Previous
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E ?
Added: (Tue May 30 2006)
Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?
IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God�s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.
First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, �they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.��Acts 17:10, 11.
What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: �According to Paul�s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].�
Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: �It is written.� �He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.��Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27.
Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that �all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, 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; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.
Since the Bible can �set things straight,� it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?
�Trinity� in the Bible?
A PROTESTANT publication states: �The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.� (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity �is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God.��New Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: �In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word τρίας [tri′as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.�
However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas�A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian�s words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: �But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.�
Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures
WHILE the word �Trinity� is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures (�Old Testament�) reveal?
The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: �Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.� And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: �The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament].�
Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: �The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the �Old Testament�] suggestions or foreshadowings or �veiled signs� of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.��Italics ours.
An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.
Testimony of the Greek Scriptures
WELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures (�New Testament�) speak clearly of a Trinity?
The Encyclopedia of Religion says: �Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.�
Jesuit Fortman states: �The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.�
The New Encyclop�dia Britannica observes: �Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.�
Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: �As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.�
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: �The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. �The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence� [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth].�
Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: �To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it.��Origin and Evolution of Religion.
Historian Arthur Weigall notes: �Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word �Trinity� appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord.��The Paganism in Our Christianity.
Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity.
Taught by Early Christians?
DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:
�Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds.��The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
�The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One.��The Paganism in Our Christianity.
�At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings.��Encyclop�dia of Religion and Ethics.
�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. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.��New Catholic Encyclopedia.
What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught
THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ�s birth. What they taught is of interest.
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is �other than the God who made all things.� He said that Jesus was inferior to God and �never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say.�
Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the �One true and only God,� who is �supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.�
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence �a creature� but called God �the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.� He said that the Son �is next to the only omnipotent Father� but not equal to him.
Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: �The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.� He also said: �There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone.�
Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is �the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,� who �had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,� such as the created prehuman Jesus.
Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that �the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence,� and that �compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.�
Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: �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 . . . 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.�
Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
AT THIS point you might ask: �If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?� Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.
That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.
Constantine�s Role at Nicaea
FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.
Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: �Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.�
What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclop�dia Britannica relates: �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 with the Father� . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.�
Hence, Constantine�s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. �Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,� says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?
Further Development
AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.
That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom�s Trinity began to come into focus.
Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: �The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.�
The Athanasian Creed
THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: �We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.�
Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclop�dia 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.�
So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: �The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.�
Apostasy Foretold
THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ�s return, when true worship would be restored before God�s day of destruction of this system of things.
Regarding that �day,� the apostle Paul said: �It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed.� (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: �When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them.� (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its �lawless� clergy class.�See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.
Paul also wrote: �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, JB.
Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: �Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.� Where, then, did this deviation originate?�1 Timothy 1:6.
What Influenced It
THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.
Historian Will Durant observed: �Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.� And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: �The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.�
Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers �Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.�
In the preface to Edward Gibbon�s History of Christianity, we read: �If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.�
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity �is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.� And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: �The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.�
That is why, in the Encyclop�dia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: �In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,� which is �triadically represented.� What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?
Platonism
PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato�s ideas of God and nature.
The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato�s influence: �The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher�s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.�
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: �The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.�
The Church of the First Three Centuries says: �The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.�
By the end of the third century C.E., �Christianity� and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became �firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.�
The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: �In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.�
In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: �We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.�
Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing �man of lawlessness� clergy class.�2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.
Why Did God�s Prophets Not Teach It?
WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God�s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the �central doctrine� of faith?
Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an �inscrutable mystery� �beyond the grasp of human reason,� one that admittedly had a pagan background and was �largely a matter of church politics�?
The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/start.htm