"They have erred from the faith." - Paul
Among the various items of faith which when embodied constitute
the creed of what is termed "orthodoxy," none holds a more conspicuous place
than the one named at the head of this article, embracing in its theory under the
appellation of the Triune God, a plurality of gods, three distinct persons, yet one in
substance, equal in power and glory. This dogma is intimately and perhaps inseparably
connected with the doctrine of the innate immortality of man, and peculiar sanctity is
attached to it in this connection as an essential element of the true faith, which cannot
be ignored by any person deserving the name of Christian. This being the case, it becomes
a matter of importance to the truth seeker whether this claim is well founded; whether
this doctrine was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, or whether it was introduced into the
Church from another source, or at a later day, and elaborated by sectarian machinery for
party purposes. In order therefore to arrive at a correct conclusion concerning this
matter, and believing Paul's rule -- "Prove all things, hold fast that which is
good" -- to be a safe one to follow, we will submit to the test of truth as revealed
in the Bible concerning the former point, and the record found in reliable church history
concerning the latter, willing to abide the result, and hoping the candid reader will be
ready to do the same.
In submitting this doctrine to the test of the Scriptures, the
only true source for light on what we must believe in order to be saved, we find one
important truth revealed, which if sufficient of itself to substantiate the prevalent
view, would settle the question forever: I mean the preexistence
of Christ. This is emphatically declared, as recorded in John 16:28; John 8:58, and by
implication in several other places. But while this is true, there are also two other
facts in the same connection which materially modify the force of the argument in that
direction, namely:
(1) He never gave the apostles the slightest intimation whatever
of any act or agency performed by him during that period of time; and (2) he never claimed
an equality with the Father in the sense suggested by this doctrine, but (See John 17,
&c.) distinctly asserted his entire subordination. So while the apostles evidently
believed in his pre-existence as a matter of faith, they also believed the particulars
concerning it were a secret with the Father, who (Luke 10:22) only knew who he was.
Consequently they did not agitate the question, or make it an essential part of their
teaching. "Great is the mystery of godliness which {1} was manifest in the
flesh," said Paul to Timothy; but he did not tell him that manifestation was the
second person in the Trinity.{2}
On the other hand, the apostles believed Jesus to be what he declared himself to be -- the
Son of God; and dwelt fundamentally on the necessity of believing on him as their Savior,
King, and future Life-giver, who died, was buried, rose again, ascended to heaven, was
then seated at the
Father's right hand, and would personally come again at the end of the age and give
eternal life to his waiting people; exhorting them to purify their souls by obeying the
truth, and thus prepare for that important event. This in substance was their teaching to
the people both Jews and Gentiles, at all times and in all places, and there is no
evidence that this doctrine, which has since become so important, formed any part of the
faith of primitive Christianity.
The question, then, is naturally suggested, From whence did this
dogma arise; and how came it to gain the important place it now holds in the creed of
professed Christendom? In reply to the first part of this question I remark negatively,
that the doctrine of a Triune God, whether true or false, did not originate from the
teachings of Jesus or the apostles; for like some other theories which have been
incorporated into the faith of popular Christendom, it lies at the base of the mythologies
of the more civilized ancient heathen nations. For example, concerning the Hindu
mythology.{3} They believe in one God, Brahm, a self-existing, incomprehensible Spirit,
whose three essential attributes are personified and worshiped under the respective names
of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. The ancient Egyptians{4} also worshipped the deified
attributes of their gods in triads.
A representation of a triune god is also found among the antiquities of Assyria. {5} A
trinity can also be traced through all Chinese philosophy and religion. {6} Says
DuHalde:{7} "The substance of Fo is one, but he has three forms." Again the
"Orphic Trinity" according to Cory{8} was a triad subordinate to a monad. The
The Greek philosophers Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Plato also recognized the same
doctrine.{9} We thus learn it was not dependent upon a revelation from God for its origin.
To answer this question affirmatively, to show how the transition was effected from
Christianity as it was in the Apostolic age to Christianity as we find it in the age of
the Fathers; from Christianity as taught by Jesus and the Apostles to Christianity as we
find it taught in the fourth and fifth centuries, and, to a great extent, in the popular
church ever since, and thus show the rise of the doctrine, is perhaps in some respects a
more difficult task. For in the words of the Rev. Dr. Stanley of the Church of England:
{10} "No other change equally momentous has ever since
affected its fortunes [Christianity], yet none has ever been so silent and secret. The
stream in that most critical moment of its passage from the everlasting hells to the plain
below is lost to our view at the very point where we are most anxious to watch it. It is
not so much a period for
ecclesiastical history as for ecclesiastical controversy and conjecture." The change
truly was great, and history is somewhat meager concerning it: nevertheless we will
endeavor to gather the substantial facts as far as practicable.
In the first place the divisions which had been fermenting during the Apostolic day
through the influence of false teachers, (as often referred to in their writings{11}),
after the Apostles had passed away increased in volume, and caused the church to be
divided and subdivided into a great
variety of sects. These were greatly multiplied by the Gnostics, {12} in abstruse
philosophic discussions concerning the deductive meaning of words and phrases found in the
Gospels and Epistles. They were not satisfied with what was revealed concerning the
pre-existence of Christ,
{13} but claimed to be able to understand by their superior knowledge certain things
concerning it and his inherent nature; which, if true, are not revealed in the Scriptures.
"It is no wonder," says Tertullian, {14} "if the ingenuity of philosophers
perverted the Old Testament, since men sprung
from them have corrupted even the New Testament by their opinions, so as to support the
tenets of their philosophy." These philosophical speculations, aided by similar ones
borrowed from Greek philosophy {15} and introduced by converts from heathen nations
infected by it, engendered the primary elements of this doctrine in the church. On this
point Knapp remarks: {16} "They found in the New Testament some expressions (Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit) which apparently resembled their previous philosophy. …. It was
therefore easy to annex their former
philosophic notions to the language of Scripture." Mosheim {17} also says in
reference to the same point: "Whatever is to be met in Scripture respecting the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was expounded by these Christians [i.e., the Alexandrian
school] so as to render it consistent with the doctrine of three hypostases or natures in
God, as maintained by Plato, Parmenides, and others." And thus from Greek philosophy
and the abstruse speculations of the Gnostics were gathered the elementary principles of
this doctrine which is now held sacred as a part of the revealed Word, by modern
orthodoxy.
But at this point of time the idea was comparatively in an embryo state; for while it had
many nominal adherents, they were afloat on a sea of conjecture, as well they might be,
without a "Thus saith the Lord" for a pilot; consequently, some rejected it
altogether, and held the opposite
view, that Christ was but a mere man, which at that time was not considered inconsistent
with Christianity. {18} Irenaeus (A. D. 157) {19} expresses his views upon the question as
follows: "If then any one says to us, After what manner is the Soon derived form the
Father? we say to him
that no one knows the probation or generation, or nuncupation, or aduperation, or whatever
name anyone pleases to call this generation which is ineffable. Not Valentinus, nor
Marcion, {20) nor Basilides, nor angels; nor arch-angels, nor principalities, nor powers;
but only the Father who begat, and the Son who was begotten." Notwithstanding the
opposition, however, the doctrine that Jesus was the incarnate logos {21} (a Greek term
for the divine will or energy, borrowed from Platonic philosophy), whose existence they
held was co-eval with the Father, became prevalent in the church as early as the close of
the third century.
About this time the world became excited by the promulgation of a new theory by Arius, of
whom Ruter {22} writes as follows: "The Trinitarian controversy was a deluge which
overflowed the whole Christian world. Arius, a presbyter of the church of Alexandria,
acute, eloquent, and
subtle, contended in opposition to his bishop, Alexander, in an assembly of presbyters,
that the Son was essentially distinct from the Father: that he was a dependent,
spontaneous production, created by the will of the Father out of nothing; that he had been
begotten before all worlds; but
that there had been a time when he was not; that the Father had impressed upon him the
effulgence of his glory; and transfused into him his ample Spirit; that he was the framer
of the world and governor of the universe in obedience to the will of his Father and
Monarch." This
theory, so contrary to the prevailing opinion that he had existed as the logos from the
beginning, was bitterly opposed by many, while others warmly sustained it. Thus arose the
noted Arian controversy, which so distracted the church that Constantine (A.D. 323)
summoned the bishops
and doctors of divinity from all parts of his Empire to meet in General Council at Nice in
Bithynia, to settle the question. After a stormy debate of two months continuance the
Arians were defeated, and the majority concocted and adopted the following creed: {23}
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and
invisible, and in our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the
substance of the Father, God of God, and Light of light, true God of true God, begotten,
not made; con-substantial with the Father; by whom all things were made, but which are in
heaven and on earth, who for the
sake of us men and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate and was made
man, suffered, arose again the third day and ascended into the heavens, and will come
again to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit."
Concerning the doings of this Council which established the above
creed, Ruter thus writes: {24} "The term consubstantialist was conferred upon the
opposers of the Arian doctrine by the council of Nice, the boject of whose assembling has
been already specified. In this council the
Homoousian doctrine, or consubstantiality of the three persons in the Godhead, was
declared a fundamental article of the Christian faith, and has been received as such by
the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental, and the Protestant Churches." It will be noticed
however that this council, although they made this declaration, did not incorporate the
doctrine of the trinity into their creed, but merely said concerning the third person
"We believed in the Holy Spirit;" hence there were at that time, according to
the established belief, but two persons in the Godhead. But fifty-six years afterwards, at
the General Council at Constantinople, they deposed Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople,
as a heretic for denying the personality of the Holy Spirit, and added to the Nicene
creed, after the words and we believe in the Holy Spirit, the words, -- "the Lord and
Giver
of life, who proceedeth from the Father; who with the Father and Son together is worshiped
and glorified; who spake by the prophets."
Thus was introduced into the religious creed of Christendom the three persons constituting
the Trinity; in reference to which Ruter remarks: {25} "These doctrines concerning
the nature of the Trinity, which in preceding ages had escaped the vain curiosity of man,
and had been left undefined by words and undetermined by any particular set of ideas,
excited considerable contest through the whole of the century. The semi-Arians violently
attacked the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which was in the General Council of
Constantinople discussed and defined, and the doctrine of three persons and one God
established as the orthodox belief of the church." But although thus established by
the power of the majority, the agitation of the question continued, for it was difficult
to reconcile the facts that Jesus hungered, thirsted, and slept; also that he prayed to
the Father, and not only suffered but died on the cross, with the fact alleged in their
creed that he was the eternal Father himself. To meet this perplexing question, Nestorius,
bishop of Constantinople, asserted, {26} "that there were in the Lord Jesus not only
two natures, but two persons, one of which was the second person in the Trinity, and the
other was the man Jesus, who possessed a human soul as well as body." This
speculation not being congenial to the doctrine of the Trinity as enunciated in the creed,
was condemned, and another Council called to settle the matter of the distinction between
our Lord's divine and human nature. This Council assembled at Ephesus, A.D. 431, where it
was determined {27} "that the Lord Jesus Christ in his exalted state
was one divine person, in whom two natures (i.e., divine and human) were most closely and
intimately united, but without being mixed or confounded together."
Thus was elaborated in substance the doctrine of the Trinity as
held sacred by orthodoxy today. And concerning the Councils which thus established it as
an essential ingredient in the Christian faith, the Rev. H. Milman thus writes: {28}
"Nowhere is Christianity less attractive; and if we look to the ordinary tone and
character of the proceedings, less authoritative, than in the councils of the church. It
is in general a fierce collision of two rival factions, neither of which will yield, each
of which is solemnly pledged against conviction. Intrigue, injustice, violence, decisions
on authority alone, and that the authority of a turbulent majority, decisions by wild
acclamation rather than after sober inquiry, detract from the reverence and impugn the
judgment at last of the later Councils. Even the venerable Council of Nice commenced with
mutual accusals and recriminations which were repressed by the moderation of the Emperor.
The degeneracy is rapid from the Council of Nice to that of Ephesus, where each party came
determined to use every means of haste, maneuver, court influence, and bribery to crush
its adversary; and neither would scruple at any means to obtain the ratification of their
anathemas by the persecution of the civil government."
I have not briefly brought to view the "voice of the Church" concerning what we
must believe about Jesus in order to be orthodox, as enunciated by the Fathers in their
several councils up to the middle of the fifth century. And although the agitation on this
question did not entirely cease
for several centuries after, yet no important changes were made in the doctrine, and the
belief in the Trinity determined by the Ephesian council is substantially the belief of
popular Christendom at the present time.
And now I wish to call attention to an important fact, important as eternal life is
important, left out of their creed, and consequently practically out of their faith, and
not theirs alone, but of all denominations since who hold this doctrine as enunciated by
them; for there is no doctrine more
vital, none which stands in bolder relief throughout the Apostolic writings, than the fact
that Jesus not only suffered, but died, and was RAISED FROM THE DEAD. By referring to
their creed we perceive this item was left out; for they say he "suffered and rose
again the third day;" thus
ignoring the fact that he literally died and was buried. Nestorius, as before suggested,
saw this inconsistency, and tried to amend it by asserting that Christ possessed not only
two natures, but two distinct persons, and that the unity with the Father "was only
of will and affection." By this theory the Nestorians held the man Jesus literally
died. But this view was condemned as a heresy, because it ignored the doctrine of his
being of the same essence with the Father. Afterwards "Eutyches, an abbot of
Constantinople, advanced and maintained the doctrine that there was only one nature in the
Lord Jesus Christ; that he had a celestial body and not one of the flesh, and consequently
that his divine nature both suffered and died." This theory, admitting the death of
the Son of God according to the plain declaration of Scripture, obtained many adherents,
but was as objectionable with the dominant party as the Nestorian view, and the
dissensions arising therefore caused the calling of the fourth General Council, which met
at Chalcedon, A.D. 451.
This Council condemned Eutyches and his followers as heretics, and
again affirmed that the orthodox faith was, that there were "two perfect and distinct
natures, the divine and human, in the unity of the person of the Lord Jesus."
Consequently the conclusion was inevitable, as his person
was consubstantial (of the same substance) of the Father, he could not die in the literal
sense of ceasing to exist; but when crucified the human nature only suffered, the divine
beholding the scene physically unaffected, and upon its conclusion immediately accompanied
by the soul of the penitent thief, ascended to Paradise.
This, in substance, is the doctrine of a Triune God, as
established by the Fathers in their several Councils, and held sacred by orthodoxy today.
And now I ask the candid reader to examine it carefully and compare it with the record God
has given of his Son in his Word, and if you find it harmonizing with it, believe the
dogma: but if on the other hand you find the record positively declares that God gave his
only begotten Son to die, the just for the unjust, to bring men to him, and save them from
perishing, and this declaration backed by abundant apostolic testimony that he did
literally die and was buried, not his body alone (Acts 2:27), but his 'soul' also, and
three days after was as literally by the power of the Father raised soul and body from the
dead; if I say you find this plainly taught in the Bible, notwithstanding the decisions of
Ecclesiastical Councils, or the frowns of popular orthodoxy, fearlessly endorse the record
as there given, and unflinchingly defend it: for the Holy Scriptures alone "are able
to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."
---------------------
- I substitute the word which (or who) in place of God in this
quotation, because it so reads in the most ancient manuscripts.
- The word trinity was first used in the church sometime int he
second century. (Ruter.)
- Moore. Hindu Panth, p.242
- Wilkinson. Ancient Egypt, 2d Series, vol. 1, pp. 185, 231.
- Layard. Second Expedition, p. 160
- Williams. Middle Kingdom, vol. 2, p. 197.
- China Glossary, vol. 1.
- Ancient Fragments, pp. 354, 355.
- Cudworth's Intellectual System, ch. 4, s. 36.
- Lectures on the Eastern Church, p. 36.
- Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 1:10-11; 1 Cor. 3:3-4; 1 Cor. 15:12; 2 Cor.
2:17; Gal. 1:6-7; Phil. 1:5; 1 Tim. 1:5, 7, 19, &c., &c.
- They believed that man was composed of a soul which is of celestial
origin, and which would aspire to worship the true God were it not that the other half of
his nature, which is a corrupt body, supercedes all its more virtuous desires, and
attaches it to its pursuits of sensuality. (Ruter, p. 16).
- From the imperfections of Jewish dispensation the Gnostics (wise or
knowing) hastily inferred that it was not instituted by the Supreme Being: and assuming
that the pompous appellation boasted their ability to restore to mankind that knowledge of
his [Christ's] nature which had so long been lost. (Ruter, p. 29).
- Apology, ch. 47.
- This philosophy, which involved the truth of the Gospel in subtlety
and obscurity, and added to the doctrine of Christ the commandments of men, became in time
extremely prejudicial to the Christian cause. (Ruter, p. 36)
- Theology, p. 179.
- Comm. Affairs of Christ, before Const., ch. 2, p. 159 -- Note.
- Hasse. History Christian Church, p. 98.
- Whiston's Works, vol. 4, p. 157
- Noted Gnostics.
- It may be objected that the true logos was not derived from
Platonic philosophy, inasmuch as John uses it in the first chapter of his gospel: "In
the beginning was the word [logos]." In reply to this I remark, that I have proved by
quotations from Knapp and Mosheim that the Platonic philosophers when brought into the
church applied their philosophic notions to the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; also
that some of these notions were that there were three hypostases or natures in God;"
and another was, that "God made all things through his reason or word," which
term in Greek was logos. This they personified as being distinct from God. Again, it is
evident the doctrine of the logos was not obtained from Scripture, from the fact that
Augustine as late as the ending of the fourth century acknowledged (Lardner, vol. 3, p.
440) that after he renounced Manicheeism, he regarded Christ to have been a mere man until
he had read certain Platonic writers. Again, if the Nicene Fathers had believed John
taught the personal pre-existence of Jesus by his use of this word, why did they not use
his testimony in their furious debates in the Nicene Council? In such an exciting time,
when such testimony would have been so valuable, their entire silence upon it is
presumptive evidence that no one is that age believed John taught it.
- Ruter's Gregory, p. 81
- I give the Nicene Creed as I find it in Socrates' Church History. I
find nowhere in Eusebius' epistle to the Caesareans an addition to it, but no change in
the doctrines, as follows: "And the Catholic and Apostolic church doth anathematize
those persons who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; that he was not
before he was born; that he was made from nothing, or of another substance or being; or
that he is created, or changeable, or
convertible."
- Ruter's Gregory, p. 73
- Ib.
- Hook's Church Dictionary.
- Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 379.
- History of Christianity, vol. 1, p. 157.
____________________
This teatise is taken from The Advent Christian Quarterly,
October 1869)
Originally titled, "The Trinity." Buchanan, Michigan: Western Advent Christian
Publishing Association
Return to INDEX
|
