I’m interrupting the ongoing series of posts about Genesis 1-11 to present something very interesting that I found while reading the 4th-century Cappadocian Fathers. According to most Protestants, the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed by God, through Jesus, to the writers of the New Testament in the 1st century AD. At the very least, it’s believed to be an inference that can easily be drawn from the NT, which was believed by Christians from the earliest times of the church. Protestant trinitarians must believe this, because they reject the infallibility of the Church as believed by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. If the Trinity was a later discovery, not able to be inferred directly from the biblical texts, this removes the basis for Protestants to believe in the Trinity.
However, the belief that the Trinity can be inferred directly from the Bible (and was always believed by the church) wasn’t even held by the earliest trinitarians in the 4th century AD. According to Gregory of Nazianzus, the 4th-century trinitarian apologist, this doctrine was first explicitly written down by Athanasius of Alexandria, allegedly under the influence of divine inspiration:
Here too was shown in a very high degree the simple-mindedness of Athanasius, and the steadfastness of his faith in Christ. For, when all the rest who sympathised with us were divided into three parties, and many were faltering in their conception of the Son, and still more in that of the Holy Ghost, (a point on which to be only slightly in error was to be orthodox) and few indeed were sound upon both points, he was the first and only one, or with the concurrence of but a few, to venture to confess in writing, with entire clearness and distinctness, the Unity of Godhood and Essence of the Three Persons, and thus to attain in later days, under the influence of inspiration, to the same faith in regard to the Holy Ghost, as had been bestowed at an earlier time on most of the Fathers in regard to the Son. (Oration 21.33)
There are a few interesting things to note about this passage. First, Gregory says that prior to Athanasius, “few indeed were sound upon both points” — that is, there were very few theologians who held that both the Son and the Holy Spirit were united in Godhood with the Father. Even the belief that the Son was one in essence (homoousios) with the Father was only “bestowed at an earlier time on most of the Fathers”; presumably, by this Gregory refers to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, at which the Father and the Son were declared to be homoousios. At the Council of Serdica in AD 343, the bishops of the West came up with a statement proclaiming “one Godhood of Father and Son,” without mentioning the Holy Spirit. [1]
Second, according to Gregory, the doctrine of the Trinity was first set down in writing by the bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who became a bishop three years after the Council of Nicaea in AD 328. He, possibly “with the concurrence of but a few,” was the “first and only one” to set in writing that the Son and the Holy Spirit both had a “Unity of Godhood and Essence” with the Father. Athanasius was actually quite radical in his day, and was known as Athanasius Contra Mundi (“Athanasius Against the World”) for much of his ministry, because he was opposed to so many other bishops. He was even deposed from his see by a council of sixty Eastern bishops and the emperor Constantine in AD 335, due to both the radicality of his beliefs and his alleged mistreatment (even assassination) of ‘Arians.’ [2]
Finally, Gregory also says that the doctrine of the Trinity was first explicitly set down in writing “in later days” (i.e., after the Council of Nicaea) “under the influence of [divine] inspiration.” This is a truly incredible claim, not only because it implies that the Trinity wasn’t taught before ca. AD 330, but because it assumes a view of divine inspiration that every Protestant should be inclined to reject. We don’t believe that any church is infallible (for good reason); why should we believe that Athanasius was? If we do admit that a church father can be inspired, why Athanasius and not his opponents? Personally, I have a hard time believing that a man who was known to use violent tactics (even, allegedly, assassination) to suppress dissent could have been so pious and inspired by God as his friends believed. [3]
But if the Trinity was such a new doctrine in the 4th century that Athanasius was the first to set it down in writing, then why was it universally believed by the church after that time? First of all, it wasn’t. Although trinitarianism grew in popularity, largely due to the apologetic work of the Cappadocian Fathers, it was by no means universally believed. Gregory of Nazianzus admitted in 380 that “the wise men amongst ourselves [i.e., Christians]” could not agree on whether the Holy Spirit was a power, a created being, or God (Oration 31.5). The first explicit mention of a tri-personal God, the view that God is in some way three persons (i.e., trinitarianism proper) doesn’t occur until the 370s. [4]
The reason why the Trinity became universally accepted wasn’t because of some consensus reached by the fathers discussing among themselves, but by a twist of fate. The Roman emperor Theodosius I happened to be a trinitarian, and in AD 380, he simply outlawed all other views:
According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the singular Deity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty and in a Holy Trinity. We order the followers of this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians. But as for the others, since, in our judgment they are demented and insane, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of Heretics, and shall not presume to give to their assemblies the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment of our authority which, in accordance with the will of Heaven, we shall decide to inflict. (Edict of Thessalonica)
Theodosius I proceeded to depose the Homoian bishop of Constantinople and place Nicenes (still a minority party in that city) in positions of power. This edict was upheld by a ‘kangaroo council’ the next year, called by Theodosius I, which only trinitarian bishops were allowed to attend. [5] From that point onward, until the Protestant Reformation, non-trinitarians were harshly persecuted and not allowed to lead congregations. If Theodosius had been an Arian instead, or a binitarian, the church’s beliefs about God would look very different today.
The fact is, trinitarianism was a new doctrine, even in the 4th century AD when it was mandated as the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was admitted even by trinitarian apologists like Gregory of Nazianzus, as we saw above (Oration 21.33). Although they believed that their interpretation could be derived from the Scriptures, they fully admitted that this interpretation was new, and was first set down in writing by Athanasius of Alexandria under divine inspiration in ca. AD 330. Protestants, therefore, are on very unsure footing in their belief in the Trinity. Even Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have to recognize the historical contingencies on which their belief in this doctrine rests. Shouldn’t we rather go back to the Scriptures themselves and believe what they say about God: that he is one person, the Father alone, and that Jesus is his human Son and Messiah who was exalted by him? [6]
______________________________
[1] https://www.fourthcentury.com/creed-of-the-western-serdican-council/. They believed that the Father and Son were the same in essence, but they did not believe the Father and Son were co-equal like later trinitarians, as they immediately went on to say, “No one denies that the Father is greater than the Son: not on account of another essence, nor yet on account of their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being greater than that of the Son.” For this reason, Athanasius strenuously rejected to the Creed of Serdica, even though it was signed by about ninety bishops from the West.
[2] https://www.fourthcentury.com/the-council-of-tyre-ad-335/
[3] “In Alexandria itself, he maintained the popular support which he enjoyed from the outset and buttressed his position by organizing an ecclesiastical mafia. In later years, if he so desired, he could instigate a riot or prevent the orderly administration of the city. Athanasius possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated by violence. That was both the strength and the weakness of his position. Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence - and usually succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges.” — Timothy Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 230.
[4] Dale Tuggy, “When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?”, TheoLogica 4, no. 2 (2020): 27-51.
[5] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.5-10; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 7.7.2-5.
[6] To see what the Scriptures actually teach about the nature of God and Jesus, see my blog post, “The Biblical Case for Unitarianism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment