The Trinity in Church
History
The Trinity is quickly becoming one of the greatest
mysteries in modern Christianity. Opponents and proponents alike struggle with
the misinformation and often the lack of information on this topic. Is it three
gods or one God? Is it modes of God or persons? Did the early church force this
doctrine into Christianity? To do justice to this topic I have broken this into
a four-part Study. We will look at church history (especially leading up to the
Council of Nicaea), what the early church believed, the heresies that the church
confronted and the last part will examine the doctrine of the Trinity.
Is understanding the doctrine of the Trinity an essential
part of Christianity?
Why is it important to understand the historical setting of the early church in the Trinity debate?
The most common argument I hear against the Trinity or even against the accuracy of the scriptures is the claim that the Council of Nicaea altered the Bible or changed church doctrine to fit their purposes. Did the Council of Nicaea alter the scriptures? And did this council formulate the doctrine of the Trinity? Did the church only pick the books of the Bible to fit their beliefs? Often liberal theologians claim the councils had an axe to grind and an agenda to promote. However, as we examine history we will see these claims fall short of the facts. Those who make claims such as “The early church had an axe to grind”, are ignorant of history. Let’s take a historical look at the early church.
Persecution has always been a weapon against Christianity. We see persecution against the church in the book of Acts and the apostle John addresses it in Revelation. Because the Bible ends its account here, the church is largely unaware of the martyrs that continued where scripture left off. Even when the Roman Emperors were not persecuting the church, local persecutions by Rome were consistently taking place up until the time of Constantine. Keep in mind that Jesus was crucified between 33 and 34 AD. For the first 20 years, the Jewish leaders were the primary source of persecution.
If the price for being identified with the church means death, will ungodly men step into that arena in order to teach heresy?
Nero
Nero was the first great Roman persecutor of the church. He was Emperor
and persecuted the church between 54 and 68 AD. The Romans allowed any religion
and its citizens were allowed to worship any god as long as Caesar was
worshipped as the god over all. Rome required its people to worship Caesar once
a year. This obviously violates the Christian faith because God forbids having
any other gods becoming the object of our worship. In AD 64, Nero was blamed for
the great fire that destroyed over 70% of the Imperial City. Nero found his
scapegoat in the Christian community. At the time, Christians were only a small
sect in the city and an easy target for the wrath of the Romans. Nero accused
this sect of being the cause of this fire. When the citizens responded
favorably, he made it into a public spectacle by feeding Christians to the lions
in the surviving amphitheater.
Soon after this, Nero publicly proclaimed himself as the enemy of
Christianity. He targeted the apostles, and soon Peter and Bartholomew were
imprisoned. History states that Peter was shackled to a post in a prison called
Mamertine. The prison and torture post are still on public display. Peter spent
9 months shackled to this post. During this time he was known for converting
many jailers and prisoners to Christ. He was led out to watch his wife be
crucified. He encouraged her by calling out, “Remember the Lord”. Soon after
he was also crucified head down. Peter is the only apostle known to having been
married. Bartholomew was condemned to die with Philip but was released when the
magistrate ordered him cut down from the cross. Philip was crucified, but
Bartholomew continued preaching until he was crucified in 68 AD, the year Nero
died. The apostle Paul was a Roman citizen. It was illegal to crucify a Roman,
therefore Nero had Paul beheaded. Some traditions have it that Paul was torched
by oil before he was beheaded.
Domitian 81-96.
He continued the persecution and is infamous for his banishment of John
the apostle. John was exiled to the isle of Patmos in ad 95. John returned and
died peacefully around 100 AD.
Trajan 98-117.
One of the early theologians Ignatius was condemned to die by Trajan.
Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John. When Ignatius was on his way to
Rome to be crucified, he wrote seven epistles. These are not a part of
scripture, but they offer a lot of clear evidence as to what the churches
closest to the apostles believed. This will be examined later in this series.
In 155 AD, Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna stood before a packed stadium. Just
before he was martyred, out of respect for his age, the Proconsul offered
leniency by saying, "Swear, and I will release thee; curse the
Christ." Polycarp responded, "Eighty and six years have I served him,
and he hath done me no wrong; how then can I blaspheme my king who saved
me?"
Marcus Aurelius also became known as one of the greatest persecutors
of the church in AD 161-180.
Local persecutions
Local persecutions continued against the church even though there was
not an active emperor trying to stamp out the church. One of the early church
theologians named Tertullian wrote around 210 AD, “They think the Christians
the cause of every public disaster, of every affliction with which the people
are visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not
send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an
earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence, straightway the cry is, ‘Away
with the Christians to the lion!’”
There were many Christians who denied their faith to save their own lives
during these years. However, as Christians began to see the courage, dignity and
joy that empowered those who were martyred, Christians began to draw their
strength from the martyrs and martyrdom became something to be desired. Instead
of stamping out the church, Christianity flourished and becoming a martyr was
considered the highest honor in Christianity.
Decius
After seventy years, a new emperor declared war on the church. In the
year 250, the emperor Decius commanded all Romans to perform sacrifices before
the magistrate. When sacrifices were complete they would receive a certificate
to present as evidence of their loyalty to Rome. Many professing Christians
obtained certificates through performing these sacrifices, bribing officials, or
obtaining forged certificates. This created divisions in the church with those
who stood loyal to scripture in spite of the persecutions that followed. Three
bishops, Fabian, Babylas, and Alexander were martyred for refusing to sacrifice
for the emperor. One year later, Decius died and the persecution ended.
Valerian
Valerian began new persecutions in 257. He banished ministers and
prominent laymen. He also confiscated property and forbade Christian assemblies
and reinstated death penalties for Christians. Cyprian of Carthage and Sixtus II
of Rome were prominent martyrs. The persecution ended in 260 when the Persians
captured Valerian and his son Gallenius revoked the persecution. Under Gallenius,
Christianity became a legal religion for the first time.
Diocletian and Galerius
The last great Roman persecution against the church came in 303 and
ended in 311 under the western emperor Diocletian and Galerius, Augustus of the
east. For unknown reasons, Galerius ordered his army purged of all Christians.
Soon after, he prohibited Christian worship and he ordered churches to be
destroyed and scriptures burned. He ordered bishops to be captured, tortured and
killed and ordered the community to be purged of Christians by blood. In 305,
Diocletian ended his persecution while Galerius continued until 311 when he
issued an edict to tolerate the Christian religion. It was a reluctant
acknowledgment that he failed in his attempt to wipe out Christianity.
Constantine
Constantine was proclaimed western emperor around 312 AD. Soon after, he
found himself battling the eastern kingdom of Rome, which was lead by Maxentius.
It was just before this battle that Constantine had a dream where he saw the
chi-rho.
This was often used as the sign of the cross in Christianity during the early years. It was the Greek symbols of ‘X’ and the ‘P’ put together. ‘X’ makes the ‘ch’ sound in Greek and ‘P’ makes the ‘r’ sound. The chi-rho combines these two symbols to form a monogram representing Christ’s name. When Constantine saw this symbol in his dream, he also saw the words, “In hoc signo vinces”, which means, “by this sign conquer.” Following the dream, Constantine won a great victory and united the kingdom again. Constantine granted religious liberty for Christians and issued the ‘Edict of Milan’, which restored confiscated property back to Christian owners.
It was shortly after this persecution ended that the Council of Nicaea was called. There is a point to this review of history. Critics of the Bible and critics of the Trinity argue that the council of Nicaea was a group of liberal Christians armed with an agenda to alter the bible to fit their views. However, we see a different story in history. The council of Nicaea was only 14 years after the last great persecution against the church. These are not liberal theologians, but people who suffered greatly for their faith. At the Council of Nicaea, Constantine kissed the face of one of the bishops that lost an eye from torture. These were not men who were grinding their axes against tradition, but men who lost homes, families, friends, and lived in peril for their lives – all without wavering from their faith. These men were not out for their own self-interest. They endured severe persecution and torture as proof. If they had selfish motives, they would not have been willing to lose everything for their faith. These were ministers defending the faith that some of their peers laid down their lives for, and they were not willing let heresy diminish the gospel they also suffered for. From outside the church they suffered greatly against persecution and now they could not sit idly by while the gospel was challenged from within the church.
Why is it significant that the Council of Nicaea was only 14 years after the worst persecution the church has ever seen?
If someone was unfaithful to the gospel, will they endure such severe persecution?
Purpose of the Council
A priest named Arius began to make waves in the church around 318 AD.
Arius denied the deity of Jesus Christ. He reasoned that since the Son was
begotten, he could not be eternal. He could not believe that the begotten Son
could also be the pre-existing Son. He said that there had to be a point in time
when the Son did not exist. He believed that Jesus was exalted over all
creation, but was also himself a created being.
He was heavily influenced by Gnostic philosophies as well as Christian
doctrine. He believed that God was not triune (three persons). He reasoned that
by human definition, this would make God divided. He also believed that Jesus
held his rank because of obedience to the Father, and because Jesus was a
created being, it was possible for him to fall from grace and become
disobedient.
Was Arius standing on historical Christianity?
Was the church opposing false teaching, or departing from the true faith?
Was the Trinity a new doctrine, or was the denial of the Trinity a new doctrine?
Soon after, Arius was removed from office by his bishop.
However, Arius had friends and contacts all over the Roman Empire, and he began
a writing campaign. He wrote songs and jingles to teach his doctrine and created
a large division in the church. He also had a good friend named Eusibius who
knew Constantine personally and was also the bishop of Nicodemia. Through
Eusibius, he petitioned for Constantine’s help. Constantine tried to play
peacemaker and wrote a letter to Athanasius, advisor of bishop Alexander who removed Arius in an
attempt to gloss over the issue.
Arius’
campaign was beginning to get a following. This group would become known as the
‘Arians’. In an attempt to end the dispute, Constantine called for a council
of bishops to resolve the issue. Almost all of the council consisted of eastern
bishops. The heresy of Arius was not a problem in the western churches, but it
was troubling the eastern churches. Over 300 eastern bishops attended, while
only 10-12 western bishops participated.
At the
council, the most divisive issue by far was the deity of Jesus Christ. Those who
opposed Arius believed that man’s sin was against God alone and only God could
redeem man. If Jesus was not God, then He was not capable of being our Savior.
Athanasius debated against Arius and brought to open discussion everything that
the Arian’s believed. His strategy was to present the Arian belief along side
scripture, with the belief that the arguments presented by Arius would be
self-refuting. When Arius saw that an open debate was a losing battle, he used
political arguments as his stance. He contended that the unity of the church was
the primary issue. He tried to persuade the council that unity was valued over
truth and to condemn the Arians would cause divisions in the church.
Does
God call us to have unity at all cost?
The
council produced a statement of faith, which was an earlier version of today’s
Nicene Creed. It contained the crucial word ‘homoousios’ which affirmed that
the Son was ‘of one substance’ with the Father. All but two of the bishops
signed this statement of faith and Arius was condemned.
If
Arius only had two bishops supporting him, what does this tell us about the
understanding of the early church concerning the belief that Jesus was God?
Arius lost the battle but the Arians would make a comeback through Constantine. As the Arian group grew, they influenced Constantine and he provided them with the political clout to gain control. Soon the Arian doctrine was the official religion of Rome and those who opposed it were banished. Athanasius, who stood against Arius was banished several times but finally returned permanently in 366 and died in 373. Constantine was baptized as an Arian shortly before he died in 337 AD.
It is interesting to note that many people accuse
Constantine of forcing the doctrine of the Trinity into the church. In reality,
it was just the opposite. He was baptized as an Arian and supported the Arians
from the Council of Nicaea until his death. The Arians were anti-Trinitarian.
After the Arians gained a foothold, they were joined by a group called ‘Pneumatomachians’.
The Pneumatomachians had similar beliefs to the Arians but took it a step
further. They also believed that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force.
If
Constantine affirmed his faith in the Arian doctrine, what does this tell us
about the argument that Constantine forced the Trinity doctrine into the church?
Historically it wasn’t the Council of Nicaea that departed from the original Christian doctrine. They fought against those such as Arius that introduced changes in the Christian doctrine. In the next section we will look at some of the writings of the early church to see if they believed in the modern doctrine of the Trinity or if this came later. It is not enough to claim that the church changed the truth to introduce the Trinity. It is also not enough to claim that the early church believed in the Trinity. To get an accurate understanding we must go to the source.
Did the Third Century Church changed the scriptures?
We have the scriptures and we also have the writings of the early
church leaders. Some of these leaders were discipled by the apostles themselves.
This adds a credible piece of evidence to this age-old debate. Ultimately we
draw truth from the scriptures. However, since the reliability of scripture is
attacked by those who don’t believe the Trinity, we will call the early church
fathers as witnesses to support those who were inspired by God to pen down
scripture. These witnesses offer key testimony that verifies what we have today
is the same as what was written from the beginning. All of the writings I will
discuss in the next section predates the council of Nicaea.
Why do critics of the Trinity point to the council in 325AD and accuse them of altering scripture?
The easiest way to get around scriptures that can’t be refuted is to discredit them. Critics of the Trinity accuse the 3rd century church of altering scripture to suit their purposes. However, it is an attested fact of history that the New Testament canon was distributed to almost every church before the Council of Nicaea.
If the writings of Arius created such havoc in the church, what would have happened if the Council of Nicaea altered the scriptures?
There is not one church document validating this claim. If the council had made changes, it would have split the church. Instead of a controversial creed or disputed scripture, we see an acceptance of the council’s actions among all leaders except the few who supported the Arian heresy. All the church writings refute Arius, but politically he reclaimed power. If there were a historic church source disputing the alteration of scripture or the conclusion of the creed adopted, critics would wave this as a banner each time they presented their case. However, their position does not agree with historic Christianity. Instead, critics make unsubstantiated claims and provide no source other than themselves and other critics.
We know that the New Testament canon was already widely accepted by the church because it is referenced throughout early church writings before the Council of Nicaea. In 266 AD, the Synod of Antioch rejected Paul of Samosata's epistle teaching modalistic doctrine as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon which was already accepted. In fact, almost the entire Bible can be observed from the early church writings in the first and second century. When the council of Nicaea debated against Arius, both sides quoted from almost every book in our New Testament.
The modern Bible was already distributed, and by 170 AD the
expression 'the New Testament' was used for these books of the Bible. Even
though the Council of Nicaea used almost every book in our modern New Testament
during the debate against Arius, the canon of scripture was not officially
approved until the Council of Carthage in 397. How did the early church
determine what was accepted as scripture? The church acknowledged scripture
based on basic biblical rules. The word Canon comes from the Greek word 'Kanon'
which means rule. There were some basic rules in the authenticity of scripture:
1. Authority
Did the writer have apostolic authority? The apostles were acknowledged
as were the apostolic legates. The apostles wrote under the authority of their
appointment by Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Luke wrote the
gospel of Luke and Acts under the apostle Paul's authority. Luke is an example
of an apostolic legate. None of our New Testament writings are outside of direct
apostolic authority. Many valid writings are in the history of the church, but
without apostolic authority, they did not meet the criteria of scripture.
If the early church did not accept anything written outside of the direct authority of the twelve apostles, what does this tell us about their belief toward ‘new revelations’?
2. Did it agree?
God does not change and His word does not change. Does scripture agree with
scripture? For example, Paul preached in Berea and presented the gospel of Jesus
by showing it agreed with the accepted writings of the Old Testament. He did not
present it as a new revelation, but the fulfillment to the old revelation
prophecies. The Holy Spirit will never testify against Himself, therefore, an
authoritative book must also be in unity with what has been revealed. Many
forged letters arrived throughout the church. To verify the authenticity, it
would be placed beside a known letter from an apostle and tested to see if it
agreed. If it was not consistent with what was already received, it was rejected
as a false epistle. Critics argue that the church 'picked and chose' what to
include, but there was a method and reason for this discernment.
The councils did not meet to determine what truth would be. The councils only served to apply the canonical test to what were claimed as apostolic revelations. In the first 10-15 years after Christ, epistles were not common because the church was concentrated in Jerusalem and all the witnesses were alive and available. After the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 7 and 8, the church fell under heavy persecution. They were forced to scatter and went preaching the word (Acts 8:4). It was after this dispersion that writing became a necessity. A letter would then be written by an apostle and distributed to several churches. For example, Colossians 4:16 says,
Now when this epistle is read among you, see that
it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the
epistle from Laodicea.
The letter was written to the church in Colosse with the request that it be sent to other churches and receive their epistles to be read in Colosse. Paul also gives instructions as to how to interpret what is delivered by letter or by person. Look at Galatians 1
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone
preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be
accursed.
Paul makes it clear that the church is to evaluate what is being received by comparing it to what has already been delivered. Even if it is from Paul himself, if it doesn't agree, count it as accursed. This is true even if an angel of God appears and delivers it - he also is to be counted as cursed by God. That is a bold statement. But it is also a basic biblical principle. God does not change and His word will not change. New doctrine is false unless it agrees with what is already known to be true. Let me give an example from one of the most popular Gnostic gospels, the ‘Gospel of Thomas’. The Gospel of Thomas 114:1–3 says, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven.’”
This clearly does not agree with anything in scripture. Women don't have living spirits? The Bible says that God created man in His own image – both male and female. Jesus taught women and men alike. Never does Jesus distinguish salvation based on sex or any physical characteristic. The apostles taught that in Christ, there is neither bond nor free, rich nor poor, male nor female, Jew nor Greek. We are all the same in Christ.
Why does the Bible put such emphasis on the fact that God does not change and nothing in His word will pass away?
How would the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith’s revelation of an angel delivering the Golden Tablets hold up against Paul’s warning?
What about the other countless religions that are founded upon their own revelations?
According to scripture, can the Bible be true and other religions as well?
3. Was it already established?
The only exception to direct apostolic authority was known scripture, such
as the Old Testament. The Old Testament was already verified and accepted by
Jews and Christians alike. The church has always accepted the canon of the Old
Testament.
The council solidified the church’s belief in a closed canon. Gnostic and heretical doctrines depended and still depend on ‘new revelations’ and establishing the scriptures as complete eliminated the deception that many cults depended upon. There are no new revelations that have been acknowledged by the church since the first century when the apostles died. We have fragments and manuscripts that date every book of the Bible back to 45-80 AD. Archaeologist Nelson Gleuck wrote: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after A.D. 80.” The only book in dispute is John’s writing of the book of Revelation which is believed to have been written around 95 AD. Some argue that it could have been written before 70 AD. Because Polycarp referenced John’s writing as the end of Domtian’s reign, I believe that it is closer to 95 AD. Polycarp said,
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time sins, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitians’s reign”.
This does not resolve the issue. There are equally valid arguments for the earlier writing of Revelation and questions about what Polycarp meant. I will not go into this topic here, but I did want to mention that Revelation is the only exception to the fact that all the books of the Bible have been dated before 80 AD and were widely distributed throughout the church.
Do you believe God provides new revelations equal to scripture today?
Did the early church believe in new revelations?
Exchanged Life Outreach
http://www.exchangedlife.com
Permission granted to copy and distribute.