Chapter 2.
The Trinity Emerges
Gradually
"The time will come when men will not put
up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they
will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their
itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the
truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3, 4, NIV)
After the Church lost the pristine vision which it held in the
beginning, these last two creeds were formed. The Athanasian, or
Trinitarian Creed, became the largest and most confusing creed of
all. It became necessary for salvation to believe this creed—making
this a threatening theological statement. Please notice the
unitarian concept of God was a statement of belief without
threatening overtones. Notice how the Creed becomes more foggy and
"incomprehensible" as it endeavors to incorporate Trinity
concepts. Additionally, as it swells to more than a statement of
belief, it then threatens any not accepting this foggy concept with
perishing "everlastingly."
When Jesus rendered his final report to his Father, it only
required three words—"It is finished" (John 19:30).
Nothing more needed to be said. Notice, however, when the
one-talented, unfaithful servant rendered his report, it required 43
words, and he was just as much a failure after his explanation
(Matt. 25:24, 25). The Unitarian Creed required only 115 words to
make itself known; the Nicene Creed required 230 (twice as many
words to make God and Christ one); and the Athanasian Creed required
702 words to explain the "incomprehensible" Trinity. If
the number of words used proved the case, the latter is clearly the
winner. But it is not by much speaking that we shall be heard.
The Illustrated Bible
Dictionary 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 fourth century. . . . Although Scripture does not
give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the
elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine."(1)
That is partially correct. Theology indeed is responsible for
constructing the doctrine. But we firmly believe that the
"elements" of Scripture alluded to here were never
intended to provide a framework for such a dogma.
The following is found in The Book of Common
Prayer on Three Creeds of the Church of England:
The Apostles’ or Unitarian
Creed
Being the Creed of the first two
Christian centuries.
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth:
"And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was
conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he
descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from
the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand
of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to
judge the quick and the dead:
"I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic
(general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of
sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
Amen."
The Nicene, or Semi-trinitarian
Creed:
Principally drawn up by the Council of Nice in
A.D. 325, the clause concerning the Holy Ghost in brackets [ ]
having been affixed to it by the Council of Constantinople, in
A.D. 381, except the words [and the son], which were afterwards
introduced into it."
"I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker
of heaven and earth; and of all things visible and invisible.
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God; begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of (or from) God;
Light of (or from) Light; Very God of (or from) Very God;
begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by
whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation,
came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the
virgin Mary; and was made man; and was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate, he suffered, and was buried, and the third day he
rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: and he shall
come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose
kingdom shall have no end.
"And I believe in the Holy Ghost, [the Lord and Giver of
life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the
Father and the son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake
by the prophets].
"And I believe one catholic and apostolic church: I
acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins: and I look for
the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the world to come.
Amen."
The Athanasian, or Trinitarian
Creed
Long ascribed to Athanasius, a theologian of the
fourth century, but now generally allowed not to have been
composed until the fifth century, by some other person.
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith except
every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall
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, and
another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory 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 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; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this
Trinity none is afore or after another, none is 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.
"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation,
that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus
Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the
substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of
the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God, and
perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;
equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the
Father, as touching his manhood; who, although he be God and man,
yet is he not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the
Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. One
altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is
one Christ: who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead; he ascended into heaven,
he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from
whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; at whose
coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give
account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go
into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into
everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man
believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning,
is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."
"The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed,
and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought
thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by
most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."—Article VIII.
of the Church of England: taken from the Book of Common
Prayer.
[In the Articles of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States of America, Article VIII. reads as
follows: "The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called
the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed;
for they may be proved by most certain warrants of
Scripture."](2)
Dual Natures
Greek philosophy was a serious threat to the early Christian
Church. Paul said, "Greeks seek wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:22,
RSV). To counter this, Paul said, "I did not come proclaiming
to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom" (1 Cor.
2:1, RSV). Apparently, there were those who did. Greek philosophy
was kept out of the Bible, but not out of theology. As the church
fathers strove for preeminence, they found the high-sounding wisdom
of Greek philosophy a cutting edge for distinguishing themselves.
When the religious debates spilled over before the Roman emperors,
what better tool could be used than Hellenistic philosophy
interwoven with Christian doctrine? Greek and Mid-eastern
philosophies were pervasive, and when someone like Constantine
listened to the controversy between Arius and Athanasius, the strong
pagan influence was certain to have an effect.
Constantine had ostensibly converted to Christianity, and he
intended to use the new religion to solidify the empire. Earlier he
had raised a symbol of Christ seen in a vision ("P" fixed
in the center of an "X"—the first two letters of
"Christ" [CRISTOS] in the Greek) as a new imperial
standard and used it to gain victory in a key battle against pagan
forces. He believed he had heard a voice from heaven saying,
"In this sign conquer."(3) If the symbol (also called a
"Christogram") actually represented two gods, he might
have thought it all the better. If Christ were really both man and
God, flesh and spirit, that would be closer to Greek philosophy and
the pagan trinity models. It would make the new religion all the
more attractive to the masses.
The Nicaean Council
Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History,
we read:
"The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor
Constantine and held in the imperial palace under his auspices.
Constantine viewed the Arian teachings—that Jesus was a created
being subordinate to God—as an ‘insignificant’ theological
matter. But he wanted peace in the empire he had just united
through force. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the
dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to
hammer out a universally acceptable definition of Jesus
Christ."
The expression homo ousion, ‘one substance,’ was
probably introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today’s
Spain). Since he had great influence with Constantine, the
imperial weight was thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it
turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next
century the Nicene and the Arian views of Christ battled for
supremacy. First Constantine and then his successors stepped in
again and again to banish this churchman or exile that one.
Control of church offices too often depended on control of the
emperor’s favor."(4)
Why would anyone look to the fourth century for truth,
particularly in view of our Lord’s great prophecy covering the
period of his absence and return, saying, "Take heed that no
man deceive you" (Matt. 24:4)? Without a doubt, this was where
the Church had lost its way. It was shamelessly prostituted before
the ambitious Roman emperor. It is important to know that while
Constantine accepted Christianity and became the Pontifex Maximus
of the Church, he also continued to function in all the pagan
ceremonies, as paganism had deep roots in the Roman Empire and would
not pass away overnight. Julian succeeded Constantine to the throne,
and he was a devout pagan, although a noble one. Rome became a
melting pot of paganism and Christianity—not a good mix.
Wrong conclusions are easily reached about the
Nicaean Council. It is easy to conjure up images of a united group
of bishops with only two in dissent, endorsing wholeheartedly the
Athanasian proposition uniting the Father and Son into two parts of
one deity. Nothing could be further from the truth. We quote the
following:
"They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to
accept those of his opponents; that is to say, they were merely
competent to establish negations, but lacked the capacity, as yet,
to give their attitude of compromise a positive expression. . . .
True, at Nicaea this majority eventually acquiesced in the ruling
of the Alexandrians; yet this result was due, not to internal
conviction, but partly to indifference, partly to the pressure of
the imperial will—a fact which is mainly demonstrated by the
subsequent history of the Arian conflicts. For if the Nicaean
synod had arrived at its final decision by the conscientious
agreement of all non-Arians, then the confession of faith there
formulated might indeed have evoked the continued antagonism of
the Arians, but must necessarily have been championed by all else.
This, however, was not the case; in fact, the creed was assailed
by those very bodies which had composed the laissez-faire
centre at Nicaea; and we are compelled to the conclusion that, in
this point the voting was no criterion of the inward convictions
of the council. . . . For it was the proclamation of the Nicene
Creed that first opened the eyes of many bishops to the
significance of the problem there treated; and its explanation led
the Church to force herself, by an arduous path of theological
work, into compliance with those principles, enunciated at Nicaea,
to which, in the year 325, she had pledged herself without genuine
assent."(5)
This tells us, in effect, the body of bishops who voted for this
Creed were not unanimously believers in it. Hence, the vote
testified to weakness of character and the human tendency to get on
the bandwagon for the sake of expediency. What else would make one
vote for something not truly believed and which would later be
assailed by them?
When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor
Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary
until the close of this council. We quote the following:
"A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince,
‘for the ministers of God’ . . . No one of the bishops was
absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably
conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers,
disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace
with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them
without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the
royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the
emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side.
It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared
more like a dream than a reality."(6)
We cannot help but contrast this event with the occasion when
Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of this world and their glory
and then said, "All these I will give you, if you will fall
down and worship me" (Matt. 4:9, RSV). It seems the Devil had
more success with these bishops than he did with our Lord. Yes,
Constantine now had most of the bishops in his pocket, and from
there we see the church merged with the kingdoms of this world,
trying to make believe that this was the kingdom of God.
Pagan Models of Trinity
The Trinity concept presented by Athanasius was essentially
borrowed from other ancient religions. John Newton (Origin of Triads
and Trinities) writes: "With the first glimpse of a distinct
religion and worship among the most ancient races, we find them
grouping their gods in triads." He then proceeds to trace the
strong Trinitarian beliefs which were common in ancient India,
Egypt, and Babylon as examples.
Regarding ancient India he states: "The threefold
manifestations of the One Supreme Being as Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva
was thus sung of by Kalidasa (55 B.C.):
"‘In these three persons the One God is shown,
Each first in place, each last, not one alone.
Of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, each may be
First, second, third among the Blessed Three.’"
In speaking of ancient Egypt, Newton quotes Professor Sayce (Gifford
Lectures and Hibbert Lectures) as follows: "‘The
indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian
dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity.
The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us
again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt.’" Newton
continues:
"And now we see some meaning in the strange phrases that
have puzzled so many generations in the Nicene and Athanasian
Creeds, such as ‘Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten
not Made, Being of one Substance with the Father.’ These are all
understandable enough if translated into the language of the Solar
Trinity [worshipped in ancient Egypt], but without this clue to
their meaning, they become sheer nonsense or contradictions. . . .
The simplicity and symmetry of the old sun Trinities were utterly
lost in forming these new Christian Creeds on the old Pagan
models. . . . The [pagan] trinities had all the prestige of a vast
antiquity and universal adoption, and could not be ignored. The
Gentile converts therefore eagerly accepted the Trinity
compromise, and the Church baptized it. Now at length we know its
origin."7
What a revelation—that portions of the Nicene and Athanasian
Creeds were plagiarized from pagan sources—word for word and exact
phrases, lifted right off the papyri and inscriptions of ancient
Egypt! Should this knowledge not leave a little chill among those
subscribing to these creeds?
Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to
History of Christianity:
"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."8 Gibbon is an historian’s historian.
He would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his
evaluations.
Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G.
Wells writes: "We shall see presently how, later on, all
Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no
clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that
doctrine."9 The fact that the Trinity did not originate with
the Apostles should be of grave concern to all Christians. The
Church of England freely admits the Unitarian Creed was believed in
the first two centuries. In view of all these facts, we cannot help
but wonder why anyone would feel secure in accepting the doctrinal
developments of the fourth and fifth centuries and forsake the
pristine teachings of our Lord and the Apostles.
In Matthew 13:24, 25 we read: "The kingdom of heaven is
likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men
[the Apostles] slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the
wheat, and went his way." How can one leave the Apostolic Era
to find truth without risking being contaminated and choked by
"tares"? The "tares" sowed were the work of the
enemy. The "tares" that sprouted and grew were results of
false teachings that begat "tare" Christians. Hence, all
Bible-believing Christians need to be aware of the risks involved in
leaving the Apostolic Era of doctrinal purity and of coming under
the influence of the "tare" seeds of error spread by the
Adversary.
Endnotes
Chapter II
1. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, R. A.
Finlayson, "Trinity," Vol. 3, pp. 1597-8.
2. Some Account of the Origin and Progress of Trinitarian
Theology, James Forest, p. 9.
3. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, Gayle Visalli,
editor, p. 209.
4. Christian History, Bruce L. Shelley, "The First
Council of Nicea," Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), 1990, p. 11.
5. Encyclopedia Britannica, "Nicaea, Council of,"
Vol. 5, p. 410.
6. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, The Council of Nice,
Isaac Boyle, p. 27.
7. Origin of Triads and Trinities, John Newton, pp. 20-21,
25-27.
8. History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, preface.
9. Outline of History, H. G. Wells, p. 421.
