russ@dadla-b.UUCP (01/11/84)
I have been bothered by the various criticisms of Christianity and questions
about the trinity. These questions assume that the Trinity doctine is a
correct interpretation of the Bible and a valid Christian concept. I want
to present a review of the development of the Trinity concept and the
possibility that in criticizing the Trinity you are actually criticizing
Greek philosophy more than Christianity.
The major changes in Christianity started with the Edict of Milan in
313 AD. Before this time Christianity had been an 'illicit' religion
tending to destroy the unity of the empire. Almost overnight it changed
from a persecuted religion to that of a favored religion. At this time
there was a conflict between two groups -- the Donatists and the Caecilian
party. Donatists accused the others of "laxity in accepting the baptism
of heretics and of other unauthorized persons and in the matter of
ordinations; and they 'claimed to be the only true and holy Church;
boasted of miracles and revelations; and required converts to their
party to renew their baptism.'" [1] p.10
"As long as the state had been indifferent or hostile, it had classed
all Christians, heretical, schismatic, orthodox, together, as equally
criminal before the law. Now (313) that it had chosen to become an
interested factor, it at once found itself obliged to discriminate. It
could not conceivably support two sects and two bishops in the same
place." [2]
"Thus the Emperor Constatine made himself the judge of the schism: which
of the two parties, the Caecilian or the Donatist, was in communion with
the universal church. This was only the beginning of the 'despotism' and
installation of bishops by civil rulers."[1] p.17
"Constantine . . . in taking sides in the quarrel against the Donatist, he
repudiated the claim of the Donatists that baptism by heretics and other
unauthorized persons should not be accepted, as well as their claim
'to be the true and holy Church' and their 'boast' 'of miracles and
revelation.'"[1] p.18
"Constantine and Licinius had granted freedom of worship to the
Christians. But, only those whom they recognized as belonging to the
catholic Church received money grants and other favors and, soon in
practice, only those recognized by the Emperor as belonging to the
Catholic (universal) Church were to enjoy freedom of worship, and only
they were to be left in possession of their churches." [1] p.18
"We have already seen how Constantine, though converted to Christianity,
was unable to give up the title of supreme pontiff. This title, closely
bound up with that of emperor, placed him at the head of the Roman [pagan]
religion and made him a member of all the sacerdotal colleges. The most
Christian of his successors could not avoid the office. . .
But the fact is significant that they could lesson the influence of
paganism only by acting as its chief pontiff."[3] p. 4
"Once the favor of government was on the side of Christianity, ambitious men
became Christians out of self-interest and weak men simply followed their
example. Ecclesiastical writers of the time deplore the large number of
the 'half converted,' who had only a tinge of Christianity and with it
mingled numberless pagan preposessions." [3] p.6
"Such was the prestige of the Greek thinkers that their main conclusions
were not questioned. Could the Christian teachings be accepted unless they
harmonized with the philosophical conclusions? It seemed imperative to
reconcile the Christian beliefs with the teachings of the philosophers,
at least with such of them as had long been unquestioned and seemed
self-evident to the world of that day.[1] p. 24
"Ancient philosophy could not comprehend the creation of the world by God.
God's supreme perfection prevented his entering into direct relation with
the world; nature is too weak to sustain the immediate action of the
divinity. God could not create of act upon his creature except through
an intermediary. . . . This intermediary is the Word or Logos, necessarily
unequal to the supreme God."[3] p. 13
"The ideas of beauty, justice, goodness, etc., which for us are abstractions,
are for Plato realities. In other words, the good, the beautiful, the just,
are abstract ideas, which do not exist apart from the object. But for
Plato these abstract ideas are the realities. The objects with which they
are associated are perishable, therefore the only reality is the 'idea'
or 'form' back of the object.
For Plato, the Supreme Being is absolute goodness and, since matter, for
him, is evil and a hindrance to the perfect expression of the 'idea,'
God is immaterial"[1] p. 25
And for Aristotle, "the Supreme Being is immaterial, it can have no
impressions, no sensations, nor appetites, nor a will in the sense of desire,
nor feelings in the sense of passions: all these things depend on matter."[4]
"Very little of 'orthodox' Christian doctrine of today can be traced
farther back than the middle of the third century. It was 'developed
and made more precise'[5] by the Greek method of philosophical reasoning
and took form in the councils and the writings of the theologians of the
forth and fifth centuries."[1] p. 30
With the conflict between the Greek philosophers who contended for one
immaterial God and the Christians who spoke of God the Father and
Jesus as being divine, the following questions were being asked:
1. How can Jesus be divine if there is only one God?
2. Is there one God or two Gods?
3. What is the relationship of Jesus to God?
4. If God created everything, did he create Jesus?
5. If Jesus is the son of the Father, how can he be co-eternal with him?
6. If Jesus is divine is he equal to the Father?
Among the answers that were given at that time were the following:
1. The Father and Son were only manifestations of one God.
2. Jesus only appeared to be human.
3. The Father was God and Jesus was also divine and numerically distinct.
4. Jesus was not really the Son of God, but his Son by adoption.
"The Church from the time of the apostles considered three "Persons" divine.
Towards the end of the second century, Theophilus includes them in a new
name, Trinity of Triad. About 200, the Father and the Son are called God,
and the Montanists apply the term also to the Holy Ghost."[1] p.34
Originally the term "trinity" did not imply a single God but it was meant to
imply the 3 distinct persons of the Godhead.
Around 320 AD Arius begin to have a strong following for his concept of the
Trinity. "For Arius, the second Person of the Trinity did not exist from
all eternity, the Son of God was merely the first born of created men."[6]
More to follow on the Council of Nicea.
Russell Anderson
Tektronix
--------------------------------
[1] Barker, James L., The Divine Church, Vol 2
[2] Shotwell and Lomis, The See of Peter, p. 451
[3] Mourret-Thompson, History of the Catholic Church. vol. 2
[4] Weber, History of Philosophy, p. 116
[5] Lortz-Kaiser, History of the Church, p. 93
[6] Mourret-Thompson, History of the Catholic Church, vol 2. p. 11