account, she engaged in a number of public debates with clerics in which she defended her decision to leave Islam and follow Christ. It is not uncommon for apostates to have meetings with scholars arranged by their family members in the hope that they might be won back to Islam, but it is very surprising that her influential father would want to give his apostate daughter su...

From Dust to Redemption: The Meaning of Ash Wednesday

| 05th March 2025 | Lent

From Dust to Redemption: The Meaning of Ash Wednesday

Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent, a season of repentance, fasting, and preparation for Easter in the Christian calendar. It is observed by many Western Christian traditions, including the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Communion, Lutheran churches, and some Methodist and Reformed communities. The day falls 46 days before Easter Sunday and is always on a Wednesday. Origins and Historical Development The practice of Ash Wednesday can be traced back to the early centuries of Christianity, though its formal observance developed over time. The use of ashes as a sign of repentance has deep biblical roots, appearing frequently in the Old Testament. People would cover themselves with ashes as an outward sign of sorrow for sin and a desire to turn back to God (e.g., Job 42:6, Daniel 9:3, Jonah 3:6). By the 8th century, the imposition of ashes on the forehead became a common practice in the Western Church. Pope Urban II (r. 1088–1099) helped formalise Ash Wednesday as the official beginning of Lent, reinforcing the idea of a season of penitence leading up to Easter. The name “Ash Wednesday” itself comes from the tradition of marking the faithful with ashes, typically in the shape of a cross, while the priest or minister recites words such as, “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19) or “Repent, and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15). The Lenten Fast Fasting has always been a central aspect of Lent, and by the time of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), a forty-day period of fasting before Easter had become a standard part of Church practice. This was based on the example of Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1–2) and was intended to prepare believers spiritually for the Passion and Resurrection of Christ. Athanasius, the great bishop of Alexandria, regularly wrote paschal (Easter) letters to the churches to encourage fasting, self-control, and moderation during this period. His writings provide valuable insight into how Lent was observed in the early Church and confirm that the practice was well established long before later claims that it had pagan origins. In one of his letters, written around AD 332, he describes the structure of the Lenten fast: The beginning of the fast of forty days is on the fifth of the month Phamenoth [Ash Wednesday]; and when, as I have said, we have first been purified and prepared by those days, we begin the holy week of the great Easter on the tenth of the month Pharmuthi [Palm Sunday], in which, my beloved brethren, we should use more prolonged prayers, and fastings… — Athanasius, Letter III (c. AD 332) The early Lenten fast was stricter than modern observances. Many early Christians abstained not only from meat but also from dairy, eggs, and wine. In some traditions, believers ate only one meal per day, typically in the evening. While practices have evolved over time, the principle remains the same: Lent is a time of self-discipline, spiritual renewal, and preparation for Easter. Meaning and Observance of Ash Wednesday Ash Wednesday serves as a solemn reminder of human mortality and the need for repentance. The ashes, often made by burning the palm branches from the previous year’s Palm Sunday, symbolise both death and the hope of renewal in Christ. The day is also marked by fasting and abstinence in many traditions, such as within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the faithful are required to fast and to abstain from meat and dairy on various days. Many other denominations encourage similar practices or personal acts of self-denial as a way of focusing on spiritual growth. Churches hold special services where worshippers receive the imposition of ashes. The act is not merely ritualistic but is meant to be a public declaration of one’s commitment to turn away from sin and seek God’s grace. Greek Orthodox Yearly Fasting Calendar (2025). Fasting isn’t just for Lent! An Anglican Perspective The Ch...

Biblical Inspiration and the Canon: How We Got the Bible

| 28th February 2025 | Early Church

Biblical Inspiration and the Canon: How We Got the Bible

The Bible is often described as “God-breathed,” a phrase taken from 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” But what does it mean for Scripture to be “inspired,” and how did the books of the Bible come to be recognised as part of the canon — the authoritative collection of writings that make up the Bible? Were they really “decided” at the Council of Nicaea, as some popular myths claim? Table of Contents Understanding Biblical Inspiration What is the Canon? The Septuagint and the Deuterocanonical Books How Were the Books of the Bible Selected? Why Were Some Books Excluded? Has the Bible Been Edited or Corrupted Over Time? Did the Church Decide the Canon at Nicaea? Conclusion Further Reading Understanding Biblical Inspiration A helpful analogy for inspiration is that of an architect designing a great building. Consider St. Paul’s Cathedral in London — Christopher Wren was the architect who planned and designed it, yet he himself did not lay a single brick. Instead, countless workers followed his design to bring the cathedral into existence. Similarly, God is the ultimate author of Scripture, yet He worked through human writers to bring His message to us. The Holy Spirit inspired them, guiding their words while allowing their personalities, historical context, and literary style to remain evident in their writings. This means that while the Bible is written by human hands, it carries divine authority because its true source is God Himself. The process of inspiration does not mean God dictated each word like a secretary taking notes, or by possessing the authors, but rather that He ensured the truth of His message was faithfully recorded by the biblical writers. What is the Canon? The word “canon” comes from the Greek κανών (kanōn), meaning “rule” or “measuring rod.” In the context of the Bible, the canon refers to the official list of books recognised as divinely inspired and authoritative for faith and practice. The canon developed over time as the early church recognised which writings carried divine authority. The Old Testament canon was largely settled by the time of Jesus, based on the Hebrew Scriptures used in the Jewish community. The New Testament canon, however, was formed through a process of discernment over several centuries, as the church recognised which writings were truly inspired and authoritative. The Septuagint and the Deuterocanonical Books The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, produced in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC. It was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews and later by early Christians, including the apostles. The Septuagint included several books not found in the Hebrew Bible, known as the Deuterocanonical books (such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and 1–2 Maccabees). While these books were accepted in many early Christian communities and remain part of the canon in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, Protestant reformers later removed them, considering them useful but not divinely inspired at the same level as the rest of Scripture. The reformers’ view was influenced by Jerome, who, in the 4th century, argued that these books were not part of the Hebrew Bible and therefore should be considered separate. However, he still included them in his Latin Vulgate translation, recognising their historical and devotional value. The Reformers followed Jerome’s stance, moving these books into a separate section rather than outright removing them. It was not until the 19th century that an American Bible Society, citing printing costs and other practical considerations, physically removed these books entirely from Protestant Bibles. This decision solidified what is now commonly referred to as the “Protestant canon” of 66 books. And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example o...

Heart Soul Mind Strength: The Greatest Commandment

My new book is now available
Order now wherever you get books!

Discover the transformative power of Lectio Divina.
This comprehensive guide invites you on a spiritual journey, enriching your prayer life and deepening your relationship with God through the ancient practice of Lectio Divina.

Order Now

Heart Soul Mind Strength: The Greatest Commandment

Close