Chapter 11. TRINITARIANISM: DEFINITION AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
We have tried to present the positive teaching of Scripture regardless of human traditions. However, we cannot cover the subject of the Godhead without describing the historical development of the most widely accepted view in Christendom, the doctrine of the trinity. In this chapter we will define trinitarianism, briefly trace its historical development, and discuss some of the inherent ambiguities in and problems with the doctrine. In Chapter 12 - TRINITARIANISM: AN EVALUATION, we will draw conclusions about trinitarianism, comparing this doctrine with the teachings of the Bible, pointing out some serious problems with it in light of Bible passages, and contrasting it with Oneness belief.
Definition of the Doctrine of the Trinity
Trinitarianism is the belief that there are three persons in one God. This has been stated in various ways, such as "one God in three Persons" [61] and "three persons in one substance." [62] It holds that in God are three distinctions of essence, not just of activity. [63] The names given to these three persons are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit).
Orthodox trinitarian doctrine, as it has developed through the centuries, also holds that these three persons are co-equal in power and authority, that they are co-eternal in the past, present, and future, and that in each the same divine nature is fully contained. [64] However, each person is given a unique characteristic when viewed in relation to the others: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten or generated, and the Spirit is proceeding. [65] Trinitarians sometimes say that the uniqueness of the Father is displayed in creation, that of the Son in redemption, and that of the Spirit in sanctification, yet all three actively share in each work, with varying stress of functions. [66] Since each participates in the work of the others, there is no clear distinction on that basis.
Trinitarians call these three persons the trinity or the triune God. One trinitarian scholar describes the trinity as follows: "The Trinity must be thought of neither as one God in three manifestations nor as a symmetrical triad of persons with separable functions; instead the Trinity signifies one God in three modes of existence - Father, Son, and Spirit, and each of these participates in the activity of the other." [67] Trinitarians frequently use the diagram of a triangle to explain their doctrine. The three corners represent the three members of the trinity, while the complete triangle represents God as the whole trinity. Thus, the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, neither Father, Son nor Spirit is completely God without the others. (See Chapter 12 - TRINITARIANISM: AN EVALUATION for a table listing the essential tenets of trinitarianism and comparing them with the essential tenets of Oneness.)
Problems with Tritheism
Orthodox trinitarians deny tritheism, which is the belief in three gods. However, when asked to explain how there can be three distinct persons and yet only one God, they ultimately explain that the trinity is a mystery our finite human minds cannot comprehend fully. [68]
Since trinitarians attempt to reject the concept of three gods, they usually are reluctant to describe God in terms of three beings, personalities, or individuals. One trinitarian stated, "No important Christian theologian has argued that there are three self-conscious beings in the godhead." [69] Another trinitarian writer rejects the idea that the trinity is composed of three individuals, but he does denounce an overemphasis on oneness, which (he says) leads to a Jewish view of God. [70]
This reluctance to use terms that sharply divide God is commendable; however, person is itself such a word. Webster defines person as "an individual human being" and "the individual personality of a human being." [71]
This is not just a mere quibble over terminology; for throughout the history of trinitarianism, many trinitarians have interpreted the concept of person practically, and even theologically, to mean three beings. For example, the three Cappadocians of the fourth century (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea) emphasized the threeness of the trinity to the point that they had three personalities. [72] Boethius (c. 480 - c. 524) defined person as an "individual substance with a rational nature." [73] From medieval times to the present trinitarians have often represented the trinity by a picture of three men, or by a picture of an old man, a young man, and a dove.
Today in trinitarian Pentecostal circles there is a concept of the Godhead that implies outright tritheism. This is evident from the following statements made by three trinitarian Pentecostals - a prominent Bible annotater, a prominent evangelist, and an author.
"What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being, angel or any other being has his own body, soul, and spirit… Thus there are three separate persons in divine individuality and divine plurality… The word God is used either as a singular or a plural word, like sheep" [74]
"Thus there are three separate persons in divine individuality and divine plurality… Individually each is called God; collectively they can be spoken of as one God because of their perfect unity… Everything that could pertain to God collectively could also apply equally to each member of the Godhead as individuals. However there are some particulars which relate to each individual person of the deity as to position, office, and work that could not be attributed to either of the other members of the Godhead." [75]
The third trinitarian Pentecostal, an author, quotes a definition of person from Webster's Dictionary: "a particular individual." He then gives his own definition: "A person is one who has intellect, sensibility, and will." He attempts to reconcile trinitarian usage of the word person.
"When person is applied to any created being, it represents an individual absolutely separate from all others; but when applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, person must be qualified so as to exclude a separate existence, for while the three are distinct, they are inseparable - one God. Nevertheless, with this qualification, person remains the term which most nearly enunciates the permanent mode of existence within the Godhead." [76]
It is apparent that many trinitarians interpret their doctrine to mean three personalities, three beings, three minds, three wills, or three bodies in the Godhead. They deny that by person they mean only manifestations, roles, or relationships with man. Instead, they defend an eternal threeness of essence while admitting it to be an incomprehensible mystery. They reduce the concept of God's oneness to a unity of plural persons. By their definition, they convert monotheism into a form of polytheism, differing from pagan polytheism only in that there is perfect agreement and unity among the gods. Regardless of trinitarian denials, this is polytheism - tritheism to be exact - and not the monotheism taught by the Bible and upheld by Judaism.
Problems with Subordinationism
Trinitarians also deny any form of subordination of one person to another in power or eternality. However, they often say God the Father is the head of the trinity, God the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father or Son or both. Again, they insist there is no contradiction, because our finite minds simply cannot comprehend the fulness of meaning described by these relationships.
We find, however, that throughout history prominent trinitarians have interpreted their own doctrine in a way that subordinates Jesus Christ or makes him inferior. Tertullian, the first prominent exponent of trinitarianism, taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the trinity is not eternal. [77] He taught that the Son did not exist as a separate person in the beginning, but was begotten by the Father to accomplish the creation of the world. Furthermore, Tertullian held that the distinction of persons would cease in the future. Origen, the first great proponent of trinitarianism in the East, also saw the Son as subordinate to the Father in existence and he even maintained that prayer should be addressed to the Father alone. [78] Both men meant the deity of Christ when they used the term Son. It can, therefore, be said that trinitarianism began as a doctrine that subordinated Jesus to God.
In modern trinitarian circles, there is a form of subordinationism when trinitarians use the human limitations of Christ to prove a distinction between God the Father and "God the Son" instead of simply a distinction between Christ's divine nature (Father) and His human nature (Son). For example, note their use of Christ's prayers, lack of knowledge, and lack of power to prove "God the Son" is different from God the Father. Even while asserting the co-equality of the Son and the Father, they often deny it in a practical way and confess they do not understand what it really means.
Oneness believers state that the Son was subordinate to the Father. However, they do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in the sense trinitarians do. Rather, they mean that Jesus in His human role as the Son was subordinate and limited, but Jesus in His divine role as the Father was not subordinate or limited. In other words, the human nature of Jesus was subordinate to the divine nature of Jesus. By separating Father and Son into separate persons, trinitarians deny that Jesus is the Father, thereby inevitably detracting from the full deity of Jesus. Despite their denials, in effect their doctrine subordinates Jesus to the Father in deity.
Nonbiblical Terminology
There are severe problems with trinitarian terminology. First, the Bible nowhere uses the word trinity. The word three does not appear in relation to God in any translation of the Bible except the King James Version, and only once in that translation - in the doubtful verse of I John 5:7. Even this passage reads, "these three are one."
The word person does not appear in relation to God either, except twice in the KJV. Job 13:8 refers to showing partiality. Hebrews 1:3 says the Son is the express image of God's own person (meaning nature or substance), not a second person. The Bible never uses the plural word persons to describe God. (The only possible exception, Job 13:10, would demolish trinitarianism if it applies to God!)
In short, as many trinitarian scholars admit, the Bible does not explicitly express the doctrine of the trinity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians… that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualifications… New Testament exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic [church fathers] and concilian [church councils] development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the New Testament writers." [79]
The trinitarian Protestant theologian Emil Brunner has stated, "The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine and this indeed not by accident but of necessity. It is the product of theological reflection upon the problem…. The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity is not only the product of genuine Biblical thought, it is also the product of philosophical speculation, which is remote from the thought of the Bible." [80]
Historical Development of Trinitarianism
If trinitarianism does not come from the Bible, where did it originate? There is no question that Christian trinitarianism developed over several centuries of time after the New Testament was written. According to The New Catholic Encyclopedia, historians of dogma and systematic theologians recognize "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… From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th century invention. In a sense, this is true but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma… The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma." [81]
We will briefly trace the historical development of this doctrine in Christendom, but first let us explore some pagan roots and parallels of trinitarianism.
Pagan Roots and Parallels
Trinitarian scholar Alexander Hislop asserts that - the Babylonians worshiped one God in three persons and used the equilateral triangle as a symbol of this trinity. In his book, Hislop shows pictures used in ancient Assyria and in Siberia to represent triune divinities. He also finds trinitarian ideas in the Babylonian cult of the father, mother, and child, saying that the Babylonian trinity was "the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation." [82]
Historian Will Durant describes the trinity in ancient Egypt. "Ra, Amon, and another god, Ptah, were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." [83] Egypt also had a divine trinity of father, mother, and son in Osiris, Isis, and Horus. [84]
Trinities exist in other important pagan religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Hinduism has had a supreme trinity from ancient times: Brahma the Creator, Shiva the Destroyer, and Vishnu the Preserver. One scholar described the belief: "Brahman-Atman, the impersonal ultimate reality achieves a religiously significant threefold manifestation or trimurti [triad of gods] through the three personal deities who represent the divine functions of creation, destruction, and preservation respectively." [85] This trinity is sometimes represented by a statue of one god with three heads.
Buddhism also has a trinity of sorts. The Mahayana (northern) school of Buddhism has the doctrine of a "triple body" or Trikaya. [86] According to this belief there are three "bodies" of the Buddha-reality. The first is the eternal, cosmical reality, the second is the heavenly manifestation of the first, and the third is the earthly manifestation of the second. Furthermore, many Buddhists worship three-headed statues of Buddha. [87]
Taoism, the ancient mystical religion of China, has an official trinity of supreme gods - the Jade Emperor, Lao Tzu, and Ling Pao - called the Three Purities. [88]
A philosophic trinity appears in Plato and becomes very significant in Neo-Platonism. [89] Of course, Greek philosophy, particularly Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought, had a major influence on the theology of the ancient church. For example, the trinitarian Logos doctrine stems from the Neo-Platonic philosopher Philo. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.) Thus, we can see that the idea of a trinity did not originate with Christendom. It was a significant feature of pagan religions and philosophies before the Christian era, and its existence today in various forms suggests an ancient, pagan origin.
Post-apostolic Developments
The Scriptures do not teach the doctrine of the trinity, but trinitarianism has its roots in paganism. How, then, did this pagan doctrine find its way into Christendom? For an answer to this question, we have relied primarily on Lutheran seminary professors Otto Heick and E. H. Klotsche, Yale University professor of church history Roland Bainton, university professor John Noss, noted philosopher-historian Will Durant, and the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.
In Chapter 10 - ONENESS BELIEVERS IN CHURCH HISTORY, we noted that the early post-apostolic fathers (90 - 140 A.D.) did not embrace the idea of a trinity. On the contrary, they emphasized Old Testament monotheism, the deity of Christ, and the humanity of Christ. The Greek apologists (130 - 180 A.D.) also emphasized the oneness of God. However, some of them moved towards trinitarianism.
This trend toward trinitarianism began by making the Logos (the Word of John 1) a separate person. Following a thought in Greek philosophy, particularly in the teachings of Philo, some of the Greek apologists began to view the Logos as a separate person from the Father. This was not trinitarianism, however, but a form of binitarianism, and one that subordinated the Logos to the Father. To them the Father alone was the real God and the Logos was a created divine being of second rank. Eventually, the Logos became equated with the Son. Apparently, the triune baptismal formula became a practice among some Christian churches, although the few early references to it may be either recitations of Matthew 28:19 or interpolations added by later copyists. Moreover, during this time, an apologist named Theophilus used the word triad (triados) to describe God. However; he probably did not use it to signify a trinity of persons but rather a triad of God's activities.
Irenaeus (died c. 200) is often considered the first true theologian of this time. [90] He emphasized the manifestation of God in Christ for the sake of redemption. Some scholars have characterized Irenaeus' beliefs as "economic trinitarianism." By this they mean he did not believe in an eternal trinity or a trinity of essence but only a trinity that is temporary in nature - probably a trinity of God's activity or operations only. Irenaeus, who did not use the Greek Logos doctrine, identified the Logos with the Father. His theology had three key characteristics: a strong biblical emphasis, a reverence for apostolic tradition, and a strong Christocentric emphasis. It seems he was not a true trinitarian but at most a transitional figure.
In summary, in the first century after the apostles, the doctrine of the trinity had not even developed. However, in some circles a form of subordinationistic binitarianism emerged based on Greek philosophical ideas, a doctrine denounced in the first chapter of John's Gospel. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.) The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of trinitarianism at this time in church history: "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the second century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead… In the last analysis, the second century theological achievement was limited… A trinitarian solution was still in the future." [91]
Tertullian - the Father Of Christian Trinitarianism
Tertullian (c. 150 - c. 225 A.D.) was the first person recorded by history to use the words trinity (Latin: trinitas), substance (substantia), and person (persona) in relation to God. [92] He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Tertullian adhered to the economic conception of the trinity. That is, he believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease. However, he definitely differed from Irenaeus in that he used the Logos doctrine of the Greek apologists. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. The doctrine of the trinity posed no problem for Tertullian, for his whole theology rested on the thought that the more impossible the object of faith is, the more certain it is. He has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."
There is some question as to what Tertullian actually meant by his trinitarian formulation, especially his use of the Latin word persona. According to a handbook of theological terms, in Roman law the word meant a legal entity or party. [93] In drama it meant a mask worn by an actor or, by extension, a role played by an actor. Neither usage necessarily indicates the modern meaning of person as a self-conscious being. For example, one actor could play several roles (personae) and one legal corporation (persona) could consist of several individuals. On the other hand, presumably the word could also designate individual human beings.
In the fourth century, the Greek word hypostasis was used in the official formulation of trinitarian doctrine. According to Noss, hypostasis was an abstract word meaning subsistence or individualized manifestation. He says, "When this formulation was translated into Latin, the rather abstract Greek for individualized manifestation became the rather concrete word persona, and connotations of distinct and self-contained personality were suggested in a way not intended by the original Greek wording." [94] However, this concrete Latin word was precisely the one Tertullian had used earlier. Another scholar states that by the time hypostasis was translated into persona the two words were basically equivalent, both meaning "individual being." [95]
It is apparent that many people in Tertullian's time opposed his new formulation. By his own admission the majority of believers in his day rejected his doctrine on two grounds: Their Rule of Faith (early creed or statement of belief) prohibited polytheism, and his doctrine divided the unity of God. [96] Our knowledge of the early modalist (Oneness) believers, Noetus and Praxeas, comes from their strong opposition to Tertullian and his strong opposition to them. If Tertullian meant only that God had three roles, masks, or manifestations, there would be no conflict with modalism, especially since Tertullian did not believe in an eternal trinity. Therefore, we conclude that Tertullian did mean three essential differences in God and that persona did connote or imply a distinct personality, as suggested by Noss. In any case, it is clear that in Tertullian's day Oneness believers saw his doctrine as sharply opposed to their own, which was the majority belief of the time.
Here is one final note on Tertullian. He became a follower of Montanus, an early heretic who claimed to be the Paraclete (Comforter) promised in John 14 and the last prophet before the end of the world. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.
Other Early Trinitarians
Tertullian introduced the terminology of trinitarianism and became its first great proponent in the West, but Origen (died 254) became its first great proponent in the East. [97] Origen attempted to fuse Greek philosophy and Christianity into a system of higher knowledge that historians often describe as Christian Gnosticism. He accepted the Greek Logos doctrine (namely that the Logos was a person separate from the Father), but he added a unique feature 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 the Son was begotten from all eternity and is eternally being begotten. He retained a subordination of the Son to the Father in existence or origin, but moved closer to the later doctrine of co-equality.
Origen had many heretical beliefs due to his acceptance of doctrines from Greek philosophy, his emphasis on mystical knowledge rather than faith, and his extremely allegorical interpretation of Scripture. For example, he believed in the preexistence of the souls of men, denied the necessity of the redemptive work of Christ, and believed in the ultimate salvation of the wicked, including the devil. For these and other heretical doctrines, he was excommunicated from the church. Church councils formally anathematized (cursed) many of his doctrines in 543 and 553.
Other prominent trinitarians in early church history 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 sainted him.
Novatian was one of the first to emphasize the Holy Spirit as a third person. He taught subordination of the Son to the Father, saying the Son was a separate person, but had a beginning and came from the Father. Cornelius, bishop of Rome, excommunicated Novatian for believing that a number of serious sins could not be forgiven if committed after conversion.
The Council of Nicea
By the end of the third century, trinitarianism had replaced modalism (Oneness) as the belief held by most of Christendom, although the early views of trinitarianism were not yet in the form of the modern doctrine.
During the early part of the fourth century, a great controversy about the Godhead came to a climax - the clash between the teachings of Athanasius and Arius. Arius wished to preserve the oneness of God and yet 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, to him Christ is a demigod.
In effect, Arius taught a new form of polytheism. Arius was definitely not a 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 of co essence with the Father. This is now the view of modern trinitarianism. Therefore, while Tertullian introduced 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 across the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to intervene. Recently converted to Christianity and then making it the accepted religion he felt the need to protect the unity of Christendom for the welfare of the empire. According to tradition his conversion came as the result of a vision he saw just prior to a crucial battle. Supposedly, he saw a cross in the sky with a message saying, "In this sign conquer." Lie 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 in consolidating and maintaining political power, he convened the first ecumenical council of the church, which took place at Nicea in 325 A.D.
Constantine was no paragon of Christianity. In 326 he killed his son, nephew, and wife. He purposely deferred baptism until shortly before death, on the theory that he would thereby be cleansed of all the sins of his life. Durant says of him, "Christianity was to him a means, but not an end… While Christianity converted the world, the world converted Christianity and displayed the natural paganism of mankind." [98]
By establishing Christianity as the preferred religion of the Roman Empire (which ultimately led to it becoming the official state religion), Constantine radically altered the church and accelerated its acceptance of pagan rituals and heretical doctrines. As church historian Walter Nigg says, "As soon as Emperor Constantine opened the floodgates and the masses of the people poured into the Church out of sheer opportunism, the loftiness of the Christian ethos was done for." [99]
When the Council of Nicea convened, Constantine was not interested in any particular outcome, as long as the participants reached agreement. Once this occurred, Constantine threw his power behind the result.
"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new professions of faith. In this way unity was achieved. It was altogether unheard of that a universal creed should be instituted solely on the authority of the emperor… Not a bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." [100]
Heick divides the participants at Nicea into three groups: a minority of Arians, a minority of Athanasians, and a majority who did not understand the conflict but wanted peace. [101] The Council finally adopted a creed that clearly denounced Arianism but said little in the way of positive trinitarian teaching. The key phrase stated that Christ was of the same essence (Greek: homoousios) as the Father and not just of like essence (homoiousios). Interestingly enough, the modalists (Oneness believers) had first used the chosen word (homoousios) to express the identity of Jesus with the Father. Many who unsuccessfully advocated the use of the latter term (homoiousios) did not really mean that Jesus was different from the Father in substance, but rather they wanted to avoid the Oneness implications of the former term. So the resulting creed was a clear rejection of Arianism, but a not-so-clear rejection of modalism (Oneness).
The original version of the Nicene Creed formulated by the Council of Nicea in relation to the Godhead is as follows:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, i.e., of the nature of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very 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 down and was made flesh and assumed man's nature, suffered and rose the third day, ascended to heaven, (and) shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But the holy and apostolic church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when he was not, and that he was made from things not existing, or from another person or being, saying that the Son of God is mutable, or changeable." [102]
There is no clear statement of the trinity in this creed, but it does affirm that Jesus is of one substance with the Father in opposition to Arianism. There is no reference to the Holy Ghost as a separate person in the Godhead, but it merely expresses a belief in the Holy Ghost. This original Nicene Creed indicates a personal distinction between Father and Son and states that the Son is not mutable or changeable. This last 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 Nicea has a threefold significance: it is a rejection of Arianism; it is the first official declaration incompatible with modalism (Oneness); and it is the first official declaration supporting trinitarianism.
After Nicea
The trinitarian victory of Nicea was not complete, however. The next sixty years were a seesaw battle between the Arians and the Athanasians. Some participants in the council such as Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, even came out in favor of Sabellianism (Oneness). [103] Arius sent a conciliatory letter to Constantine, which caused him to reopen the issue. A council held in Tyre in 335 actually reversed the Nicene doctrine in favor of Arianism. Athanasius went into exile, and Arius would have been reinstated as a bishop had he not died the previous night. [104]
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 backed the Arians, deposing Athanasian bishops and appointing Arians in their place. The controversy produced vicious political infighting and much bloodshed.
Professor Heick credits the ultimate success of Athanasianism to the eloquence and perseverance of Athanasius himself. "The decisive factor in the victory… was the unfaltering determination of Athanasius during a long life of persecution and oppression." [105] It was not, however, until the second ecumenical council, called by Emperor Theodosius and held at Constantinople in 381, that the issue was resolved. This council, held after the death of Athanasius, ratified the Nicene Creed. It also settled another great issue that had been raging after Nicea, namely the relation of the Holy Spirit to God. Was the Holy Spirit a separate person in the Godhead or not? Many thought 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 state unequivocally that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 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, [106] is therefore more strongly trinitarian than the original Nicene Creed.
There was one other great threat to Athanasianism. The Roman Empire had begun to crumble under barbarian attacks, and the barbarian tribes on the rise to ascendancy were Arian. Conceivably, Arianism could have emerged victorious through the barbarian conquests. This threat finally ended, however, when the Franks converted to Athanasianism in 496.
During this time period, one other important creed Emerged - the Athanasian Creed, which did not come from Athanasius. It probably represents the trinitarian doctrine of Augustine (354-430), for it developed during or after his time. This creed is the most comprehensive statement of trinitarianism in ancient church history. Only the western part of Christendom officially recognized it.
The main points of difference between East and West on the doctrine of the trinity were as follows. First, the East tended to emphasize the threeness of God. For example, to the Cappadocians the great mystery was how the three persons could be one. In the West there was a little more emphasis on the unity of God. Second, the West believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son (the filioque doctrine), while the East held that the Spirit proceeded from the Father only. This ultimately became a major doctrinal issue behind the schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054.
The Athanasian Creed
In order to give the reader a more complete view of the doctrine of the trinity, a part of the Athanasian Creed is given below:
"Whoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he will perish everlastingly. And The Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding 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. Such 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 uncreated: but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, 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. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three lords: but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord: So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be three gods, or three lords. The Father is made of none: neither 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. So 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 afore, or after another: none is the greater or less than another. But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity…" [107]
The Apostles' Creed
Before we close this chapter, we need to answer questions about the so-called Apostles' Creed. Did it originate with the Apostles? Does it teach trinitarianism? The answer to both questions is no. This creed had its beginnings in a more ancient confession of faith used in the Roman church. It was called the Old Roman Symbol (or Creed). Various scholars have dated the Old Roman Symbol anywhere from 100 to 200 A.D. It says:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; Was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried; The third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven; and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; The forgiveness of sins; The resurrection of the body (flesh)." [108]
This creed was revised to meet the challenge of new doctrinal issues, until it finally achieved its present form near the end of the fifth century. The most important changes were additions affirming the following: God is the maker of heaven and earth; Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost; Jesus suffered and died; Jesus descended into hell (the grave); belief in the holy catholic (general) church; belief in the communion of saints; and belief in the life everlasting.
There are two important things about the original and later versions. First, neither has a direct historical link with the twelve apostles. Therefore the versions are no more sacred or trustworthy than any other writings from the first few centuries after the time of the apostles. Second, they do not teach the trinitarian doctrine. For the most part they follow biblical language very closely. They describe the Son of God only in terms of the Incarnation, nowhere hinting that the Son is a separate person in the Godhead or that the Son is eternal. They affirm belief in the Holy Ghost, but not as a separate person of the Godhead. Instead they place this affirmation together with other statements relating to salvation, leading us to believe that they are talking about the gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost and to the working of the Holy Ghost in the church. Thus, there is nothing really objectionable in the language if we define the terms in the same way the Bible uses them.
However, trinitarians have reinterpreted the Apostles' Creed, claiming that it supports their doctrine. Roman Catholics and Protestants both use it today to declare their trinitarian belief. They have associated it with trinitarianism to such a degree that nontrinitarians do not use it for fear of being misunderstood.
We do not advocate the use of the Apostles' Creed for the following reasons. (1) It did not originate with the apostles as its name implies. We do not want to create a false impression among people by using that title. (2) It does not necessarily emphasize all the important themes of the New Testament, especially some aspects which are important to emphasize today in light of false doctrines developed over the centuries. (3) Instead of trying to formulate a creed that comprehensively states doctrine in a binding way, we prefer to use the Bible itself for summary statements of doctrine.(4) Use of this creed today would associate us with trinitarianism. Even though the writers did not have that doctrine in mind, the vast majority of ordinary people today would consider it to be a trinitarian statement. To avoid identification with trinitarianism and Roman Catholicism, we do not use the Apostles' Creed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the trinity is nonbiblical 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 church history before the third century. Even at that time, early trinitarians did not accept many basic doctrines of present day trinitarianism such as the co-equality and co-eternality of Father and Son. Trinitarianism did not achieve dominance over Oneness belief until around 300. It did not achieve victory over Arianism until the late 300's.
The first official recognition of trinitarian doctrines came at the Council of Nicea in 325, but even this was incomplete. Full establishment of the doctrine did not come until the Council of Constantinople in 381. In short, trinitarianism did not achieve its present form until the end of the fourth century, and its definitive creeds did not take final form until the fifth century.