Historical Development of the Trinity Doctrine – Available articles

Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

These articles trace the development of the Trinity doctrine through the first about 800 years of the Church’s history, with an emphasis on the fourth century.

The Apologists

The Apologists were the theologians of the first 3 centuries who had to defend Christianity at a time when the Empire attempted to exterminate Christianity.

• Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107) described the Son as our God but the Father as the only true God.
• Polycarp (c. 69–155), a personal disciple of the Apostle John, made a clear distinction between the Almighty God and His subordinate Son.
• Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) used Greek philosophy to explain the Son of God as a rational power that was begotten from the substance of God.
• Irenaeus (c. 115-190) identified the Father as the only true God, alone Almighty, and the Head of Christ.
• Theos – Did they describe Jesus as “god” or as “God?” ¹Ignatius describes the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God.”
  This confusion is caused by the translations. The ancient writers
  did not have a word (such as “God”) that refers only to the Almighty.
  They used the word theos which means “god” and describes the Son
  as “our god” (small “g”) and the Father as “the only true god”
  (small “g”).
• Sabellius (fl. c. 217-220) – Was he the first Trinitarian? ²Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three portions
  of the single divine essence. This represents a significant move away
  from the Logos-Christology of his day. He was declared to be a heretic
  but it is difficult to see the difference between what he taught and
  the Trinity Doctrine.
• External resources:
  • Pre-Nicene fathers – Dr. Tuggy’s podcasts 239-242.

Arius

The Arian Controversy was named after Arius.

• Orthodoxy – When the Arian Controversy began, what was the ‘orthodox’ view of Christ? ³RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed when the controversy
  began but that is not entirely true.
• Importance – Why is Arius important? ⁴The Arian Controversy was named after Arius because Athanasius referred
  to his opponents – the anti-Nicenes – as ‘Arians’. But the anti-Nicenes
  were not ‘followers’ of Arius. Athanasius called his opponents ‘Arians’
  simply to insult them by implying that they are followers of a person
  whose theology was already formally rejected by the church.
• The name Arian – There is no such thing as an Arian. ⁵Little of Arius’ writings remained – not because Constantine
  destroyed his writings – but because Arius had very few followers.

Arius’ Teachings

• Philosophy – Did Arius mix theology with pagan philosophy? ⁶Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of mixing philosophy
  with theology. This article shows that that is not true.
• Origen – Was Origen the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy? ⁷There are significant differences between Origen and Arius. Where they
  agree, they agree because both followed the traditional Logos theology.
• Created Being – Did Arius describe Jesus Christ as a created being? ⁸That is a distortion of the ‘Arian’ view. Arius described Christ as not part of
  this universe, as the only being ever to be brought forth directly by the
  Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
• Eternal – Did Arius teach that time existed before the Son? ⁹Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before
  everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist.
  Did Arius contradict himself?
• Immutable – Did Arius describe the Son as immutable? ¹⁰Arius himself wrote that the Son of God is unchangeable but Athanasius
  claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely that the Son is
  “like all others … subject to change.”

The Nicene Creed (AD 325)

The most famous and influential creed in the history of the church

• Core Issue – What was the core issue of the dispute? ¹¹It is often said that the Council was called to determine whether Jesus is God.
  But that does not accurately describe the dispute prior to Nicaea.
• The Emperor’s Influence – The emperor was the head of the church. ¹²Constantine called and presided over the meeting. He proposed and
  insisted on the key word Homoousios. At the end, he exiled all bishops
  who did not sign the creed.
• The Creed – What is the core message of the Creed? ¹³The creed implies that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of substance, but subordinate to the Father in other respects.
• Eusebius of Caesarea – Eusebius’ explanation of the Creed ¹⁴Eusebius of Caesarea, regarded as the most respected theologian at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases. Due to the pressure exerted by the emperor, the formulation of the Creed was really the work of a minority.
• Protestants – Should Protestants accept the Nicene Creed? ¹⁵The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
• Homoousios – origin – The word came from Egyptian Paganism. ¹⁶This word homoousios is not found in the Bible or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
• Ousia and Hypostasis – Why the Creed uses these words as synonyms ¹⁷By implication, the Creed says that the Father and the Son are one and the same hypostasis (Person). This is Sabellianism.
• Of the Father’s substance – What does this mean? ¹⁸The Creed says that the Son is not “of another substance or essence.” Does this mean
  (1) that He has the same substance as the Father or
  (2) that He has been begotten out of the substance of the Father?

Fourth-Century ‘Arianism’

After Nicaea, for 50 years, ‘Arianism’ dominated the church.

• Emperor Influence – on the Christology of the church ¹⁹This article re-iterates the decisive influence
  that emperors had on the beliefs of the church.
• Arianism – What did fourth-century ‘Arianism’ believe? ²⁰The Father is the only true God,
  the Son is our god,
  but the Father is His god and
  the Holy Spirit is not a Person, but a power; subject to the Son.
• Long Lines Creed – An Arian Creed ²¹An example of the many creeds that were developed
  during the fourth century ‘Arian’ period

The End of Roman ‘Arianism’

In AD 380, Emperor Theodosius made the Trinity Doctrine Law and outlawed and brutally exterminated all forms of ‘Arianism’.

• Edict of Thessalonica – The Trinity Doctrine became the official religion of the Roman Empire. ²²Theodosius exiled Arian bishops, expropriated ‘Arian’ church buildings,
  forbid meetings of ‘Arian’ churches, and appointed a government official to
  chair the Council of 381, forcing that council to accept Nicene Christology.
• The Creed of 381 – How does it differ from the 325-Creed? ²³The creed formulated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 is
  often called the Nicene Creed. The wording of that creed is similar to
  that of the creed of 325, but the meaning is very different.

Later Developments

• The fall of the Roman Empire – It did not fall; it transformed. ²⁴Massive in-migration
  and top positions for barbarians in the Roman Army allowed them
  to progressively assume control of the Empire.
• Why it fell
• Arian Rule – After the Empire fell, Arians again ruled Europe. ²⁵This article also provides an overview of the events
  of the fourth preceding century.
• Justinian – He crushed the Arians and set up the Byzantine Papacy ²⁶It was not the church but the Roman Empire that adopted the Trinity Doctrine.
  By subduing the ‘Arian’ nations, the religion of the Roman Empire
  became the church of the Middle Ages, symbolized by Daniel’s evil horn.
• High Middle Ages ²⁷The last horn to grow out of the Roman Empire became the church of the Middle Ages
  and dominated all other parts into which the Roman Empire fragmented.
• Waldensians – The church of the Middle Ages had the spirit of Satan. ²⁸The Waldensians were critical of Catholic beliefs. In return, the church
  called all to destroy them, causing centuries of massacres.

Authors on the Arian Controversy

Extracts from the writings of scholars who have studied the ancient documents for themselves:

• RPC Hanson:
  • Lecture – A lecture on the Arian Controversy ²⁹This is a copy of a very informative lecture by RPC Hanson, a famous
    fourth-century scholar, which I found on the Internet. 
  • A Complete Travesty – The conventional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty.
• Fortman – Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God – Nicene Creed
• Erickson  -Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons
• Boyd – William Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code

Trinity Doctrine – General

• Modalism – How does it differ from the Trinity doctrine? ³⁰In the Trinity Doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit ‘share’ one and the same
  substance, mind, and will. Does that mean they are one and the same Person,
  as in Modalism?
  
• Monarchy of the Father – How does it differ from the Trinity Doctrine? ³¹In the Athanasian Creed, the “one God” is the Trinity.
  In Eastern Orthodoxy, the “one God” is the Father.
• Eastern Orthodoxy – The Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity ³²A summary of a well-known talk on the Trinity by
  a respected Eastern Orthodox theologian, Father Thomas Hopko.
• Elohim – Does this word mean that God is more than one? ³³Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Some argue that this means
  that
  the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being.
• External Resources
  • The Trinity Doctrine did not exist until the Late Fourth Century.

Other Articles

• • All articles on this website
  • Book of Revelation
  • Daniel’s Prophecies
  • Daniel 9
  • Is Jesus the Most High God?
  • How the Trinity Doctrine developed
  • Trinity doctrine – General
  • Origin of Evil
  • Early Church History
  • Eternal Life and Eternal Torment
  • Atonement
  • Justification
  • Christ’s Return
  • Sabbath
  • Law of Moses

• 1
  Ignatius describes the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God.”
  This confusion is caused by the translations. The ancient writers
  did not have a word (such as “God”) that refers only to the Almighty.
  They used the word theos which means “god” and describes the Son
  as “our god” (small “g”) and the Father as “the only true god”
  (small “g”).
• 2
  Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three portions
  of the single divine essence. This represents a significant move away
  from the Logos-Christology of his day. He was declared to be a heretic
  but it is difficult to see the difference between what he taught and
  the Trinity Doctrine.
• 3
  RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed when the controversy
  began but that is not entirely true.
• 4
  The Arian Controversy was named after Arius because Athanasius referred
  to his opponents – the anti-Nicenes – as ‘Arians’. But the anti-Nicenes
  were not ‘followers’ of Arius. Athanasius called his opponents ‘Arians’
  simply to insult them by implying that they are followers of a person
  whose theology was already formally rejected by the church.
• 5
  Little of Arius’ writings remained – not because Constantine
  destroyed his writings – but because Arius had very few followers.
• 6
  Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of mixing philosophy
  with theology. This article shows that that is not true.
• 7
  There are significant differences between Origen and Arius. Where they
  agree, they agree because both followed the traditional Logos theology.
• 8
  That is a distortion of the ‘Arian’ view. Arius described Christ as not part of
  this universe, as the only being ever to be brought forth directly by the
  Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
• 9
  Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before
  everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist.
  Did Arius contradict himself?
• 10
  Arius himself wrote that the Son of God is unchangeable but Athanasius
  claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely that the Son is
  “like all others … subject to change.”
• 11
  It is often said that the Council was called to determine whether Jesus is God.
  But that does not accurately describe the dispute prior to Nicaea.
• 12
  Constantine called and presided over the meeting. He proposed and
  insisted on the key word Homoousios. At the end, he exiled all bishops
  who did not sign the creed.
• 13
  The creed implies that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of substance, but subordinate to the Father in other respects.
• 14
  Eusebius of Caesarea, regarded as the most respected theologian at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases. Due to the pressure exerted by the emperor, the formulation of the Creed was really the work of a minority.
• 15
  The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
• 16
  This word homoousios is not found in the Bible or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
• 17
  By implication, the Creed says that the Father and the Son are one and the same hypostasis (Person). This is Sabellianism.
• 18
  The Creed says that the Son is not “of another substance or essence.” Does this mean
  (1) that He has the same substance as the Father or
  (2) that He has been begotten out of the substance of the Father?
• 19
  This article re-iterates the decisive influence
  that emperors had on the beliefs of the church.
• 20
  The Father is the only true God,
  the Son is our god,
  but the Father is His god and
  the Holy Spirit is not a Person, but a power; subject to the Son.
• 21
  An example of the many creeds that were developed
  during the fourth century ‘Arian’ period
• 22
  Theodosius exiled Arian bishops, expropriated ‘Arian’ church buildings,
  forbid meetings of ‘Arian’ churches, and appointed a government official to
  chair the Council of 381, forcing that council to accept Nicene Christology.
• 23
  The creed formulated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 is
  often called the Nicene Creed. The wording of that creed is similar to
  that of the creed of 325, but the meaning is very different.
• 24
  Massive in-migration
  and top positions for barbarians in the Roman Army allowed them
  to progressively assume control of the Empire.
• 25
  This article also provides an overview of the events
  of the fourth preceding century.
• 26
  It was not the church but the Roman Empire that adopted the Trinity Doctrine.
  By subduing the ‘Arian’ nations, the religion of the Roman Empire
  became the church of the Middle Ages, symbolized by Daniel’s evil horn.
• 27
  The last horn to grow out of the Roman Empire became the church of the Middle Ages
  and dominated all other parts into which the Roman Empire fragmented.
• 28
  The Waldensians were critical of Catholic beliefs. In return, the church
  called all to destroy them, causing centuries of massacres.
• 29
  This is a copy of a very informative lecture by RPC Hanson, a famous
  fourth-century scholar, which I found on the Internet.
• 30
  In the Trinity Doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit ‘share’ one and the same
  substance, mind, and will. Does that mean they are one and the same Person,
  as in Modalism?
• 31
  In the Athanasian Creed, the “one God” is the Trinity.
  In Eastern Orthodoxy, the “one God” is the Father.
• 32
  A summary of a well-known talk on the Trinity by
  a respected Eastern Orthodox theologian, Father Thomas Hopko.
• 33
  Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Some argue that this means
  that
  the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being.