Trinitarianism From Then Till Now

Navigation: Index >> Previous >> Next

It seems that Tertullian held that the Modalists’ claim that there must be only one God, since He has only one kingdom over which He reigns, flew in the face of Scriptures that speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit having a special role in this “economy.”

In addition Tertullian asserted that kingdoms of men, like that of God, may be governed by designated rulers. Thus the Father gave the Son “all authority” and the Spirit was sent by the Father. So, Tertullian maintained, there are three Persons in God and only one substance. In Jesus there are divinity and humanity, which allowed two substances belonging to one Person.

There was also what was known as the Arian controversy. Arius, whose beliefs sparked a furious debate, was a church leader in Baucalis, a suburb of Alexandria, Egypt. In about A.D. 318 Arius’s views were heard by Alexander, a prominent figure in the Alexandrian church. He branded them erroneous and eventually had Arius and his followers disfellowshiped. A power struggle followed. Emperor Constantine eventually called the first universal council of the church in A.D. 325. It was convened in the city of Nicea, located in Asia Minor. It was primarily the teachings of Arius that precipitated such ecclesiastical and political action.

The major tenets of Arius may be discerned by examining the creed that was hammered out at the council. The council was largely a reaction to Arius and his party. (Other actions were taken that would have serious consequences for the church in the centuries to follow, which we cannot pursue in the present inquiry.)

The heart of the Nicene Creed is as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth, who for us humans and for our salvation descended and became incarnate, becoming human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say that there was when He was not, and that before being begotten He was not, or that He came from that which is not, or that the Son of God is of a different substance (hypostasis) or essence (ousia), or that He is created, or mutable, these the catholic church anathematizes!

First, note that the phrase “catholic church” as used above did not carry the connotations that it does today. Before becoming institutionalized, the word “catholic” simply meant “general” or “universal.” Second, note the differences between the creedal positions and those of Arius.

This brief comparison makes us realize how divergent and serious the convictions of leading figures were in the early church concerning the Trinity problem, as well as the question of the nature of the relationships inherent among the Persons of the Godhead.

Another striking feature of the Nicene Creed was its seemingly casual one-liner about the Holy Spirit: “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.” However, this brief, terse statement should not be taken as a sign of weakness of faith or lack of commitment to the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the council was not called because of controversy over the Holy Spirit. The battle lines were drawn over God the Father and the relationship between Him and the Son.

However, not many years passed before the emphasis on all three Persons of the Trinity was stressed in a more balanced manner in the Constantinopolitan Creed of A.D. 381. A careful reading of this document reveals a further emphasis on the historical Jesus and a more detailed affirmation concerning the Holy Spirit. Note the sentence concerning the Holy Spirit: “[We believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and Son, Who spoke through the prophets.”

There were many historical events of a political nature and several other persons of prominence in the disputes. Other outstanding persons and their contributions to the on going dialogue are worthy of note.

The defense of the Nicene Creed by Athanasius of Alexandria (d. A.D. 373) is one of the high points of theological history. Augustine of Hippo must also be mentioned. He wrote fifteen books on the Trinity during A.D. 399-419. His views were to have a great impact on trinitarian thinking from that day forward, especially in the West.

Augustine's position was that in Christ two “substances” (Latin: substantia Greek; ousia) were joined in a single “person” (Latin: persona Greek: hypostasis). This was his way of explaining both the divine and the human natures in the one Person, Jesus. Augustine was refuting the unorthodox “logos-flesh” theory of Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. A.D. 390) in Syria.

For Apollinaris, the Word took the place of the spirit in Jesus, so that in Him body and soul were joined in divine reason. This was built off a tripartite view of man's nature based on 1 Thessalonians 5:23. It sounded plausible. However, Augustine's position showed that Apollinaris’s “logos-flesh” explanation deprived Jesus of His human reason, thus mutilating His humanity.

In the East, contributions were made by the three great Cappadocians: Basil of Caesarea, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Their work as a whole contributed to the unification of varying theological stances about the Trinity. It served as a stable support for Nicene-based confessions in the years ahead. In fact, Basil thoroughly affirmed and clarified the statement that described the Trinity as one ousia (substance, essence) and three hypostases (persons).

In the overall study of the Holy Spirit, the following statements based on Basil's “On the Holy Spirit” are significant:

the Spirit cannot possibly be reckoned among creatures, for he operates what is proper to God and is reckoned with, and not below, the Father and Son the Spirit, who is glorified with the Father and the Son, is holy by nature, just as the Father is holy and the Son is holy, that he must not be separated from the Father and the Son We are to maintain that he proceeds from the Father, and in this way is of the Father without being created; for the Holy Spirit is not to be included among the created ministering spirits.

From Then till Now
Unfortunately, it would be a mistake to conclude from our study thus far that the doctrine of God was settled sometime in the long ago. History shows that the case is far from closed. Many unorthodox views about God and the Trinity still persist in our time.

What did the early struggles contribute to a full understanding about God? They probed very deeply the mystery of God in Trinity. They utilized a wide range of resources, including Scripture, oral tradition from apostolic churches, and creedal statements of faith. They developed positions using the rich building blocks of the Greek and Latin languages. And, very significantly, this was all done in the open forum of analysis, discussion, debate, and controversy. Their convictions were not reached in a “closed committee.”

The results were amazing. Eventually, an orthodox consensus emerged. This consensus was set in creedal forms. These creedal statements conceded that the mystery of the Godhead remained. However, they also showed that to the extent that Scripture reveals God they were in harmony with that revelation.

The end results of this extensive and in-depth probe set the parameters of investigation for all time. Although mystery always looms when we attempt to lay hold on the fullness of God, we are now safeguarded from two extremes that the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds removed from any intelligent discussion on the subject. With reference to God, we have learned not to stress unity so much that we fall into the errors of the unipersonalist, who denies the doctrine of the Trinity, or the errors of the trinitarian who affirms that Trinity means three separate Gods. In short, these struggles in the life of the early church produced a positive, comprehensive affirmation about God that is Biblically based, theologically expressed, and intelligently structured.

Unfortunately, the controversy never reached full closure. For example, one finds in Augustine's theology the principle of the “double procession” of the Holy Spirit. This was apparently based on his interpretation of John 14:26 and John 15:26. He held that the Holy Spirit was proceeding from the Father and the Son (Filioque). This found its way into a document known as the Athanasian Creed. It became popular in Spain and was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in that country near the end of the sixth century.

This position was never acceptable to the Eastern church. Eventually, after centuries of long and sometimes bitter political and religious controversies, Christendom was split between East and West in A.D. 1054. The Filioque clause was said to be the chief religious reason for the division. This schism has never been healed.

Approximately a millennium after the Filioque clause was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, an incident occurred in the 17th century that is startling. It is included here to illustrate that old heresies die hard and sharp reactions to them have not ceased:

Bartholemew Legate, an Essexman and an Arian, was burned to death at Smithfield, March 13, 1613. King James I asked him whether he did not pray to Christ. Legate's answer was that ‘indeed he had prayed to Christ in the days of his ignorance, but not for these last seven years’; which so shocked James that ‘he spurned at him with his foot.’ At the stake Legate still refused to recant, and so was burned to ashes amid a vast conflux of people.

Thus two years after the King James Version of the Bible appeared; the king could kick a man and watch him being burned for his Arian view of Christ! Indeed, old heresies do die hard, and sharp reactions to them are often violent.

It is easy to view such things as relics of the ancient past. The horrifying example involving King James occurred almost four hundred years ago. May violent reaction to unorthodox views about the Trinity never rear its ugly head again. However, even a casual acquaintance with the modern history of religion shows that unorthodoxy concerning the Trinity is still alive and well.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach that God is one—not three in one. The Trinity is denied. Jesus is God's representative on earth and, after the battle of Armageddon, will reign as Christ, the King of the great Theocracy.

The Christadelphians fit into this context. John Thomas came to the United States of America from England in 1844. He joined the Disciples of Christ but later left that body, advocating a return to primitive Christianity. The Brethren of Christ, or Christadelphians, were formed. They reject the Trinity. Christ is not God the Son but the “Son of God.” He did not preexist before the incarnation. He was born of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps it is unfair to include the Unitarians in this brief glimpse of “Christian” unorthodoxy since they are not now a part of Christendom. However, Unitarianism had its historical roots in Arianism. Therefore, it was considered heretical throughout the Middle Ages. In the early 17th century Unitarianism was associated with Socinianism, a movement that also rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. In the first half of the 18th century, Unitarianism became identified with many Congregationalist churches, especially in New England. It was in 1788 that the Anglican King's Chapel removed all traces of trinitarian doctrine from its worship. The 19th century Unitarianism, influenced by leaders like Ralph Waldo Emerson, became a bastion of radicalism and humanism. Since about the mid 20th century the Unitarians have largely associated with the Universalists, who also reject the trinitarian view of God.

The Assemblies of God were formed in 1914. Their first major division was over the doctrine of the Trinity. Some taught that there is only one personality in the Godhead, Jesus Christ. The term “Father” is only a title. This is called the Jesus Only, or Jesus Name, group. This group broke with the trinitarian Assemblies of God and is now the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, made up of several denominations.

Even though the preceding survey is very brief, it is sufficient to show that the biblically based orthodox doctrine of the Trinity has not been universally accepted in Christendom at any time in history. The need to deduct this teaching from Scripture is as acute now as it has ever been.

Why is the need so great? After all, so long as we are actually worshiping God, what difference does it make? Remember our underlying thesis which is this: one's view of God ultimately shapes one's religion. Therefore, if I think God is three separate Persons, my worship is polytheistic. If I think God is one Person, I divorce myself from the Bible and lose my faith-anchor for daily living.

On the other hand, if I claim to have a trinitarian view of God, I must have a clear vision of what that means and be able to articulate that view to others. This vision and ability is basic to Christianity and required for true evangelism, Christian growth, and daily Christian living. A biblical perception of the Trinity is essential for understanding the Scriptures. Without this clear concept in mind, how can one understand what happens at Jesus' baptism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are simultaneously present? (Matthew 3:16-17). How can one possibly appreciate the agony Jesus went through for us in Gethsemane and at the cross if he or she believes that the Father and the Son are the same Person (Matthew 26:36-44; Mark 15: 33-34; Luke 23:33-46)? How can one teach others the saving Gospel without acknowledging that his or her authority to do so rests with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18-20)?

The following diagram, “The Trinity,” with it it’s seven explanations is audacious. One cannot sketch the fullness of the Trinity! However, this sketch is submitted with the fond hope that it will be helpful. Please study it before going further.