The Trinity, considering it's biblical, why then......

[Left Coast]

Yet he pioneered the usage of the word Trinity, so that kind of dismissal is also idiosyncratic in my opinion.

The first usage I'm aware of was Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd century.

Anyway, you are right, he was never declared a saint due to his views, but does that make it idiosyncratic? In that case his views on grace, hereditary nature of human beings and responsibility in view of God by human beings are all shared by
Hilary, Ambrose, Cyprian etc. Also his subordinationism was debated even two centuries after Athanasias. Also brother, if you consider Jerome and Pelagius, they were all concurring with Tertullian in many teachings so its better not to dismiss a person but rather analyse.

My intent wasn't to dismiss his views, only to point out its tricky to cite him as a representative example of what Christians generally believed, depending on the context and the time when he said it.

 

[Jimmy]

No one said it never existed, but can you quote the existence of the trinity as you know now, prior to the 4th century?


No one said who came after whom.

I am asking for some source of the trinity as you know now prior to the 4th century.

Are you seeking knowledge and nothing more or would it upset you if there's no sources before the fourth century?

 

[sojourner]

Their intention was to just "Unify"? How about Tertullian? You think he was trying to unify? If you could be more specific it will be great.

Well, that and assert what was "orthodoxy." But I don't get your question. Tertullian was long dead by the time the doctrine was adopted.

 

[firedragon]

The first usage I'm aware of was Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd century.



My intent wasn't to dismiss his views, only to point out its tricky to cite him as a representative example of what Christians generally believed, depending on the context and the time when he said it.

1. Tertullian was the first known.
2. I didnt say anything about "cite him as a representative example of what Christians generally believed"/ Maybe if you go back and read the full comment where I mentioned him you would read what i said.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Well, that and assert what was "orthodoxy." But I don't get your question. Tertullian was long dead by the time the doctrine was adopted.

Read the comment I was responding to, maybe you would understand the question.

 

[firedragon]

Are you seeking knowledge and nothing more or would it upset you if there's no sources before the fourth century?

Thanks for your contribution. Very good.

 

[sojourner]

Read the comment I was responding to, maybe you would understand the question.

Nope. doesn't make sense, since Tertullian was not one of the apostles concerned with ratifying the doctrine. But I don't think of him as a unifying force, at any rate.

 

[firedragon]

Nope. doesn't make sense, since Tertullian was not one of the apostles concerned with ratifying the doctrine. But I don't think of him as a unifying force, at any rate.

ok

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Given the premise that the Bible is completely propagating the Trinity (if you believe it or not take it as a hypothetical premise for the sake of this question) why is it that the early church took almost 4 centuries to come up with the trinity as clearly stipulated as in the Athanasian Creed?

When this question or any similar question is asked what you see mostly is people trying to prove Jesus is God and quote the Bible. The question is not that and any objective person would be able to see it. Also, this question is asked with the premise given that the Bible is fully Trinitarian purely to be precise in the question.

"Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis (et) Spiritus Sanctus.- Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost."

Anyone could look up the creed so there is no point cutting and pasting the whole thing, but do not forget that the trinity concerns the father, son, and the holy spirit, not just that Jesus is divine. So please consider the whole trinity, that all three are eternal, but not three Eternals but one eternal.

Thus, the question is "why is it that the early church took almost 4 centuries to come up with the trinity as clearly stipulated as in the Athanasian Creed"?

Because Christians had different interpretations about the station of Jesus, and holy Spirit.

 

[Left Coast]

1. Tertullian was the first known.

It appears Tertullian was first to use the Latin term. Theophilus' usage was slightly earlier, in Greek.

2. I didnt say anything about "cite him as a representative example of what Christians generally believed"/ Maybe if you go back and read the full comment where I mentioned him you would read what i said.

Cheers.

I did read your full comment to sojourner. I apologize if I misunderstood the purpose of the example.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You're absolutely correct about the feminine personification of Divine Wisdom (as the amanuensis and emanation of God's presence on earth or within people) in the sapiential texts of pre-Christian Judaism, namely Chokmâh rendered into Greek as Sophia.

We can find this personification of God's divine 'daughter' or 'female manifestation / co-agent of creation' in the Book of Proverbs in the Tanakh, in the Book of Sirach (200 BCE), in the Wisdom of Solomon (first century BCE) and other ancient Jewish 'wisdom' literature within and without the Bible.

In Prov. 8:1–30, for instance, we read: "Does not wisdom call, and does not understanding raise her voice?....I, wisdom...before the hills, I was born (holalti), when he established the heavens I was there...when [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like an amon; and I was daily his delight, playing before him always."

"Amon" is a hapax legomenon (appears only once in the entirety of the Hebrew Bible, with no parallel) but the majority of scholars render it as "little child" or contrarily "masterworker". The ancient Septuagintal version thus renders this into Greek as harmozousa, “the woman who holds all things together in harmony" through a combination of both meanings.

What we thus have here - described by this ancient Jewish biblical author - is a literary personification of Divine Wisdom as the "little daughter" or "masterworker" (amon) of God begotten (holalti) "before the ages" and existing 'beside' the God of Israel from all eternity ("when he established the heavens" and "marked out the foundations of the earth") as his co-agent of creation in whom God "delights".

Now, one can take this description as mere 'literary artifice' or as insinuating something literal about the nature of God. The early Christians were part of a tradition of 'binatarian' Jews - 'heretical' from the vantage point of the growing/developing Rabbinic orthodoxy, especially after the collapse of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and the extinction of rival sects like the Sadducees and Essenes - who understood the divine chokmah to be a literal description of the nature of God.

The Jewish author of the Book of Sirach (132 BCE) seems to have understood 'Wisdom' in this second literal sense and has her deliver a solemn first-person narrative about her origins in eternity:


(24:3) I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
and covered the earth like a mist.
(4) I dwelt in the highest heavens,
and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
(5) Alone I compassed the vault of heaven
and traversed the depths of the abyss.
(6) Over waves of the sea, over all the earth,
and over every people and nation I have held sway.

You've got a very beautiful post going here.

Note, how Wisdom - this eternal divine ordering principle, who came into being prior to the creation of the world - is described as coming "forth from the mouth of the Most High", that is she is portrayed as the Word of God. This is the exact same sense in which the NT authors employ the sapiential tradition, they too equate 'Wisdom' with the 'Word' of God which for them is Jesus's pre-incarnate status.

However, there is also a pre-Christian Jewish equation of 'Wisdom' with the 'the Spirit' (i.e. the spirit of God hovering over the waters of creation in Genesis 1:2 and referred to in Joel 2:28 as being "poured" out so that the sons and daughters of Israel will prophesy).

This can be seen in the Wisdom of Solomon (a Jewish text written in the first century BCE) which refers to Wisdom as the 'breath' of God:


(7:25) She is a breath of the power of God,
and a pure emanation (aporroia eilikrinēs) of the glory of
the Almighty;
therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.
(26) For she is a reflection (apaugasma) of eternal light,
a spotless mirror of the working of God (tēs tou theou
energeias),
and an image (eikōn) of his goodness.

That's beautiful. I feel sort of cheap having to have someone translate it for me. Its nice though.

Where I would disagree partially with your argument, is that the New Testament equates Divine Wisdom with Jesus the pre-incarnate 'Word' and not with a 'distinct' Spirit (the personhood of the 'Spirit' was to emerge gradually in the unwritten tradition of the church after the close of the apostolic New Testament era, it is not explicit in the NT).

Thus, in the New Testament we find Jesus described as the pre-incarnate Wisdom of God:


"...We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God...

Among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age...But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

(1 Corinthians 1.23, 2:1-14)

"I want their hearts to be encouraged and united in love, so that they may have all the riches of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him"

(Colossians 2:2-3)

This is reflected in the mother church of Eastern Orthodoxy being called the Hagia Sophia:

I always tell people that we shouldn't argue and that nothing ever comes of it, but I make exceptions. In the interest of lowering barriers and ending arguments, I'll argue. I do believe, however, that usually nothing comes of arguing. I've experienced this in socinian cults, charismatic churches and southern baptist ones. I think its a principle with few exceptions. I'm not precisely sure, then, how we go about discussing this bit in the last quote, but I think for the sake of Muslims and Catholics and unitarians getting along its a good idea to continue what you have started. Also you're an entertaining poster, and I'm sure people will like to read your posts. Maybe something will come of our exchange. I feel growing respect for your insight into this.

First the gospel of John chapter 1.
I have a socinian understanding of the first three chapters of John but am not socinian. I'm a (sloppy) trinitarian as I made obvious in my post, so I share a common interpretive understanding of this with many unitarians but am no longer one. You appear, to us, to be projecting a meaning onto chapter one of John which we cannot find in the text and an inflexible meaning. We judge you for this. We think that John does not refer to Jesus as the Holy Spirit, however John 1 is a complex reading, and it can be difficult to draw lines from this to that. I've always had to use my finger on it to track where is the word, the light etc. In John's chapter one narration, the light proceeds from the word, and that light is Jesus (or his ministry perhaps). This is a way of looking at the NT texts in addition to yours which you have explained, very nicely, thank you. The other NT texts in the accepted protestant canon can all as far as I know, also be read in a way in in which Jesus is not equated with the Holy Spirit. That being said...

I would appreciate if you look at this as an opportunity to commune with Muslims (and socinians) a little better, perhaps a chance to hold hands. Many people have (not me because I'm fine with the trinity) a strict socinian kind of monotheism, inflexibly, one in which Jesus can only be a man, a prophet, a child of God and human like the rest of us, maybe not even crucified. Imagine if you were in that position, completely or nearly cut off from the Catholics -- no roots. Think of how difficult this could be if it were you and how nice it would be if there were a bridge, somewhere, something overlooked perhaps just a string across the chasm. All of the aforementioned people: socinian or Muslim can agree that Jesus is obedient to the point of death! Maybe that is enough to agree about atonement, if they can come that far? What stops them doing so? What keeps them from coming to church? Maybe it is the insistence that the holy spirit is Jesus? Probably not, but you could look at it again. You could reexaming the point that I'm bringing up. Maybe its not so cut and dried as you think.

I'm not saying that you need to change your point of view but am just bouncing this thought off you to see if you can go back through the first fifteen verses of the gospel of John and see if you can account for what I'm talking about. Where is the word, the light, Jesus, logos etc. Are you sure that in John 1 Jesus is equated directly with the Holy Spirit? Maybe I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

 

[Vouthon]

Tertullian's views were somewhat idiosyncratic and changed over the course of his life from more orthodox to less so. That's one of the reasons he's not a Saint.

Contrary to the popular belief, he never actually abandoned the Catholic Church to join a Montanist sect but he certainly did embrace "Montanism" (i.e. the New Prophecy from Phrygia) as a theology while still a member of the church.

However, although that unfortunate debacle prevented him from being registered in the martyrologies as a 'saint', he has always been accounted one of the Fathers for his 'orthodox' period and as an ecclesiastical writer of exceptional profundity, given that he was the first systematic 'Latin' theologian.

So, you find him cited by the later Fathers and in the medieval period, right up until modern times - Pope Benedict XVI devoted a general audience address to him in 2007 (subsequently published as a chapter in book form as, "Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine").

I'm impressed by your Patristic knowledge! (It's something I love to see!)

 

[Vouthon]

Maybe it is the insistence that the holy spirit is Jesus?

An extremely interesting and insightful post, thank you for penning it! I will need to reflect on your points somewhat, before getting back to you (If that's OK?) as there is a lot to unpack and chew on.

I want to give you a full and comprehensive response, which is more than merited by the time and effort you put into that last post.

On one point, I would like to clarify that as a Trinitarian Catholic, I don't believe the 'Holy Spirit is Jesus'. As with any Trinitarian, I regard the Spirit as a distinct person from the Father and the Son but one in essence/being.

What I do believe, however, is that the dogma of the personhood of the Holy Spirit is not developed within the NT texts to the same extent as the 'distinct' agencies of the Father and the Son (the latter of whom the NT writers identified with pre-incarnate Wisdom).

The understanding of the Spirit's 'distinction' in agency from the Father ("from" whom all things) and Son ("through" whom all things), took a longer time to be 'fleshed out' before we get to the Nicene Creedal definition in the early fourth century.

In terms of the Johannine prologue, I would be more than happy to 'exegete' it in dialogue with your Socinian perspective. With that being said, 'early high christology' is now the consensus in New Testament scholarship - such that while the Trinity (as an ontological category) is not found in these texts, the 'pre-existent divinity' of Jesus as the Father's agent of creation is presupposed by most of the early NT authors, including Paul.

In saying this, I'm merely reflecting a scholarly consensus that has emerged following the pioneering work of Larry Hurtado in the 1980s, which most of his colleagues in the field have since embraced.

 

[Deeje]

From the non trinitarian perspective.....

"How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?

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 Encyclopædia 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.”"

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Left Coast]

I'm impressed by your Patristic knowledge! (It's something I love to see!)

I converted to Catholicism in 2013. Came with the territory.

 

[PruePhillip]

The person who coined the term Trinity didn’t have the same concept of the trinity as we have now.

So it was not just a canonization that happened in 381. Before that the trinity existed, in a different form.

So too did the bi-inity (Father and the Son)
and the moninity (I am God and before me there is no other.)
And there's various trinities, but we don't make doctrines out of them.

 

[firedragon]

It appears Tertullian was first to use the Latin term. Theophilus' usage was slightly earlier, in Greek.



I did read your full comment to sojourner. I apologize if I misunderstood the purpose of the example.

Brother. Theophilus does not say "Trinity" yet it was Tertullian who coined the reference trinitas to refer to the Holy Trinity and thats the origin of the word.

Theophilus said Trias and he meant three. In his writing to his friend He was just referring to three, God, his word, and his all-knowing ability. Thats not a trinity brother. Yet if you believe it, thats perfectly fine with me. Its actually not that important.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

So too did the bi-inity (Father and the Son)
and the moninity (I am God and before me there is no other.)
And there's various trinities, but we don't make doctrines out of them.

I was not referring to you. I was referring to the Athanasian Creed.

 

[Left Coast]

Brother. Theophilus does not say "Trinity" yet it was Tertullian who coined the reference trinitas to refer to the Holy Trinity and thats the origin of the word.

Theophilus said Trias and he meant three. In his writing to his friend He was just referring to three, God, his word, and his all-knowing ability. Thats not a trinity brother. Yet if you believe it, thats perfectly fine with me. Its actually not that important.

Cheers.

I'll let readers be the judge:

"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."

Theophilus of Antioch - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

I'll let readers be the judge:

"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."

Theophilus of Antioch - Wikipedia

Brother, thats Trias, which someone has translated as "Trinity" and its not a coeternal God, son and the holy spirit there, its just three, God, his word, and his all knowing nature or wisdom of God. You really didnt have to cut and paste that because I have already stated this exact same thing.

Anyway, I already told you that if you believe Theophilus believed in the trinity in his letter its your prerogative and is not a a problem for me at all because the topic at hand is of a different nature. Cheers.