8 – OTHER PRIMITIVE TRINITARIANS, OR FOLLOWERS OF THE TRINITY
Tertullian introduced the terminology of Trinitarianism and became its first great proponent in the West, but Origen (died in 254 A.D.) became its first great proponent in the East. Origen attempted to merge Greek philosophy and Christianity into a system of elevated knowledge that historians frequently describe as Christian Gnosticism. He accepted the Greek doctrine of the Logos (that is, that the Logos was a separate person from the Father), but he added a unique characteristic, not proposed until his time. This was the doctrine of the eternal Son. He taught that the Son or Logos was a separate person from all eternity. Furthermore, he said that the Son was generated from all eternity and is being eternally generated. He retained the subordination of the Son to the Father in existence or origin, but came closer to the later doctrine of co-equality.
Origen had many heretical beliefs due to his acceptance of the doctrine of Greek philosophy, his emphasis on mystical knowledge in place of faith, and his extremely allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. For example, he believed in the pre-existence of the souls of men, denied the necessity of Christ's redemptive work, and believed in the final salvation of the wicked, including the devil. For these and other heretical doctrines, he was excommunicated from the church. The Councils of the church formally anathematized (cursed) many of his doctrines in 543 and 553.
Other prominent trinitarians in the history of the early church were Hippolytus and Novatian. Hippolytus was the trinitarian opponent of Sabellius. He opposed Callistus, bishop of Rome, and headed a schismatic group against him. Despite this, the Catholic Church later canonized him.
Novatian was one of the first to emphasize the Holy Spirit as a third person. He taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, saying that the Son was a separate person, but had a beginning and came from the Father. Cornelius, bishop of Rome, excommunicated Novatian for believing that various serious sins could not be forgiven if committed after conversion.
rn rn
9 – THE TEACHING OF ARIUS
Early in the fourth century, Arius, a pastor of Alexandria, in Egypt, claimed to be Christian, but also accepted Greek theology, which taught that God is one and cannot be known. According to this thinking, God is so radically singular that he cannot share his substance with anything else: only God can be God. In the work entitled Thalia, Arius proclaimed that Jesus was divine, but was not God. According to Arius, only God, the Father, could be immortal, so the Son was necessarily a created being. He was like the Father, but was not truly God.
Many former pagans felt comfortable with Arius's opinion, for thus they could preserve the familiar idea of the God who could not be known and could see Jesus as a kind of super divine hero, not very different from the human-divine heroes of Greek mythology.
Being an eloquent preacher, Arius knew how to extract the maximum of his ability to persuade and even went so far as to put some of his ideas into popular songs, which the people used to sing.
10 – THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
By the end of the third century, Trinitarianism had replaced modalism (Oneness) as the belief supported by the majority of Christendom, although the early views of Trinitarianism were still not in the form of the modern doctrine.
During the first part of the fourth century, a great controversy about the Godhead came to its climax - the clash between the teachings of Athanasius and Arius. Arius wished to preserve the oneness of God and still proclaim the independent personality of the Logos. Like the trinitarians, he equated the Logos with the Son and with Christ. He taught that Christ is a created being - a divine being, but not of the same essence as the Father and not co-equal with the Father. In other words, for him Christ is a semi-god.
In effect, Arius taught a new form of polytheism. Arius was definitely not an Oneness believer, and the modern Oneness movement strongly rejects any form of Arianism.
In opposition to Arius, Athanasius took the position that the Son is co-equal, co-eternal, and co-essence with the Father. This is now the opinion of modern Trinitarianism. Therefore, while Tertullian presented many trinitarian concepts and terms to Christendom, Athanasius can be considered the true father of modern Trinitarianism.
When the Arian-Athanasian controversy began to sweep through the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to intervene. Recently converted to Christianity and making it then the accepted religion, he felt the need to protect the unity of Christendom for the well-being of the empire. According to tradition his conversion came as a result of a vision he saw shortly before a crucial battle. Supposedly, he saw a cross in the sky with a message saying: "By this sign conquer". He went on to win the battle, becoming co-emperor in 312 A.D. and sole emperor in 324 A.D.
When the great Arian-Athanasian controversy threatened to divide his newly won empire and destroy his plan to use Christianity, consolidating and maintaining political power, he convoked the first ecumenical council of the church which took place in Nicaea in 325 A.D.
Constantine was no perfect model of Christianity. In 326 he killed his son, nephew, and wife. He postponed his baptism on purpose until shortly before his death, on the theory that he would thus be purified of all the sins of his life. Durant says of him, "Christianity was for him a means, but not the end... While Christianity converted the world, the world converted Christianity and demonstrated the natural paganism of humanity."
By establishing Christianity as the preferred religion of the Roman Empire (which ultimately led it to become the official religion of the state), Constantine radically altered the church and accelerated its acceptance of pagan rituals and heretical doctrines.
As a church historian, Walter Nigg says: "as soon as Emperor Constantine opened the floodgates and the masses of people flowed completely into the Church, from mere opportunism, the impotence of Christian character ended".
When the Council of Nicaea convened, Constantine was not interested in any particular outcome, as long as the participants reached an agreement. Once this occurred, Constantine placed all his power in support of the result.
"Constantine, who treated religious matters only from a political point of view, assured unanimity by banishing all bishops who would not sign the new professions of faith. It was in this way that unity was conceived. It was completely unknown that a universal creed should be instituted only or purely on the authority of the emperor... No bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing".
Heick divides the participants at Nicaea into three groups: a minority of Arians, a minority of Athanasians, and a majority who did not understand the conflict, but wanted peace. The Council finally adopted a creed that clearly denounced Arianism, but said little regarding the finally positive trinitarian teaching. The fundamental phrase declared that Christ was of the same essence (Greek: homoousios) as the Father and not merely of like essence (homoiousios).
Quite interestingly, the modalists (Oneness believers) had first used the chosen word (homoousios) to express the identity of Jesus with the Father. Many who unsuccessfully defended the use of the latter term (homoiousios) did not really intend that Jesus was different from the Father in substance, but rather wanted to avoid the Oneness implications of the first term. Thus the resulting creed was a clear rejection of Arianism, but a not-so-clear rejection of modalism (Oneness).
11 – THE CREED OF NICAEA
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the creator of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, or only begotten, that is, of the nature of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came and was made flesh and assumed the nature of man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But the holy and apostolic church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when he did not exist, and that he was made of things that do not exist, or of another person or being, saying that the Son of God is changeable, or mutable".
There is no clear statement of the trinity in this creed, but it affirms that Jesus is of one substance with the Father in opposition to Arianism. There is no reference to the Holy Spirit as a separate person in the Godhead, but it merely expresses a belief in the Holy Spirit. This original Nicene Creed indicates a personal distinction between Father and Son and declares that the Son is not changeable or mutable. This latter phrase is a departure from the biblical doctrine of the Son and supports modern Trinitarianism, since it teaches an eternal Son. Basically, then, the Council of Nicaea has a threefold significance: it is a rejection of Arianism; it is the first official statement incompatible with modalism (Oneness); and it is the first official statement in support of Trinitarianism.
12 – AFTER NICAEA
The trinitarian victory of Nicaea, therefore, was not complete, however, the next sixty years was a battle between the Arians and the Athanasians. Some participants in the council such as Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, came out in favor of Sabellianism (Oneness). Arius sent a conciliatory letter to Constantine that caused him to reopen the matter. A council held in Tyre in 335 reversed the Nicene doctrine in favor of Arianism. Athanasius went into exile, and Arius would have been restored as bishop if he had not died the night before.
Athanasius was banished five or six times during this period. Much of the conflict was due to political circumstances. For example, when Constantine's son, Constantius came to power he supported the Arians, deposing Athanasian bishops and supporting the Arians in their places. The controversy produced violent political struggles and much bloodshed.
Professor Heick credits the ultimate success of Athanasism to the eloquence and perseverance of Athanasius himself. "The decisive factor in the victory… was the firm determination of Athanasius during a long life of persecution and oppression". However, it was not until the second ecumenical council, convened by Emperor Theodosius and held in Constantinople in 381, that the matter was settled. This council, held after the death of Athanasius, ratified the Nicene Creed. It also resolved another major issue that had been plaguing since Nicaea, that is, the relation of the Holy Spirit to God. Was the Holy Spirit a separate person in the Godhead or not? Many thought that the Spirit was an energy, a creature, or an angelic being. The council added statements to the original Nicene Creed to teach that the Holy Spirit was a separate person like the Father and the Son.
It was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381, then, that the modern doctrine of the trinity gained permanent victory. That council was the first to declare that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit unequivocally were three separate persons of God, co-equal, co-eternal, and of co-essence. A revised Nicene Creed came from the council in 381. The present form of the Nicene Creed, which probably emerged around the year 500, is then more strongly trinitarian than the original Nicene Creed.
There was another great threat to Athanasism. The Roman Empire had begun to crumble under barbarian attacks, and the barbarian tribes that had ascendancy to predominance were Arian. Conceivably, Arianism could have emerged victorious by barbarian conquests. However, this threat finally ended when the Franks converted to Athanasism in 496.
During this period of time, another important creed emerged - the Athanasian Creed which did not come from Athanasius. It probably represents the trinitarian doctrine of Augustine (354-430), later developed during or after his time. This creed is the most comprehensive statement of trinitarianism in the ancient history of the church. Only the Western part of Christendom officially recognized it.
The main points of difference between East and West in the doctrine of the trinity were as follows: First, the East tended to emphasize the trinity of God. For example, for the Cappadocians the great mystery was how the three persons could be one. In the West there was somewhat more emphasis on the unity of God. Second, the West believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son (the doctrine of filioque), while the East held that the Spirit proceeded only from the Father. Ultimately this became a major doctrinal issue behind the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054.
13 – THE ATHANASIAN CREED
In order to give the reader a more complete understanding of the doctrine of the trinity, a portion of the Athanasian Creed is given below:
“Whosoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith unless everyone keeps whole and undefiled: without doubt he will perish eternally. And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Neither confusing the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: The Glory co-equal, the Majesty co-eternal. As the Father is such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost: The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals: but one Eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreate: but one Uncreate and one Incomprehensible. Likewise the Father is Almighty, and the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords: but one Lord. In like manner as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be God and Lord: So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none: nor created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. Thus there is one Father, not three Fathers, one Son, not three Sons, and one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another: none is greater or less than another. But the whole three Persons are co-eternal, and co-equal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. “He therefore that will be saved: must think thus of the Trinity...”.
14 – THE TRINITY AND THE BIBLE
Trinitarianism affirms the deity of Christ. However, it diminishes from the full deity of Christ as described in the Bible. As a practical matter, trinitarianism denies that the fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus because it denies that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit. It does not exalt the name and person of Jesus sufficiently or give Him the full recognition that the Bible gives Him.
14.1 - CONTRADICTIONS
The basic problem is that trinitarianism is a non-biblical doctrine that contradicts various biblical teachings and many specific verses of Scripture. Furthermore, the doctrine contains various internal contradictions. It is clear that the most obvious internal contradiction is how there can be three persons of God in any meaningful sense and still be only one God.
Below we have compiled several other contradictions and problems associated with trinitarianism. This list is not exhaustive, but gives an idea of how much the doctrine diverges from the Bible.
a) Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I João 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit - Matthew 1:21, (however they say that the Holy Spirit was merely the Father's agent in conception - a process that they compare to artificial insemination!
b) How many Spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (João 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).
c) If the Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?
d) Similarly, how could the Son not know as much as the Father? (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32).
e) Similarly, how could the Son not have power unless the Father gave it to Him? (João 5:19, 30; 6:38).
f) Similarly, how to explain about the other Scripture verses that indicate the inequality of the Son and the Father? (João 8:42; 14:28; I Corinthians 11:3).
g) How was it that "God the Son" died? The Bible says that the Son died (Romans 5:10). In that case, can God die? Can a part of God die?
h) How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible speaks of a begotten Son, clearly indicating that the Son had a beginning? (João 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6).
i) If the Son is eternal and existed at creation who was his mother at that moment? We know that the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4).
j) Did "God the Son" surrender His omnipresence while He was on earth? In that case, how could He still be God?
k) Who is it that we praise and to whom is it that we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father (João 4:21-24), yet Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59-60).
l) Could there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Certainly the Old Testament does not teach three, but emphasizes Oneness. If the New Testament adds to the message of the Old Testament and teaches three persons, then what is there to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some Bible verses, we could teach a fourth person (Isaiah 48:16; Colossians 1:3; 2:2; I Thessalonians 3:11; James 1:27). Likewise, we could interpret some Bible verses to mean six or more persons (Revelation 3:1; 5:6).
m) Are there three Spirits in a Christian's heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit dwell within the Christian (João 14:17, 23; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 3:14-17). Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).
n) There is only one throne in heaven (Apocalipse 4:2). Who sits upon it? We know that Jesus sits (Apocalipse 1:8, 17, 18, 4:8). Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?
o) If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit at the right hand of God? (Marcos 16:19). Does He sit or stand at the right hand of God? (Atos 7:55). Or is He in the bosom of the Father? (João 1:18).
p) Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? Colossenses 2:9 says it is the latter.
q) Given Mateus 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using the name of Jesus, to the extent of rebaptism? (Atos 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; I Coríntios 1:13).
r) Who raised Jesus from the dead? The Father did (Efésios 1:20), or Jesus (João 2:19-21), or the Spirit? (Romanos 8:11).
s) If the Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal persons in the Godhead, why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable but blasphemy against the Son is not? (Lucas 12:10).
t) Does the Father know something that the Holy Spirit does not know? In that case, how can they be co-equal? Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Second Coming of Christ (Marcos 13:32).
u) If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?
v) If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit a grandson of the Father? If not, why not?
14.2 - EVALUATION OF TRINITARIANISM
We believe that trinitarianism is not a biblical doctrine and that it contradicts the Bible in many ways. The Scriptures do not teach a trinity of persons. The doctrine of the trinity uses terminology not used in the Bible. It teaches and emphasizes plurality in the Godhead while the Bible emphasizes the Oneness of God. It diminishes the full deity of Jesus Christ. It contradicts many specific verses of the Bible. It is not logical. No one can understand or rationally explain it, not even those who defend it. In summary, trinitarianism is a doctrine that does not belong to Christianity.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the trinity is not biblical both in terminology and in historical origin. It has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy. The doctrine itself did not exist in the history of the church before the third century. Not even at that time did early trinitarians accept many basic doctrines of present-day trinitarianism, such as the co-equality and co-eternity of the Father and Son. Trinitarianism did not achieve dominance over the belief in Oneness until around 300 A.D. It did not achieve victory over Arianism until the fourth century.
The first official recognition of trinitarian doctrines came from the Council of Niceia in 325, but even this was incomplete. The full establishment of the doctrine did not come until the Council of Constantinopla in 381. In summary, trinitarianism did not reach its present form until the end of the fourth century, and its definitive creeds did not take final form until the fifth century.
The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the trinity; trinitarianism actually contradicts the Bible. Trinitarianism adds no positive benefit to the Christian message. Without the artificial doctrine of the trinity made by men we can still affirm the deity of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith, the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, and any other doctrine that is essential to true Christianity. In reality, we enhance these doctrines when we strictly adhere to the Biblical message that Jesus is the only God manifested in flesh.
Adherence to Oneness does not mean a rejection that God came in flesh as the Son or a rejection that God fulfills the roles of Father and Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the doctrine of the trinity diminishes the important biblical themes of the Oneness of God and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christianity should cease using trinitarian terminology and should return to emphasizing the basic message of the Bible. Most Bible-believing Christians do not think in strong trinitarian terms, therefore a transition on their part would not be very difficult, at least not at the individual level.
On the other hand, strict adherence to the belief in Oneness brings many benefits. It places an emphasis where it should be - on the importance of biblical terminology, thought, and themes. It establishes Christianity as the true heir of Judaism and as a truly monotheistic faith. It reminds us that God our Father and Creator loved us so much that He clothed Himself in flesh to come as our Redeemer. It reminds us that we can receive this Creator and
Redeemer in our hearts by His Own Spirit.
The magnificent Oneness magnifies Jesus Christ, exalts His name, recognizes who He really is, and recognizes His full deity. Exalting Jesus and His name in preaching and praise brings a powerful movement of His power in blessings, deliverance, answered prayer, miracles, healing, and salvation. Wonderful things happen when someone preaches the message of the deity of Jesus, the name of Jesus, and the Oneness of God, but rarely does anyone become inspired about the message of the trinity.
A strong belief in the Oneness of God and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ is a crucial element in the restoration of the church to correct biblical beliefs and apostolic power.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BERNARD, David K. The Oneness of God (The Oneness of God). Hazelwood: WAP, 1983. 231 p. Series of Pentecostal theology, volume 1.
CURTIS, A. Kenneth, LANG, J. Stephen, PETERSEN, Randy. The 100 Most Important Events in the History of Christianity: From the Burning of Rome to the Growth of the Church in China. Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1991. 205 p. HOLY BIBLE, New International Version. São Paulo: Vida 1993, 2000.