Part 1-Did Jesus and His Disciples Teach the Trinity Doctrine?
Did Jesus and his disciples teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Did church leaders of the next several centuries teach it? How did it originate? And why is it important to know the truth about this belief? Beginning with Part 1 of this series, we will discuss these questions in a series of articles.
THOSE who accept the Bible as God's Word recognize that they have a responsibility to teach others about the Creator. They also realize that the substance of what they teach about God must be true. God rebuked Job's "comforters" for not doing that. "Yahweh proceeded to say to Eliphaz the Temanite: 'My anger has grown hot against you and your two companions, for you men have not spoken concerning me what is truthful as has my servant Job.'"-Job 42:7.
The apostle Paul, when discussing the resurrection, said that we would be "found false witnesses of God" if we were to teach something about God's activities that was not true. (1 Corinthians 15:15) This being so with the resurrection teaching, how careful we ought to be when we approach our teaching about who God is!
The Trinity Doctrine
Nearly all churches of Christendom teach that God is a Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls the Trinity teaching "the central doctrine of the Christian religion," defining it this way: "In the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' . . . The Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent." 1
The Baptist Encyclopedia gives a similar definition. It says: "[Jesus] is . . . the eternal Jehovah . . . The Holy Spirit is Jehovah . . . The Son and Spirit are placed on an exact equality with the Father. If he is Jehovah so are they." 2
Anathemas Pronounced on Opposers
In 325 C.E., a council of bishops in Nicea in Asia Minor formulated a creed that declared the Son of God to be "true God" just as the Father was "true God." Part of that creed stated: "But as for those who say, There was [a time] when [the Son] was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change-these the Catholic Church anathematizes." 3
Thus, anyone who believed that the Son of God was not co-eternal with the Father or that the Son was created was consigned to everlasting damnation. One can imagine the pressure to conform that this put on the mass of ordinary believers.
In the year 381 C.E., another council met in Constantinople and declared that the holy spirit should be worshipped and glorified just as the Father and Son were. One year later, in 382 C.E., another synod met in Constantinople and affirmed the full divinity of the holy spirit. 4 That same year, before a council in Rome, Pope Damasus presented a collection of teachings to be condemned by the church. The document, called the Tome of Damasus, included the following statements:
"If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic."
"If anyone denies that the Son of God is true God, just as the Father is true God, having all power, knowing all things, and equal to the Father: he is a heretic."
"If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit . . . is true God . . . has all power and knows all things, . . . he is a heretic."
"If anyone denies that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are true persons, equal, eternal, containing all things visible and invisible, that they are omnipotent, . . . he is a heretic."
"If anyone says that [the Son who was] made flesh was not in heaven with the Father while he was on earth: he is a heretic."
"If anyone, while saying that the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, . . . does not say that they are one God, . . . he is a heretic." 5
The Jesuit scholars who translated the foregoing from Latin added the comment: "Pope St. Celestine I (422-32) apparently considered these canons law; they may be considered definitions of faith." 6 And scholar Edmund J. Fortman asserts that the tome represents "sound and solid Trinitarian doctrine." 7
If you are a member of a church that accepts the Trinity teaching, do these statements define your faith? And did you realize that to believe in the Trinity doctrine as taught by the churches requires you to believe that Jesus was in heaven while he was on earth? This teaching is similar to what fourth-century churchman Athanasius stated in his book On the Incarnation: "The Word [Jesus] was not hedged in by His body, nor did His presence in the body prevent His being present elsewhere as well. When He moved His body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His Mind and might. . . . He is still Source of life to all the universe, present in every part of it, yet outside the whole." 8
What the Trinity Doctrine Means
Some have concluded that simply ascribing deity or godship to Jesus is all that the Trinity teaching means. For others, belief in the Trinity simply means belief in Father, Son, and holy spirit.
However, a close examination of Christendom's creeds exposes how woefully inadequate such ideas are in relation to the formal doctrine. Official definitions make it clear that the Trinity doctrine is not a simple idea. Instead, it is a complex set of separate ideas that have been brought together over a long period of time and interlocked into one another.
From the picture of the Trinity doctrine that appeared after the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E., from the Tome of Damasus in 382 C.E., from the Athanasian Creed that came some time later, and from other documents, we can clearly determine what Christendom means by the Trinity doctrine. It includes the following definite ideas:
1. There are said to be three divine persons-the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit-in the Godhead.
2. Each of these separate persons is said to be eternal, none coming before or after the other in time.
3. Each is said to be almighty, with none greater or lesser than the other.
4. Each is said to be omniscient, knowing all things.
5. Each is said to be true God.
6. However, it is said that there are not three Gods but only one God.
Clearly the Trinity doctrine is a complex set of ideas including at least the above vital elements and involving even more, as revealed when the details are examined. But if we consider only the above basic ideas, it is apparent that if any are removed, what remains is no longer Christendom's Trinity. To have the complete picture, all these pieces must be present.
With this better understanding of the term "Trinity," we can now ask: Was it a teaching of Jesus and his disciples? If so, it should have appeared fully formed in the first century of our Common Era. And since what they taught is found in the Bible, then the Trinity doctrine is either a Bible teaching or it is not. If it is, it should be clearly taught in the Bible.
It is not reasonable to think that Jesus and his disciples would teach people about God and yet not tell them who God is, especially when some believers would be asked to give up even their lives for God. Hence, Jesus and his disciples should have given the highest priority to teaching others about this vital doctrine.
Examine the Scriptures
At Acts chapter 17, verse 11, people are called "noble-minded" because they were "carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so," things taught by the apostle Paul. They were encouraged to use the Scriptures to confirm the teachings even of an apostle. You should do the same.
Keep in mind that the Scriptures are "inspired of God" and are to be used for "setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) So the Bible is complete in doctrinal matters. If the Trinity doctrine is true, it should be there. We invite you to search the Bible, especially the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, to see for yourself if Jesus and his disciples taught a Trinity. As you search, ask yourself:
1. Can I find any scripture that mentions "Trinity"?
2. Can I find any scripture that says that God is made up of three distinct persons, Father, Son, and holy spirit, but that the three are only one God?
3. Can I find any scripture that says that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are equal in all ways, such as in eternity, power, position, and wisdom?
Search as you may, you will not find one scripture that uses the word Trinity, nor will you find any that says that Father, Son, and holy spirit are equal in all ways, such as in eternity, power, position, and wisdom. Not even a single scripture says that the Son is equal to the Father in those ways-and if there were such a scripture, it would establish not a Trinity but at most a "duality." Nowhere does the Bible equate the holy spirit with the Father.
What Many Scholars Say
Many scholars, including Trinitarians, admit that the Bible does not contain an actual doctrine of a Trinity. For example, The Encyclopedia of Religion states:
"Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity . . . Although the Hebrew Bible depicts God as the father of Israel and employs personifications of God such as Word (davar), Spirit (ruah), Wisdom (hokhmah), and Presence (shekhinah), it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later Trinitarian doctrine.
"Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. God the Father is source of all that is (Pantokrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ; 'Father' is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God. . . .
"In the New Testament there is no reflective consciousness of the metaphysical nature of God ('immanent trinity'), nor does the New Testament contain the technical language of later doctrine (hypostasis, ousia, substantia, subsistentia, pros"opon, persona). . . . It is incontestable that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural evidence alone." 9 Regarding the historical facts on this matter, The New Encyclopedia Britannica states:
"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . .
"The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . .
"It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons." 10
The New Catholic Encyclopedia makes a similar statement regarding the origin of the Trinity: "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought. . . .
"The formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development." 11
Is It "Implied"?
Trinitarians may say that the Bible "implies" a Trinity. But this claim is made long after the Bible was written. It is an attempt to read into the Bible what clergymen of later times arbitrarily decided should be doctrine.
Ask yourself: Why would the Bible only "imply" its most important teaching-who God is? The Bible is clear on other basic teachings; why not on this, the most important one? Would not the Creator of the universe author a book that was clear on his being a Trinity if that were the case? The reason the Bible does not clearly teach the Trinity doctrine is simple: It is not a Bible teaching. Had God been a Trinity, he would surely have made it clear so that Jesus and his disciples could have taught it to others. And that vital information would have been included in God's inspired Word. It would not have been left to imperfect men to struggle with centuries later.
When we examine texts offered by Trinitarians as evidence that the Bible "implies" a Trinity, what do we find? An honest appraisal reveals that the scriptures offered do not speak of Christendom's Trinity. Instead, theologians try to force into the scriptures their preconceived ideas of a Trinity. But those ideas are not in the scripture texts. In fact, those Trinitarian ideas conflict with the clear testimony of the Bible as a whole.
An example of such texts is found at Matthew 28:19, 20. There the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are mentioned together. Some claim that this implies a Trinity. But read the verses yourself. Is there anything in those texts that says that the three are one God equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom? No, there is not. It is the same with other texts that mention the three together.
As for those who see Trinitarian implications at Matthew 28:19, 20 in the use of "name" in the singular for the Father, Son, and holy spirit, please compare the use of "name," singular, for Abraham and Isaac at Genesis 48:16.-King James Version.
Trinitarians also point to John 1:1 in some translations, where "the Word" is spoken of as being "with God" and as being "God." But other Bible translations say that the Word was "divine," meaning not necessarily God but a powerful one. Furthermore, that Bible verse says that "the Word" was "with" God. That would reasonably exclude him from being that same God. And no matter what is concluded about "the Word," the fact is that only two persons are mentioned at John 1:1, not three. Over and over again, all texts used to try to support the Trinity doctrine utterly fail to do so when examined honestly.
Another factor to consider is this: If the Trinity doctrine had been taught by Jesus and his disciples, then surely leading churchmen who came immediately after them would also have taught it. But did those men, today called the Apostolic Fathers, teach the Trinity doctrine?
References
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Volume XV, page 47. 2. The Baptist Encyclopedia, edited by William Cathcart, 1883, pages 1168-9. 3. A Short History of Christian Doctrine, by Bernhard Lohse, 1980 Edition, page 53. 4. Ibid., pages 64-5. 5. The Church Teaches, translated and edited by John F. Clarkson, S.J., John H. Edwards, S.J., William J. Kelly, S.J., and John J. Welch, S.J., 1955, pages 125-7. 6. Ibid., page 125. 7. The Triune God, by Edmund J. Fortman, 1982 Edition, page 126. 8. On the Incarnation, translated by Penelope Lawson, 1981 Edition, pages 27-8. 9. The Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade, editor in chief, 1987, Volume 15, page 54. 10. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1985, Volume 11, Micropİdia, page 928. 11. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume XIV, page 295.
Did the Early Church Teach That God Is a Trinity?
Part 2-Did the Apostolic Fathers Teach the Trinity Doctrine?
"APOSTOLIC FATHERS" is the designation used for churchmen who wrote about Christianity in the late first and early second centuries of our Common Era. Some of them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Papias.
They were said to be contemporaries of some of the apostles. Thus, they should have been familiar with apostolic teachings. Regarding what those men wrote, The New Encyclopedia Britannica says:
"Taken as a whole the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are more valuable historically than any other Christian literature outside the \New Testament." 1 If the apostles taught the Trinity doctrine, then those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too. It should have been prominent in their teaching, since nothing was more important than telling people who God is. So did they teach the Trinity doctrine?
An Early Statement of Faith
One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. Its author is unknown. 2
The Didache deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In its 7th chapter, it prescribes baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," the same words Jesus used at Matthew 28:19. 3 But it says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom. In its 10th chapter, The Didache includes the following confession of faith in the form of a prayer:
"We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything for your Name's sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through Jesus your Servant." 4
There is no Trinity in this. In The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Edwin Hatch quotes the foregoing passage and then says:
"In the original sphere of Christianity there does not appear to have been any great advance upon these simple conceptions. The doctrine upon which stress was laid was, that God is, that He is one, that He is almighty and everlasting, that He made the world, that His mercy is over all His works. There was no taste for metaphysical discussion." 5
Clement of Rome
Clement of Rome, thought to have been a "bishop" in that city, is another early source of writings on Christianity. It is believed that he died about 100 C.E. In the material said to have been written by him, he makes no mention of a Trinity, either directly or indirectly. In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, he states:
"Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied."
"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ."
"May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh-who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculiar people-grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering." 6
Clement does not say that Jesus or the holy spirit is equal to God. He presents Almighty God (not just "Father") as distinct from the Son. God is spoken of as superior, since Christ is "sent forth" by God, and God "chose" Christ. Showing that God and Christ are two separate and unequal identities, Clement said:
"We will beg with earnest prayer and supplication that the Creator of the universe will keep intact the precise number of his elect in the whole world, through his beloved Child Jesus Christ. . . . We realize you [God] alone are 'highest among the highest' . . . You alone are the guardian of spirits and the God of all flesh."
"Let all the nations realize that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your Child." 7
Clement calls God (not just "Father") "the highest," and refers to Jesus as God's "Child." He also notes regarding Jesus: "Since he reflects God's splendor, he is as superior to the angels as his title is more distinguished than theirs." 8 Jesus reflects God's splendor, but he does not equal it, just as the moon reflects sunlight but does not equal the source of that light, the sun. If the Son of God were equal to God, who is the heavenly Father, it would have been unnecessary for Clement to say that Jesus was superior to the angels, since that would have been obvious. And his wording shows his recognition that while the Son is superior to angels, he is inferior to Almighty God.
Clement's position is quite plain: The Son is inferior to the Father and is secondary to him. Clement never viewed Jesus as sharing in a godhead with the Father. He shows that the Son is dependent upon the Father, that is, God, and says definitely that the Father is 'God alone,' sharing His position with no one. And nowhere does Clement give the holy spirit equality with God. Thus, there is no Trinity at all in Clement's writings.
Ignatius
Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, lived from about the middle of the first century C.E. to early in the second century. Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit.
Even if Ignatius had said that the Son was equal to the Father in eternity, power, position, and wisdom, it would still not be a Trinity, for nowhere did he say that the holy spirit was equal to God in those ways. But Ignatius did not say that the Son was equal to God the Father in such ways or in any other. Instead, he showed that the Son is in subjection to the One who is superior, Almighty God.
Ignatius calls Almighty God "the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only- begotten Son," showing the distinction between God and His Son. 9 He speaks of "God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 10 And he declares: "There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son." 11 Ignatius shows that the Son was not eternal as a person but was created, for he has the Son saying: "The Lord [Almighty God] created Me, the beginning of His ways." 12 Similarly, Ignatius said: "There is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, 'of whom are all things;' and one Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord, 'by whom are all things.'" 13 He also writes:
"The Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, . . . even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He [the Son], 'the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's, who sent Me.'" 14
"There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every respect pleased him [God] who sent him. . . . Jesus Christ was subject to the Father." 15
True, Ignatius calls the Son "God the Word." But using the word "God" for the Son does not necessarily mean equality with Almighty God. The Bible also calls the Son "God" at Isaiah 9:6. John 1:18 calls the Son "the only-begotten god." Being vested with power and authority from Jehovah God, the Father, the Son could properly be termed a "mighty one," which is what "god" basically means.-Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2.
However, are the 15 letters attributed to Ignatius accepted as authentic? In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, editors Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson state:
"It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age . . . and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries."
"Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius . . . , we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. . . . Although the shorter form . . . had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity." 16
If we accept the shorter version of his writings as genuine, it does eliminate some phrases (in the longer version) that show Christ as subordinate to God, but what is left in the shorter version still does not show a Trinity. And regardless of which of his writings are genuine, they show at best that Ignatius believed in a duality of God and his Son. This was certainly not a duality of equals, for the Son is always presented as lesser than God and subordinate to him. Thus, regardless of how one views the Ignatian writings, a Trinity doctrine is not to be found in them.
Polycarp
Polycarp of Smyrna was born in the last third of the first century and died in the middle of the second. It is said that he had contact with the apostle John, and he is said to have written the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.
Was there anything in Polycarp's writing that would indicate a Trinity? No, there is no mention of it. Indeed, what he says is consistent with what Jesus and his disciples and apostles taught. For instance, in his Epistle, Polycarp stated:
"May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, . . . build you up in faith and truth." 17
Note that, like Clement, Polycarp does not speak of a Trinitarian "Father" and "Son" relationship of equals in a godhead. Instead, he speaks of "the God and Father" of Jesus, not just 'the Father of Jesus.' So he separates God from Jesus, just as the Bible writers repeatedly do. Paul says at 2 Corinthians 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." He does not just say, 'Blessed be the Father of Jesus' but, "Blessed be the God and Father" of Jesus. Also, Polycarp says: "Peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour." 18 Here again, Jesus is distinct from Almighty God, not one person of an equal triune Godhead.
Hermas and Papias
Another Apostolic Father is Hermas, who wrote in the first part of the second century. In his work the Shepherd, or Pastor, does he say anything that would lead one to believe that he understood God to be a Trinity? Note some examples of what he said: "Nor when man wishes the spirit to speak does the Holy Spirit speak, but it speaks only when God wishes it to speak. . . . God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them." 19 "The Son of God is older than all his creation." 20
Here Hermas says that when God (not just the Father) wishes the spirit to speak, it speaks, showing God's superiority to the spirit. And he says that God gave the vineyard to his Son, showing God's superiority to the Son. He also states that the Son of God is older than his, the Son's, creatures, that is, those the Son of God created as God's Master Worker, "because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth." (Colossians 1:15,16) The fact is that the Son is not eternal. He was created as a spirit creature of high rank, before other spirit creatures, such as the angels, who were created by means of him.
J. N. D. Kelly, in his Early Christian Doctrines, writes about the view of Hermas regarding the Son of God:
"In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy', and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael."
"There is evidence also . . . of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign." 21
Papias is also said to have known the apostle John. Likely he wrote early in the second century, but only fragments of his writings exist today. In them he says nothing about a Trinity doctrine.
Consistent Teaching
In the matter of God's supremacy and his relationship with Jesus, the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers is fairly consistent with the teaching of Jesus, the disciples, and the apostles, as recorded in the Bible. All of them speak of God, not as a Trinity, but as a separate, eternal, almighty, all-knowing Being. And they speak of the Son of God as a separate, lesser, subordinate spirit creature whom God created to serve Him in accomplishing His will. And the holy spirit is nowhere included as an equal of God.
Thus, in those late-first-century and early-second-century writings of the Apostolic Fathers, there is no support for Christendom's Trinity. They spoke of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit just as the Bible does. Look, for example, at Acts 7:55, 56:
"Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God's right hand. 'I can see heaven thrown open,' he said, 'and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.'"-Catholic Jerusalem Bible.
Stephen saw a vision of God in heaven with Jesus standing next to Him. The Son was standing next to the One termed, not just "Father," but "God," one completely separate in identity from Jesus. And there was no third person involved in what Stephen saw. The holy spirit was not seen in heaven with Jesus and his Father.
That is similar to Revelation 1:1, which states: "This is the revelation given by God to Jesus Christ." (The Jerusalem Bible) Again, the resurrected Christ in heaven is shown to be entirely separate from God, and the holy spirit is not mentioned. If Jesus were the second person of a Trinity, knowing all things, how could he be "given" a revelation?
Scriptures such as these show clearly that there is no Trinity. And no scripture in the entire Bible speaks of God as being a Trinity. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers reflected this. They most certainly did not teach Christendom's Trinity.
The next important group of writings on Christianity came later in the second century. These were the works of churchmen who are called apologists. Did they teach a Trinity?
References: 1. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1985, Micropİdia, Volume 1, page 488. 2. A Dictionary of Christian Theology, edited by Alan Richardson, 1969, page 95; The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1985, Micropİdia, Volume 4, page 79. 3. The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 3, by Robert A. Kraft, 1965, page 163. 4. Ibid., pages 166-7. 5. The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, by Edwin Hatch, 1957, page 252. 6. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition, 1885, Volume I, pages 5, 16, 21. 7. The Library of Christian Classics, Volume 1, Early Christian Fathers, translated and edited by Cyril C. Richardson, 1953, pages 70-1. 8. Ibid., page 60. 9. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 52. 10. Ibid., page 58. 11. Ibid., page 62. 12. Ibid., page 108. 13. Ibid., page 116. 14. Ibid., page 53. 15. The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 4, by Robert M. Grant, 1966, page 63. 16. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, pages 46-7; Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by John McClintock and James Strong, reprinted by Baker Book House Co., 1981, Volume IV, pages 490-3; The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910, Volume VII, pages 644-7. 17. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 35. 18. Ibid., page 33. 19. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II, pages 27, 35. 20. The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb's Classical Library) with an English Translation by Kirsopp Lake, 1976, page 249. 21. Early Christian Doctrines, by J. N. D. Kelly, Second Edition, 1960, pages 94-5.
Did the Early Church Teach That God Is a Trinity?
Part 3-Did the Apologists Teach the Trinity Doctrine?
FROM near the middle of the second century of our Common Era through its end, there appeared churchmen who are today called Apologists. They wrote to defend the Christianity they knew against hostile philosophies prevalent in the Roman world of that time. Their work came toward the end of, and after, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
Among the Apologists who wrote in Greek were Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian was an Apologist who wrote in Latin. Did they teach modern Christendom's Trinity-three coequal persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in a Godhead, each being true God, yet there being not three Gods but one God?
"The Son Is Subordinate"
Dr. H. R. Boer, in his book A Short History of the Early Church, comments on the thrust of the Apologists' teaching:
"Justin [Martyr] taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. . . . When God desired to create the world, . . . he begot another divine being to create the world for him. This divine being was called . . . Son because he was born; he was called Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. . . .
"Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists." 1
In the book The Formation of Christian Dogma, Dr. Martin Werner says of the earliest understanding of the relationship of the Son to God:
"That relationship was understood unequivocally as being one of 'subordination', i.e. in the sense of the subordination of Christ to God. Wherever in the New Testament the relationship of Jesus to God, the Father, is brought into consideration, . . . it is conceived of and represented categorically as subordination. And the most decisive Subordinationist of the New Testament, according to the Synoptic record, was Jesus himself . . . This original position, firm and manifest as it was, was able to maintain itself for a long time. 'All the great pre- Nicene theologians represented the subordination of the Logos to God.'" 2
In agreement with this, R. P. C. Hanson, in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, states:
"There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father." 3
Dr. Alvan Lamson, in The Church of the First Three Centuries, adds this testimony regarding the teaching of church authorities before the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.):
"The inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers . . . That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate." 4
Similarly, in the book Gods and the One God, Robert M. Grant says the following about the Apologists:
"The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. . . . What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity . . . Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist." 5
Christendom's Trinity teaches that the Son is equal to God the Father in eternity, power, position, and wisdom. But the Apologists said that the Son was not equal to God the Father. They viewed the Son as subordinate. That is not the Trinity teaching.
Reflecting First-Century Teaching
The Apologists and other early Church Fathers reflected to a great degree what first-century Christians taught about the relationship of the Father and the Son. Note how this is expressed in the book The Formation of Christian Dogma:
"In the Primitive Christian era there was no sign of any kind of Trinitarian problem or controversy, such as later produced violent conflicts in the Church. The reason for this undoubtedly lay in the fact that, for Primitive Christianity, Christ was . . . a being of the high celestial angel-world, who was created and chosen by God for the task of bringing in, at the end of the ages, . . . the Kingdom of God." 6
Further regarding the teaching of the earlier Church Fathers, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia admits:
"In the earliest thinking of the Church the tendency when speaking of God the Father is to conceive of Him first, not as the Father of Jesus Christ, but as the source of all being. Hence God the Father is, as it were, God par excellence. To Him belong such descriptions as unoriginate, immortal, immutable, ineffable, invisible, and ingenerate. It is He who has made all things, including the very stuff of creation, out of nothing. . . .
"This might seem to suggest that the Father alone is properly God and the Son and Spirit are only secondarily so. Many early statements appear to support this." 7
While this encyclopedia goes on to downplay these truths and to claim that the Trinity doctrine was accepted in that early period, the facts belie the claim. Consider the words of famed Catholic theologian John Henry Cardinal Newman:
"Let us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the Primitive Church . . . But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive [church authorities] in its favour . . .
"The Creeds of that early day make no mention . . . of the [Trinity] at all. They make mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are One, that They are coequal, co- eternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them." 8
What Justin Martyr Taught
One of the earliest Apologists was Justin Martyr, who lived from about 110 to 165 C.E. None of his extant writings mention three coequal persons in one God.
For example, according to the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, Proverbs 8:22-30 says of the prehuman Jesus: "Yahweh created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works. . . . The deep was not, when I was born . . . Before the hills, I came to birth . . . I was by his [God's] side, a master craftsman." Discussing these verses, Justin says in his Dialogue With Trypho:
"The Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit." 9
Since the Son was born from God, Justin does use the expression "God" in connection with the Son. He states in his First Apology: "The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." 10 The Bible also refers to the Son of God by the title "God." At Isaiah 9:6 he is called "Mighty God." But in the Bible, angels, humans, false gods, and Satan are also called "gods." (Angels: Psalm 8:5; compare Hebrews 2:6, 7. Humans: Psalm 82:6. False gods: Exodus 12:12; 1 Corinthians 8:5. Satan: 2 Corinthians 4:4.) In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word for "God," _El, simply means "Mighty One" or "Strong One." The equivalent in the Greek Scriptures is the_os'.
Moreover, the Hebrew term used at Isaiah 9:6 shows a definite distinction between the Son and God. There the Son is called "Mighty God," _El Gib_bohr', not "Almighty God." That term in Hebrew is _El Shad_dai' and applies uniquely to Yahweh God.
Note, however, that while Justin calls the Son "God," he never says that the Son is one of three equal persons, each of whom is God but the three forming only one God. Instead, he says in his Dialogue With Trypho:
"There is . . . another God and Lord [the prehuman Jesus] subject to the Maker of all things [Almighty God]; who [the Son] is also called an Angel, because He [the Son] announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them. . . .
"[The Son] is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will." 11
An interesting passage occurs in Justin's First Apology, chapter 6, where he defends against the pagan charge that Christians are atheists. He writes:
"Both Him [God], and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore." 12
A translator of this passage, Bernhard Lohse, comments: "As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshipped by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit." 13-See also An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 14
Thus, while Justin Martyr appears to have departed from pure Bible doctrine in the matter of who should be the object of a Christian's worship, he clearly did not view the Son as equal to the Father, any more than the angels were considered to be His equal. Regarding Justin, we quote again from Lamson's Church of the First Three Centuries:
"Justin regarded the Son as distinct from God, and inferior to him: distinct, not, in the modern sense, as forming one of three hypostases, or persons, . . . but distinct in essence and nature; having a real, substantial, individual subsistence, separate from God, from whom he derived all his powers and titles; being constituted under him, and subject in all things to his will. The Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father's will always prevailing with the Son." 15 In addition, nowhere does Justin say that the holy spirit is a person equal to the Father and to the Son. So in no sense can it honestly be said that Justin taught modern Christendom's Trinity.
What Clement Taught
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 to 215 C.E.) also calls the Son "God." He even calls him "Creator," a term never used in the Bible with reference to Jesus. Did he mean that the Son was equal in all ways to the almighty Creator? No. Clement was evidently referring to John 1:3, where it says of the Son: "All things came into existence through him." 16 God used the Son as an agent in His creative works.-Colossians 1:15-17.
Clement calls the Supreme God "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus" 17 and says that "the Lord is the Son of the Creator." 18 He also says: "The God of all is only one good, just Creator, and the Son [is] in the Father." 19 So he wrote that the Son has a God above him. Clement speaks of God as the "first and only dispenser of eternal life, which the Son, who received it of Him [God], gives to us." 20 The original Giver of eternal life is clearly superior to the one who, as it were, passes it along. Thus, Clement says that God "is first, and highest." 21 Further, he says that the Son "is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One" and that the Son "orders all things in accordance with the Father's will." 22 Time and again Clement shows Almighty God's supremacy over the Son.
Regarding Clement of Alexandria, we read in The Church of the First Three Centuries:
"We might quote numerous passages from Clement in which the inferiority of the Son is distinctly asserted. . . .
"We are astonished that any one can read Clement with ordinary attention, and imagine for a single moment that he regarded the Son as numerically identical-one-with the Father. His dependent and inferior nature, as it seems to us, is everywhere recognized. Clement believed God and the Son to be numerically distinct; in other words, two beings,-the one supreme, the other subordinate." 23
Further, it may again be said: Even if Clement sometimes appears to go beyond what the Bible says about Jesus, nowhere does he speak of a Trinity composed of three equal persons in one God. Apologists such as Tatian, Theophilus, and Athenagoras, who lived between the time of Justin and that of Clement, had similar views. Lamson says that they "were no better Trinitarians than Justin himself; that is, they believed in no undivided, coequal Three, but taught a doctrine wholly irreconcilable with this belief." 24
Tertullian's Theology
Tertullian (c. 160 to 230 C.E.) was the first to use the Latin word trinitas. As noted by Henry Chadwick, Tertullian proposed that God is 'one substance consisting in three persons.' 25 This does not mean, however, that he had in mind three coequal and co-eternal persons. However, his ideas were built upon by later writers who were working toward the Trinity doctrine.
Tertullian's concept of Father, Son, and holy spirit was a far cry from Christendom's Trinity, for he was a subordinationist. He viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. In Against Hermogenes he wrote:
"We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . . How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being." 26
Also, in Against Praxeas, he shows that the Son is different from and subordinate to Almighty God by saying:
"The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: 'My Father is greater than I.' . . . Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another." 27
Tertullian, in Against Hermogenes, states further that there was a time when the Son did not exist as a person, showing that he did not regard the Son as an eternal being in the same sense that God was. 28 Cardinal Newman said: "Tertullian must be considered heterodox [believing unorthodox doctrines] on the doctrine of our Lord's eternal generation." 29 Regarding Tertullian, Lamson declares:
"This reason, or Logos, as it was called by the Greeks, was afterwards, as Tertullian believed, converted into the Word, or Son, that is, a real being, having existed from eternity only as an attribute of the Father. Tertullian assigned to him, however, a rank subordinate to the Father . . .
"Judged according to any received explanation of the Trinity at the present day, the attempt to save Tertullian from condemnation [as a heretic] would be hopeless. He could not stand the test a moment." 30
No Trinity
If you were to read all the words of the Apologists, you would find that while they deviated in some respects from the teachings of the Bible, none of them taught that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit were coequal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom.
This is also true of other writers of the second and third centuries, such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, and Novatian. While some came to equate the Father and the Son in certain respects, in other ways they viewed the Son as subordinate to God the Father. And none of them even speculated that the holy spirit was equal to the Father and the Son. For example, Origen (c. 185 to 254 C.E.) states that the Son of God is "the First-born of all creation" and that the Scriptures "know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation." 31
Any objective reading of these early church authorities will show that Christendom's Trinity doctrine was not in existence in their time. As The Church of the First Three Centuries says: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as any fact in the history of human opinions." 32
Actually, before Tertullian the Trinity was not even mentioned. And Tertullian's "heterodox" Trinity was much different from that believed today. How, then, did the Trinity doctrine, as understood today, develop? Was it at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E.?
References: 1. A Short History of the Early Church, by Harry R. Boer, 1976, page 110. 2. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, 1957, page 125. 3. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, by R. P. C. Hanson, 1988, page 64. 4. The Church of the First Three Centuries, by Alvan Lamson, 1869, pages 70-1. 5. Gods and the One God, by Robert M. Grant, 1986, pages 109, 156, 160. 6. The Formation of Christian Dogma, pages 122, 125. 7. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1982, Volume 2, page 513. 8. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, by John Henry Cardinal Newman, Sixth Edition, 1989, pages 14-18. 9. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition, 1885, Volume I, page 264. 10. Ibid., page 184. 11. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, page 223. 12. Ibid., page 164. 13. A Short History of Christian Doctrine, by Bernhard Lohse, translated from the German by F. Ernest Stoeffler, 1963, second paperback printing, 1980, page 43. 14. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, page 20. 15. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 73-4, 76. 16. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II, page 234. 17. Ibid., page 227. 18. Ibid., page 228. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid., page 593. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid., page 524. 23. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 124-5. 24. Ibid., page 95. 25. The Early Church, by Henry Chadwick, 1980 printing, page 89. 26. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III, page 487. 27. Ibid., pages 603-4. 28. Ibid., page 478. 29. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pages 19, 20. 30. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 108-9. 31. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV, page 560. 32. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 75-6.
Did the Early Church Teach That God Is a Trinity? Part 4-When and How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
IN THE year 325 C.E., Roman emperor Constantine convened a council of bishops in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor. His purpose was to resolve the continuing religious disputes over the relationship of the Son of God to Almighty God. Regarding the results of that council, the Encyclopedia Britannica says:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance [ho_mo_ou'si_os] with the Father.' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination." 1
Did this pagan ruler intervene because of his Biblical convictions? No. A Short History of Christian Doctrine states: "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology." 2 What he did understand was that religious disputes threatened the unity of his empire, and he wanted them resolved.
Did It Establish the Trinity Doctrine?
Did the Council of Nicaea establish, or affirm, the Trinity as a doctrine of Christendom? Many assume that this was the case. But the facts show otherwise.
The creed promulgated by that council did assert things about the Son of God that would allow various clergymen to view him as equal to God the Father in a certain way. Yet, it is enlightening to see what the Nicene Creed did not say. As originally published, the entire creed stated: "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, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, 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." 3
Does this creed say that Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God? Does it say that the three are equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom? No, it does not. There is no three-in-one formula here whatsoever. The original Nicene Creed did not establish or affirm the Trinity.
That creed, at most, equates the Son with the Father in being "of one substance." But it does not say anything like that about the holy spirit. All it says is that "we believe . . . in the Holy Spirit." That is not Christendom's Trinity doctrine.
Even the key phrase "of one substance" (ho_mo_ou'si_os) did not necessarily mean that the council believed in a numerical equality of Father and Son. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states:
"Whether the Council intended to affirm the numerical identity of the substance of Father and Son is doubtful." 4
Had the council meant that the Son and the Father were one numerically, it would still not be a Trinity. It would only be a two-in-one God, not three-in-one as required by the Trinity doctrine.
"A Minority Viewpoint"
At Nicaea, did the bishops in general believe that the Son was equal to God? No, there were competing points of view. For example, one was represented by Arius, who taught that the Son had a finite beginning in time and was therefore not equal to God but was subordinate in all respects. Athanasius, on the other hand, believed that the Son was equal to God in a certain way. And there were other views.
Regarding the council's decision to consider the Son of the same substance (consubstantial) as God, Martin Marty states: "Nicaea actually represented a minority viewpoint; the settlement was uneasy and was unacceptable to many who were not Arian in outlook." 5 Similarly, the book A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church notes that "a clearly formulated doctrinal position in contrast to Arianism was taken up by a minority only, although this minority carried the day." 6 And A Short History of Christian Doctrine notes:
"What seemed especially objectionable to many bishops and theologians of the East was the concept put into the creed by Constantine himself, the homoousios ["of one substance"], which in the subsequent strife between orthodoxy and heresy became the object of dissension." 7
After the council, disputing continued for decades. Those who were for the idea of equating the Son with Almighty God even fell out of favor for a time. For example, Martin Marty says of Athanasius: "His popularity rose and fell and he was exiled so often [in the years after the council] that he virtually became a commuter." 8 Athanasius spent years in exile because political and church officials opposed his views that equated the Son with God.
So to assert that the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. established or affirmed the Trinity doctrine is not true. What later became the Trinity teaching was not in existence at the time. The idea that the Father, Son, and holy spirit were each true God and equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom, yet but one God-a three-in-one God-was not developed by that council nor by earlier Church Fathers. As The Church of the First Three Centuries states:
"The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as any fact in the history of human opinions."
"We challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note, during the first three ages, who held this [Trinity] doctrine in the modern sense." 9
Nicaea, though, did represent a turning point. It opened the door to the official acceptance of the Son as equal to the Father, and that paved the way for the later Trinity idea. The book Second Century Orthodoxy, by J. A. Buckley, notes:
"Up until the end of the second century at least, the universal Church remained united in one basic sense; they all accepted the supremacy of the Father. They all regarded God the Father Almighty as alone supreme, immutable, ineffable and without beginning. . . .
"With the passing of those second century writers and leaders, the Church found itself . . . slipping slowly but inexorably toward that point . . . where at the Council of Nicaea the culmination of all this piece-meal eroding of the original faith was reached. There, a small volatile minority, foisted its heresy upon an acquiescent majority, and with the political authorities behind it, coerced, cajoled and intimidated those who strove to maintain the pristine purity of their faith untarnished." 10
The Council of Constantinople
In 381 C.E., the Council of Constantinople affirmed the Nicene Creed. And it added something else. It called the holy spirit "Lord" and "life- giver." The expanded creed of 381 C.E. (which is substantially what is used in the churches today and which is called "the Nicene Creed") shows that Christendom was on the brink of formulating a full-blown Trinitarian dogma. Yet, not even this council completed that doctrine. The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges:
"It is interesting that 60 years after Nicaea I the Council of Constantinople I [381 C.E.] avoided homoousios in its definition of the divinity of the Holy Spirit." 11
"Scholars have been puzzled by the apparent mildness of expression on the part of this creed; its failure, for example, to use the word homoousios of the Holy Spirit as consubstantial with the Father and Son." 12
That same encyclopedia admits: "Homoousios does not appear in Scripture." 13 No, the Bible does not use that word either for the holy spirit or for the Son as being consubstantial with God. It was an unbiblical expression that helped lead to the unbiblical, indeed, antibiblical, doctrine of the Trinity.
Even after Constantinople, it was centuries before the Trinity teaching was accepted throughout Christendom. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "In the West . . . a general silence seems to have prevailed with regard to Constantinople I and its creed." 14 This source shows that the council's creed was not widely recognized in the West until the seventh or eighth century. Scholars also acknowledge that the Athanasian Creed, often quoted as a standard definition and support of the Trinity, was not written by Athanasius but by an unknown author much later. The New Encyclopedia Britannica comments:
"The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed's influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome." 15
How It Developed
The Trinity doctrine began its slow development over a period of centuries. The Trinitarian ideas of Greek philosophers such as Plato, who lived several centuries before Christ, gradually crept into church teachings. As The Church of the First Three Centuries says:
"We maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible." 16
Before Plato, triads, or trinities, were common in Babylon and Egypt. And the efforts of churchmen to attract unbelievers in the Roman world led to the gradual incorporation of some of those ideas into Christianity. This eventually led to acceptance of the belief that the Son and the holy spirit were equal to the Father.
Even the word "Trinity" was only slowly accepted. It was in the latter half of the second century that Theophilus, bishop of Antioch in Syria, wrote in Greek and introduced the word tri_as', meaning "triad," or "trinity." Then the Latin writer Tertullian in Carthage, North Africa, introduced into his writings the word trinitas, which means "trinity." But the word tri_as' is not found in the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures, and the word trinitas is not found in the Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate. Neither expression was Biblical. But the word "Trinity," based on pagan concepts, crept into the literature of the churches and after the fourth century became part of their dogma.
Thus, it was not that scholars examined the Bible thoroughly to see if such a doctrine was taught in it. Instead, secular and church politics largely determined the doctrine. In the book The Christian Tradition, author Jaroslav Pelikan calls attention to "the non theological factors in the debate, many of which seemed ready again and again to determine its outcome, only to be countermanded by other forces like unto themselves. Doctrine often seemed to be the victim-or the product-of church politics and of conflicts of personality." 17 Yale professor E. Washburn Hopkins put it this way: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics." 18
How unreasonable the Trinity doctrine is compared with the simple Bible teaching that God is supreme and has no equal! As God says, "to whom will you people liken me or make me equal or compare me that we may resemble each other?"-Isaiah 46:5.
What It Represented
What did the gradual development of the Trinity idea represent? It was part of the falling away from true Christianity that Jesus foretold. (Matthew 13:24-43) The apostle Paul also had foretold the coming apostasy:
"The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths."-2 Timothy 4:3, 4, Catholic Jerusalem Bible.
One of those myths was the Trinity teaching. Some other myths alien to Christianity that also gradually developed were: the inherent immortality of the human soul, purgatory, Limbo, and eternal torment in hellfire.
So, what is the Trinity doctrine? It is actually a pagan doctrine masquerading as a Christian one. It was promoted by Satan to deceive people, to make God confusing and mysterious to them. This results in their also being more willing to accept other false religious ideas and wrong practices.
"By Their Fruits"
At Matthew 7:15-19, Jesus said that you could tell false religion from true religion in this way: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit . . . Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire."
Consider one example. Jesus said at John 13:35: "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." Also, at 1 John 4:20 and 21, God's inspired Word declares:
"If anyone makes the statement: 'I love God,' and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him, that the one who loves God should be loving his brother also."
Apply the basic principle that true Christians must have love among themselves to what happened in both world wars of this century, as well as in other conflicts. People of the same religions of Christendom met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side. That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a violating of Christian love, a denial of the laws of God.-See also 1 John 3:10-12.
A Day of Reckoning
Thus, the falling away from Christianity led not only to ungodly beliefs, such as the Trinity doctrine, but also to ungodly practices. Yet, there is a day of reckoning to come, for Jesus said: "Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire." That is why God's Word urges:
"Get out of her [false religion], my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind."-Revelation 18:4, 5.
Soon God will 'put it into the hearts' of the political authorities to turn against false religion. They will "make her devastated and . . . will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire." (Revelation 17:16, 17) Destroyed forever will be false religion with its pagan philosophies about God. In effect, God will say to the practicers of false religion as Jesus said in his day: "Your house is abandoned to you."-Matthew 23:38.
True religion will survive God's judgments, so that, finally, all honor and glory will be given to the One whom Jesus said is "the only true God." He is the One identified by the psalmist who declared: "You, whose name is Yahweh [or "Jehovah"], you alone are the Most High over all the earth."-John 17:3; Psalm 83:18.
References: 1. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971, Volume 6, page 386. 2. A Short History of Christian Doctrine, by Bernhard Lohse, 1963, page 51. 3. Ibid., pages 52-3. 4. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume VII, page 115. 5. A Short History of Christianity, by Martin E. Marty, 1959, page 91. 6. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 1892, Volume IV, page xvii. 7. A Short History of Christian Doctrine, page 53. 8. A Short History of Christianity, page 91. 9. The Church of the First Three Centuries, by Alvan Lamson, 1869, pages 75-6, 341. 10. Second Century Orthodoxy, by J. A. Buckley, 1978, pages 114-15. 11. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume VII, page 115. 12. Ibid., Volume IV, page 436. 13. Ibid., page 251. 14. Ibid., page 436. 15. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, 15th Edition, Micropİdia, Volume 1, page 665. 16. The Church of the First Three Centuries, page 52. 17. The Christian Tradition, by Jaroslav Pelikan, 1971, page 173. 18. Origin and Evolution of Religion, by E. Washburn Hopkins, 1923, page 339.