The Doctrine of the Trinity, Part 3: The Doctrine Itself

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith:

    That we believe and confess
    that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
    is both God and human, equally.

     He is God from the essence of the Father,
    begotten before time;
    and he is human from the essence of his mother,
    born in time;
    completely God, completely human,
    with a rational soul and human flesh;
    equal to the Father as regards divinity,
    less than the Father as regards humanity.

    Although he is God and human,
    yet Christ is not two, but one.
    He is one, however,
    not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
    but by God's taking humanity to himself.
    He is one,
    certainly not by the blending of his essence,
    but by the unity of his person.
    For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
    so too the one Christ is both God and human.

    He suffered for our salvation;
    he descended to hell;
    he arose from the dead;
    he ascended to heaven;
    he is seated at the Father's right hand;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    At his coming all people will arise bodily
    and give an accounting of their own deeds.
    Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
    and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully. (Athanasian Creed)

              Confused yet?  Me too. 

            In the first article in this series, we looked at the scriptural word, “god” (in both the Hebrew and Greek) and searched the scriptures in order to determine its usage(s).  In the second article, we looked at the concept of Divine Agency and how an agent of God is sometimes referred to as “God”, in the scriptures.  In this installment, we will look at the doctrine of the Trinity itself.  This installment of the series will view the doctrine at a very high level.  The doctrine will be more minutely examined in the coming installments in this series.  This article will provide a summary of the formulation of the Trinity Doctrine, summarize its development, and also consider whether those credited with the doctrine’s creation held the same Trinitarian view(s) which make up the modern doctrine of the Trinity.

            This article’s aim is not to defend, nor is its aim to attack the doctrine.  This article is meant to provide basis and context for what constitutes the Trinity Doctrine in as much as possible, in its totality.  You may find that you completely agree with all aspects of the Trinity Doctrine, or if you are at all like me, you may be surprised by how much depth there is to this doctrine, beyond simply believing in “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.

            Much like how the Doctrine of the Trinity is based on a one in three conceptualization, so too, I believe that the formation of the doctrine is a single doctrine which stands on a three-legged stool.  The first leg of the stool is the “pre-existence” of Christ Jesus, with the second leg being the Deity of Christ Jesus, and the third leg being the personhood of the Holy Spirit.  As the reader will see, the two primary conventions of bishops in the 4^th Century were convened over these three issues.

            I began this article by providing a copy of the “Athanasian Creed”.  As best I have been able to determine, it is unknown as to who actually wrote this creed; although it bears the name of Bishop Athanasius. 

            According to Wikipedia.org, The Athanasian Creed, “…also known as Pseudo-Athanasian Creed or Quicunque Vult, is a Christian statement of belief, focused on Trinitarian doctrine and Christology.  The Latin name of the creed, Quicunque vult, is taken from the opening words, “Whosoever wishes”.  The creed has been used by Christian churches since the sixth century.  It is the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated.”[1]

            When it comes to the “Athanasian Creed”, the opening sentences and closing sentences are troubling for several reasons.  The unknown author of the creed contends that “whoever does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally” and “one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully”. Are we to take this to mean that if one does not hold every contention put for the in the creed, that one is eternally lost?  If one did not hold to every, single contention of this creed at the moment of belief, were they not then saved?  Were the early Christians (who never saw this creed prior to the 6^th Century) lost; regardless of their faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins, as the apostle Paul states is (1 Cor. 15:1-5) “the gospel which I preached unto you”, “by which also ye are saved”?  Troubling questions arise from the opening and closing statements of this creed.

            Did you know that Tertullian (160A.D.-220A.D.) who was credited for first using the Latin term “trinitas” in his writings and for formulating many of the early beliefs which would later become codified in the Trinity Doctrine, did not believe in a Triune God, but rather God was a Triad (of persons) or group of three, and the Son “…is not God himself, nor is he divine in the same sense that the Father is…”[2]  By the standards of the Athanasian Creed, the man credited for much of the early beliefs on the Trinity Doctrine and for penning the word from which we get the name for the Doctrine, is perishing eternally, because (according to his own writings) did not believe that the Son’s and the Father’s “divinity is one”, “their glory equal”, or even that the Son was “co-eternal” with the Father.

            Tertullian certainly isn’t alone among the Church Fathers who held beliefs about the Trinity Doctrine which would later be considered “heresy”, once the doctrine had been finally formulated.  This of course calls into question the necessity of belief in the Trinity, as stipulated in the Athanasian Creed.  Was belief in the Trinity Doctrine as finally adopted unnecessary at a certain point in the past, or upon gaining a certain understanding? 

            When it comes to the word, “Trinity”, the word, itself; cannot be found in the scriptures; which does not necessarily mean that the concept is unscriptural.  Many Trinitarian theologians would likely admit that even the concept of the Trinity cannot be found in the Old Testament and is not explicitly but is rather implicitly and logically deduced from the New Testament scriptures. According to Dale Tuggy in his academic work, “Trinity”, as it pertains to the scriptures, “sophisticated Trinitarians” contend, “…the doctrine was revealed by God only later in the New Testament times (c.50-c.100) and/or in the Patristic era (c.100-800).”  Assuming that the Trinity Doctrine is perfectly encapsulated in the Athanaisian Creed and that the dire warnings preceding and closing the creed are also true; the obvious question to me is, “why would God hide so necessary and essential a doctrine from the pages of scripture?” 

            If the scriptures do not explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity, how was and when was the doctrine formulated?  This is where the Christian Church and more specifically, the Catholic Church as an institution, comes into play.  Prior to Christianity becoming the official religion of the Empire, the writers of the New Testament letters (including most notably Paul and John) found themselves addressing the relationship between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as other controversies with the earliest believers. 

            In the third century and certainly by the fourth century, it became apparent that there were heated disputations with respect to the question of the deity of Christ, among not only the laity but among the clergy.  The Arian Controversy is likely considered the watershed moment in the official position being taken at the Emperor Constantine’s level in instituting the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it now.  Arius (256-336) believed that Christ Jesus was subordinate to God the Father, not the Father’s co-equal, and he further believed that Christ Jesus was created at some point in the finite past.  This belief and teaching to the local church in Alexandria caught the attention and ire of Arius’ bishop, Alexander of Alexandria.  Alexander threatened and eventually excommunicated Arius for his theological position.  This caused bishops who believed specifically that the Son is subordinate to and not co-equal with the Father, to rally to Arius’ cause.  The permeating instability created by the attention to this controversy caused Emperor Constantine to hold a council of bishops (First Council of Nicaea) in 325 AD to settle the matter.  Keep in mind that Constantine was the first Christian emperor of the Roman Empire and that disunity in this newly constructed melding of the political and religious was seen as at least potentially destabilizing. 

            The result of the First Council of Nicaea was to (among other things) firmly establish the Deity of Christ, excommunicate Arius, condemn his teaching, and establish a creed, the Nicene Creed.  This creed declared Jesus Christ to be “Consubstantial (necessitating a new word be made) with the Father…begotten not made, one in being with the Father”[3].

            Arianism was still widespread after the ruling of the bishops at Nicaea 1 and a new council was called in 381 AD (Constantinople 1) to further condemn Arianism, but to also take on another controversy.  Was the Holy Spirit Divine and if so, co-equal and “co-substantial (of the same essence) with the Father and Jesus Christ?  The result of this council was to name the Holy Spirit as the Third “Person” of the Trinity and to confirm this in the Nicene Creed with the added clause, “…We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adored and honored together with the Father and the Son; he spoke through the Prophets”[4].

            Throughout the first 4 centuries of Christendom, there existed fairly wide-ranging ideas on the nature of “God” and what a “Trinity” or “Triune” nature of God really meant.  It took the ecumenical councils to attempt to boil down this doctrine to a pure form by expelling elements or beliefs that were considered to be heretical by consensus and vote of the convening bishops at the time.  It should also be noted that the written arguments used by those such as Arius (whose views were “out-voted”) were almost always burned and destroyed; leaving only the writings of the prevailing doctrine to be preserved for further consideration. 

            To most Christians, the Trinity Doctrine is simply a belief in “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.  As you can see from reading the Athanasian Creed, the Doctrine of the Trinity is much more complex than that simple belief.  Perhaps the best person to cite on what the Doctrine of the Trinity states, in a nutshell, is Dr. James R. White.  Dr. White has become one of the most widely known, modern day Trinitarian apologists.  Dr. White states,

“The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God- indivisible, infinite.  This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.”[5]

            Dr. James R. White stated on page 27 of his book, “The Forgotten Trinity”, that “When speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who’s.  The one what is the Being or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son, and Spirit.  We dare not mix up the what’s and the who’s regarding the Trinity.”   That statement, the various pronouncements found within the Athanasian Creed, and other statements about the Trinity from various theologians (such as the late Dr. R.C. Sproul) will be examined in much detail in future installments in this series and compared with statements of scripture.

But, before leaving this topic in the present article, I thought that it may be helpful to hear the opinion of another theologian, scientist, and inventor whose identity is very much of a household name.  Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was an avid student of the scriptures, but also a scholar of the writings of the so-called, “church fathers”.  In his article on Newton’s writings and conclusions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, John Byl, Ph.D., a Trinitarian himself, wrote the following,

“In one notebook4 it is clear that, already in the early 1670's, Newton was absorbed by the doctrine of the Trinity. On this topic he studied extensively not only the Bible, but also much of the Church Fathers. Newton traced the doctrine of the trinity back to Athanasius (298- 373); he became convinced that before Athanasius the Church had no trinitarian doctrine. In the early 4th century Athanasius was opposed by Arius (256-336), who affirmed that God the Father had primacy over Christ. In 325 the Council of Nicea condemned as heretical the views of Arius. Thus, as viewed by Newton, Athanasius triumphed over Arius in imposing the false doctrine of the trinity on Christianity.

Newton further asserted that, in order to support trinitarianism, the Church deliberately corrupted the Bible by modifying crucial texts. For example, Newton claimed that the well-known words of I John 5:7 (”there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) were not in the original, pre-4th century Bible (Newton, it seems, was not a King James only man). Newton writes that “the Fathers…preferred to desert the Scriptures than not to condemn Arius”. Soon thereafter a universal corruption of Christianity followed the central corruption of doctrine: in the 4th century trinitarianism fouled every element of Christianity.

Newton's anti-trinitarianism is evident also in his interpretation of Revelation. According to Newton, the seventh seal began in the year 380, when trinitarianism was officially ratified at the Council of Constantinople. The great apostasy was not Romanism, but trinitarianism, “the false infernal religion”, to quote Newton's own words."[6]

            No doctrine should be validated or invalidated based upon its endorsement or rejection by any popular figure.  However, as I cited the words of one of the world’s leading apologists for the doctrine of the Trinity, I believed it fair to provide the words of another noted scholar whose study led him to entirely reject the doctrine.

            Throughout the coming installments in this series, I will quote and cite the Athanasian Creed for the reader’s convenience, but I chose to provide it in this article, in its totality to provide the reader with the full creedal statement on the Trinity, as understood by Trinitarians of the Christian faith.

In the next article, we will take the first section of the Athanasian Creed (which Dr. White refers to as the “one What and three Who’s”) and examine scripturally the issues of distinction among persons of the Trinity, the contention that the Holy Spirit is a distinct “Person”, the statements regarding co-equality, and co-eternality as well.

---

[1] Wikipedia.org “Athanasian Creed”

[2] Tuggy, Dale (Summer 2014).”History of Trinitarian Doctrines”. Trinity. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu

[3] Author unknown. July 1, 2018. “Your Guide to the Ecumenical Councils of the Church”. http://www.osv.com

[4] Ibid

[5] White, James R. Dr., April 29, 1998. “A Brief Definition of the Trinity”. http://www.aomin.org

[6] Byl, John Ph.D. , February 14, 2005. “On Newton and the Trinity”. http://www.geocentricity.com