Biblical Answer

The implications of a 'non-essentialist' understanding of the Trinity on the doctrine of the persons are significant. A non-essentialist view of the Trinity suggests that the relationships between the persons are not essential to the nature of God, but rather are functions or roles that can be understood in a more flexible and dynamic way. This understanding can lead to a downplaying of the distinct personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and can even result in a tritheistic view of the Trinity, where the three persons are seen as separate and distinct individuals rather than as one undivided being.

This non-essentialist view of the Trinity also has implications for the doctrine of the persons. If the relationships between the persons are not essential to the nature of God, then it becomes difficult to understand the distinct roles and authority of each person. This can lead to a loss of the biblical teaching on the full deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and can result in a view of God that is more unitarian than Trinitarian. Furthermore, this view can lead to a lack of understanding of the person of Christ, since the biblical teaching on the Second Person of the Trinity taking on human nature is deeply tied to the doctrine of the Trinity.

In contrast, an essentialist view of the Trinity, which sees the relationships between the persons as essential to the nature of God, provides a more robust and biblical understanding of the doctrine of the persons. This view recognizes the distinct personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while also acknowledging their unity as one undivided being. This understanding provides a solid foundation for the doctrine of the persons, and is essential for a proper understanding of the person of Christ and the nature of God. Therefore, it is crucial to uphold an essentialist view of the Trinity in order to maintain a biblical and orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the persons.