Tags
Catholicism, Christian theology, Christianity, controversy, Faith, history, orthodoxy, The Trinity
Sometimes commentators ask why Bosco is not banned? There is a simple answer, which is that I care about his immortal soul and the souls of others, and what he, and they confess, when they say they need no religion, just a simple walk with Christ, is a commonly held position. After all, one might reasonably ask, “why does all this stuff about the Trinity matter anyway, can’t I be a Christian without an advanced degree in theology – and anyway, no one really understands it?” The answer is that we are not the first to encounter Christ, and that those who walked the earth with Him thought it vital that the tradition they passed on be held by all followers; St Paul did not merely receive a revelation and declare himself authorised to teach as he liked. What applies to Paul applies to all of us. Christians have known that orthodox belief matters because it defines, as far as we can, who Christ is – and if we fail to grasp that, we can’t have any sort of relationship with Him.
The New Testament talks much about Father and Son, and about the Holy Ghost, but as the last post outlined, understanding the relationship between between the three was a problem. Christians, after all, were Monotheists – believers in One God – and yet their sacred scriptures and their tradition seemed to contain three entities.
By the fourth century it was clear that the notion that this did not mean One God acting three parts – it would make no sort of sense, even as a deep mystery, to have Jesus praying to Himself at Gethsemane, or asking Himself to let the cup pass Him by. But the nature of the relationship between Father and Son (at this point little attention had been paid to the Holy Spirit) was thrown into question by an Alexandrian priest, Arius.
Quoting John 17:3 , along with Colossians 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22 he argued that the Son was not God, but the first-born of creation – a creature, not the Creator. His bishop, Alexander, condemned him, but, as is so often the way, Arius quoted these lines of Scripture and argued that there was a ‘time when the Son was not’, defying his bishop to do anything about it. Arius was not the first, and will not be the last, clever man to think himself illuminated in a way denied to lesser intellects.
Arius posed a problem for Bishop Alexander, and so popular was his reading of Scripture, that it soon posed a problem for Bishops elsewhere. What the confrontation with Arius did was to force men who had not thought through the beliefs they confessed to do so. So what was it the Bishops held? They held that Jesus was God, in the beginning with God – a notion to make the head spin, but one which accorded with John’s Gospel and which made sense of Jesus being Divine. But Jesus was also human, so how could He be both? The Arians argued that this made no sense, and that they were more logical – Jesus was a created being sent by God to create the world and redeem mankind – but He was not God, as there was only One God. This was easily comprehensible by everyone – hence its popularity.
In order to combat this heresy, orthodox theologians, the most eminent of them being a deacon of Alexander’s, Athanasius (who succeeded him as Patriarch of Alexandria), were forced to think through how God could be both One and Three. The notion that God existed in three modes, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was a common one, but did that mean that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were somehow less than the Father? Athanasius argued that He existed in Three Persons, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equal and yet one. The word he used to express this concept was the Greek homoousios – that expressed the view that the Son was of “one substance” with the Father. It was from this formula that the Nicene Creed developed in 325.
The Nicene Creed answers Arianism directly, saying of Jesus that he is:
the Son of God, only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, one in substance [homoousios] with the Father …
So, God was Father, the Generator of all things, but Himself ungenerate (that is He was before, above and beyond our concepts of Time), and Jesus was generated of the Father ‘before all worlds’. The manner in which this has happened was a mystery beyond our comprehension, but it firmly established that Father and Son, and also Holy Spirit, were of the same substance (consubstantial) and therefore both one and three – for which the new word, Trinity, was coined.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 established this as Christian orthodox belief. But, as Athanasius himself was aware, the place of the Holy Spirit in this triad whilst established, had hardly been discussed. This will be the subject of the final part of this series.
I have always found the Shield of Faith useful for keeping an intellectual hold on the Trinity; the rest comes down to faith. Our language is itself subject to modality according to context and what philosophers call “worlds of discourse”. If I am speaking with “your average Joe” or a strict monotheist, then I will often refer to “God” at the centre of the Shield. But when I am discussing the Near Eastern and Greco-Roman context of the Scriptures, then I refer to Yahweh at the centre of the Shield, since I will be referring to other gods, like Marduk or Zeus, or whatever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good thought, Nicholas. I am moving on after this to a series on St Cyril and his theological writing. Maybe caviare to the general, but let’s see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tend to get bogged down in the philosophical technicalities, which the scholastics loved, “genus”, “species”, “substance”, “essence”, “mode”, “attribute”, which were derived from Aristotle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the people that demanded that I be banned, one can find them on their knees befor the works of their hands at their local Roman State Run Religion temple. They hate being reminded that they are idolaters pure and simple.
LikeLike
If anyone doubts me, they are free to come to my free of charge site and see them in their natural habitat.
cherrybombcoutour.blogspot.com
Sign in and become a member. Find rest for your tormented idolatrous wicked hellbound souls.
LikeLike
*The* defining doctrine of Christianity is the Incarnation. It unites spirit and body for eternity whereas thinking of God or Spirit as being a wholly separate thing from flesh could lead us to see ourselves as being spirits trapped inside a prison of matter which we must despise and seek to leave behind. This is the idea behind the Gnostic and Manichean heresies and one towards which Arianism tended. In order to understand the Incarnation, though, it is necessary to think about the nature of God and to define the Trinity. That is to say, we cannot fully grasp the Cross unless we know something about the Godhead.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Very interesting article. I like the way you explain the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity (as well as the heresies that stemmed from it). This really brings to light how doctrines tend to be developed when they are challenged (and especially in response to heresy). I actually just wrote on the subject of the Trinity last week, though more from a philosophical perspective. Feel free to check it out:
onthisrockweb.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/are-christians-polytheists-if-god-is-a-trinity/?preview=true
LikeLiked by 3 people
I shall read with interest – and thank you for your kind comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
St Paul did not merely receive a revelation and declare himself authorised to teach as he liked
Good brother Paul didn’t have some ordinary revelation. He met Jesus face to face. Then a few days later he was born again.
LikeLike
And he made himself right with the Church. I hope one day you might.
LikeLike
I don’t understand. What church did good brother Paul get “right” with. Its my weak understanding that he went off by himself for a yr or to in the desert. Alone. Can you help me with any scriptures to support this church thing? Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Who healed his sight? Who did he consult in Jerusalem? The Apostles and leaders of the Church.
LikeLike
Jesus healed his sight.
He was taken to a small group of saints in Jerusalem, who were scared out of their minds when told Saul of Tarsus was coming to see them.
I hope you are not inferring these guys were the catholic church. If you re read the gospels, none of them had big fish hats and none of them wore costumes and none of them made graven images to bow befor. The term worshiping an images ( a statue made by human hands) isn’t even mentioned in the NT until Rev.
LikeLike
You do know Peter was named by Jesus? You do know it is the same Peter Paul met?
LikeLike
Uh, I need you to rephrase that.
LikeLike
Ananias was a follower of Jesus and a member of the Church.
LikeLike