How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[St. SteVen]

Let's discuss "Trinitarianism as the outgrowth of the early Church’s effort to understand and explain its own experience of the risen Christ in philosophical terms." - @RedFan

Open discussion on the development of the Trinitarian doctrine.

[

 

[face2face]

"For there is ONE GOD and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 2:5

The history of religion has consistently shown a decline from the originally revealed pure monotheism to various forms of polytheism. "Christianity," as it is popularly understood, has followed this same pattern. Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are clear and emphatic about the absolute oneness of God. When asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus responded in Mark 12:29, saying, "The first of all the commandments is: Hear, O Israel, THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD." This was a direct reference to the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 6:4. This message of monotheism runs consistently throughout the Bible, with no mention of three gods from start to finish. However, modern "Christendom" has evolved into a belief in four gods—three good and one evil. In some parts of Christendom, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the belief system includes a "Mother of God" as a supreme deity, along with numerous demi-gods—one for each day of the year and more—all of which are mythical, man-made deities worshipped and prayed to.

I felt it was important to present this truth at the outset before exploring the historical development of the Trinity.

F2F

 

[face2face]

For the Record the doctrine of the Trinity is this:

"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. "But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, so is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. "The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. "And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. Also there are not three incomprehensibles, not three uncreated: but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. "So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods: but one God. "So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords but one Lord. "For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. "So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. "And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. "HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY."

 

[face2face]

Response to the above:

This is a striking and tragic example of the human tendency to speculate on divine matters instead of humbly accepting the straightforward testimony of Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible is there any justification for this convoluted and self-contradictory notion. While it is true that we can never fully comprehend God (@Brakelite ) with our limited human minds, the revelations He has given of Himself, His Son, and His Holy Spirit—His power and presence that fills all of creation and accomplishes His will—are clear, simple, reasonable, and deeply satisfying. They offer a welcome relief from the confusing speculations mentioned above.

The doctrine of the "Trinity" is not found in Scripture. The following historical quotations will provide insight into the period during which this doctrine emerged, illustrating the philosophical influences, methods of reasoning, and political forces that ultimately led to its establishment. These forces enforced the doctrine through confiscation, prohibition, punishment, and even murder. This historical context will reveal the fragile, human foundation upon which the doctrine of the Trinity rests, helping to dispel the weight it seems to carry due to centuries of "orthodox" acceptance.

 

[ElieG12]

A brief exploration of Platonic philosophy, which re-emerged during the 3rd century, provides insights into the potential roots of the triune god belief. That era was marked by substantial philosophical inquiry, with various philosophical schools mirroring today's scientific communities. IMO, just as the theory of evolution has shifted Christendom away from the biblical narrative of Eden, Plotinus' Neoplatonism steered Christendom away from strict monotheism.

PS: Since Jesus regarded Adam and Eve as historical individuals, genuine Christians accept the story of Eden as real.

 

[Lambano]

Trinitarian (or at least binitarian) theology was a necessary development because of the remarkable first century claims attributing to Jesus Christ characteristics normally associated with God:

1. Pre-existing from the beginning and being "God" or "a god" and "with God" (John 1:1-2, 15; John 17:5)
2. Pre-existing and having the "form" of God (Philippians 2:6)
3. Having God's "fullness" (Colossians 1:19)
4. Creator of all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)
5. Holding together all things (Colossians 1:17)
6. Having authority over all things (Colossians 1:18)

These claims conflict with the non-negotiable basic claim of Judaism: That YHWH our God is One.

There are other passages; these are the ones that come to mind first. I've read that the early church had some traditions also, but I don't know enough about them; I'll leave that to others. You also have the problem that Jesus is depicted as a Person distinct from the Father, having His own will (Matthew 26:39 and synoptic parallel in Luke; also John 6:38), relating to the Father in a distinct way, and having human characteristics such as being able to die, being able to be tempted, not being omniscient (Matthew 24:36), getting tired, needing to eat (and presumably go to the latrine)...

You can only live with cognitive dissonance so long; you have to resolve the contradictory claims inherent in Christianity somehow, or throw out the Bible. Trinitarianism wasn't the only solution tried over the first few centuries either. Some of the other threads talk about Arianism and Sabellianism and a "lesser god" theory and a "dual-nature" theology and others. It's complex, it's convoluted, and they had to import some Greek concepts about "form" and "substance" and "hypostasis", but it's necessary, because a real contradiction exists in scripture.

 

[ElieG12]

Trinitarian (or at least binitarian) theology was a necessary development because of the remarkable first century claims attributing to Jesus Christ characteristics normally associated with God:

• Pre-existing from the beginning and being "God" or "a god" (John 1:1-2, 15)
• Pre-existing and having the "form" of God (Philippians 2:6)
• Having God's "fullness" (Colossians 1:19)
• Creator of all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)
• Holding together all things (Colossians 1:17)
• Having authority over all things (Colossians 1:18)

...

Since none of these traits directly suggest that Jesus is on par with God (implying far more than mere divinity), everything hinges on interpretation.

However, when interpretations of unclear passages conflict with definitive statements, which should be considered more significant in clarifying the truth of a matter?

Beginning in the 2nd century, early Christian theologians had access to the Scriptures for study. Had they accepted Jesus’ references to his God in the gospels, or listened to Peter and Paul discuss "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," would they have been misled by the mistaken notion of dividing God into three "manifestations"?

Seeing that the church entered into such a serious period of apostasy, what other factors could have led them so far astray from the early apostolic teachings and from Jesus himself?

Jesus predicted this would happen. (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43). And he was not the only one.

 

[Jack]

Matthew 28:19
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Name is singular!

 

[face2face]

Trinitarian (or at least binitarian) theology was a necessary development because of the remarkable first century claims attributing to Jesus Christ characteristics normally associated with God:

1. Pre-existing from the beginning and being "God" or "a god" (John 1:1-2, 15)
2. Pre-existing and having the "form" of God (Philippians 2:6)
3. Having God's "fullness" (Colossians 1:19)
4. Creator of all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)
5. Holding together all things (Colossians 1:17)
6. Having authority over all things (Colossians 1:18)

If you look at the list you provided, which I've numbered for clarity, you'll see that points 1 and 2 introduce the idea of pre-existence without any evidence or supporting context. Point 3 is clear, as we know from Scripture that God gave His Son this fullness. Point 4 is easily explained by understanding the crucial role Christ plays in creation, for without Him, nothing that exists would exist, as everything is held under sin.

The simple picture of Jesus Christ that Scripture presents is as follows:

1. He was born as a baby (Luke 2:7).
2. He "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).
3. He "learned obedience by the things that He suffered" (Heb. 5:8).
4. He was "in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).
5. He "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared" (Heb. 5:7).

Unlike your list, this one uses clear Scriptural language and is easily understood, requiring very few assumptions or interpretations.

I assume you don't need me to explain how Christ was like us in every way, as points 1-5 all align with the Son of Man, who shared in our condemned nature and died to sin once for all.

It is interesting that you choose references highlighting Christ's likeness to His Father, especially when we know you interpret this in terms of nature, substance, and so on, while I have provided references that emphasize His earthly lineage as the Son of Abraham and the Son of David.

If I were to step back and observe our differences, I would suggest that you would benefit from considering the many passages that speak to Christ's true nature prior to His resurrection. However, I do appreciate the understanding that, while the glorified Christ is still not God, He remains His Son at His right hand with Power.

Christ cannot be God, even in His glorified state, because the Word clearly states that Christ will always be subject to His Father's authority.

F2F

 

[Jack]

If you look at the list you provided, which I've numbered for clarity, you'll see that points 1 and 2 introduce the idea of pre-existence without any evidence or supporting context. Point 3 is clear, as we know from Scripture that God gave His Son this fullness. Point 4 is easily explained by understanding the crucial role Christ plays in creation, for without Him, nothing that exists would exist, as everything is held under sin.

The simple picture of Jesus Christ that Scripture presents is as follows:

1. He was born as a baby (Luke 2:7).
2. He "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).
3. He "learned obedience by the things that He suffered" (Heb. 5:8).
4. He was "in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).
5. He "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared" (Heb. 5:7).

Unlike your list, this one uses clear Scriptural language and is easily understood, requiring very few assumptions or interpretations.

I assume you don't need me to explain how Christ was like us in every way, as points 1-5 all align with the Son of Man, who shared in our condemned nature and died to sin once for all.

It is interesting that you choose references highlighting Christ's likeness to His Father, especially when we know you interpret this in terms of nature, substance, and so on, while I have provided references that emphasize His earthly lineage as the Son of Abraham and the Son of David.

If I were to step back and observe our differences, I would suggest that you would benefit from considering the many passages that speak to Christ's true nature prior to His resurrection. However, I do appreciate the understanding that, while the glorified Christ is still not God, He remains His Son at His right hand with Power.

Christ cannot be God, even in His glorified state, because the Word clearly states that Christ will always be subject to His Father's authority.

F2F

But you already admitted you reject the Christian Bible. Remember? So why do you profess to be Christian?

 

[face2face]

What We Do Not Expect to Find

Trinitarians do not expect to find in the literature of the early Church the sophisticated terminology and definitions of the trinity worked out at Nicea and at later church councils.

The Unitarian’s demand that the preNicene Church must use sophisticated post-Nicene terminology and, definitions is patently absurd. What we do expect to find is that the early Christians followed the New Testament in viewing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God.

It does not really matter that they had not thought through all the implications of this truth, or that they were oblivious to all the sophisticated philosophical questions which would eventually arise.

It was enough for them to baptize new converts in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit whom they worshipped as the one true God. It does not matter that the finer philosophical points of the trinity were not discussed because the doctrine was still in its formative stage.

Robert A. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues(Iowa Falls, IA: World Pub., 1996), 452.

Because I believe many Christians in this forum will try to justify or explain away the points raised, as this writer has done, I will return to address the flaws in Robert's reasoning later. There are many gross assumptions, and the damage they cause to the Divine Record will become evident throughout this thread.

If the writer's starting point is to assume that first-century believers believed in the Trinity, the confirmation bias is so strong that it renders the approach unreliable and biased, rather than a legitimate, objective examination of the subject.

Approaching the Word of God and allowing it to teach us is the only way as shown by the Bereans in Acts 17:11

Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians. They received the word very eagerly and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these things were so.

This is where the early Church Fathers lost their way by taking their eyes of the Author of Salvation.

F2F

 

[face2face]

1. He was born as a baby (Luke 2:7).
2. He "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).
3. He "learned obedience by the things that He suffered" (Heb. 5:8).
4. He was "in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).
5. He "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared" (Heb. 5:7).

Try to honestly reconcile that with the Trinitarian concept of co-equal, co-eternal omnipotence and omniscience. It simply doesn’t align and cannot align. To make it fit, we would have to distort the meaning of language—and that is exactly what Trinitarians have done. Why should we attempt to force it to fit? The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible. So why not simply accept the scriptural account and set aside the "Trinity" concept?

If we view Jesus Christ as having personally existed, possessing all power and wisdom before His biblically recorded birth as a baby, we are effectively denying the true reality of His birth and His "increasing in wisdom" as He grew from a child into adulthood.

The Scriptures affirm that God's understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5). Is it not a contradiction of language to suggest that a co-equal member of this infinite God "increased in wisdom" as He matured from a baby into manhood?

To claim that a member of an omnipotent, coequal Trinity of Gods could become a helpless infant is a contradiction that the Scriptures do not support. It is impossible for one to be a defenseless newborn and simultaneously an all-powerful, all-knowing co-ruler of heaven and earth.

Can God be separated from His power and wisdom? Are not infinite power and knowledge intrinsic to His very essence? (Note: "Godhead" is an archaic term for "divinity"—the quality of being divine.)

We are asked to believe that God transformed Himself into a powerless, ignorant, and helpless being. What happened to His power and wisdom? Did He, or did He not, retain His eternal attributes?

Why continue to entertain such unscriptural notions?

 

[Jack]

I guess f2f doesn't want to explain why she rejects Christianity and yet claims to be Christian. Satan has been busy!

 

[face2face]

There are many things recorded about Christ that simply cannot align with the idea that He was an all-powerful, all-knowing God—co-equal with the "Godhead." It is written:

"Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being 40 days tempted of the devil" (Luke 4:1-2). "He Himself hath suffered being tempted" (Heb. 2:18). "In all points tempted like as we are" (Heb. 4:15). "Ye have continued with me in my temptations" (Luke 22:28).

James declares (and this is surely self-evident): "God cannot be tempted" (James 1:13).

It is impossible to conceive of an all-wise, all-powerful God being tempted to sin. God could not possibly sin. Yet, Jesus Christ was tempted in every way as we are, and if we claim He could not have sinned, we deny the reality of His temptation and His overcoming it.

Jesus was tempted, but God cannot be tempted—therefore, the Trinity theory is false.

 

[Jack]

There are many things recorded about Christ that simply cannot align with the idea that He was an all-powerful, all-knowing God—co-equal with the "Godhead." It is written:

"Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being 40 days tempted of the devil" (Luke 4:1-2). "He Himself hath suffered being tempted" (Heb. 2:18). "In all points tempted like as we are" (Heb. 4:15). "Ye have continued with me in my temptations" (Luke 22:28).

James declares (and this is surely self-evident): "God cannot be tempted" (James 1:13).

It is impossible to conceive of an all-wise, all-powerful God being tempted to sin. God could not possibly sin. Yet, Jesus Christ was tempted in every way as we are, and if we claim He could not have sinned, we deny the reality of His temptation and His overcoming it.

Jesus was tempted, but God cannot be tempted—therefore, the Trinity theory is false.

John 20 Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God"!

 

[Lambano]

You guys are arguing about what you THINK the Trinity doctrine says instead of what it really asserts. But that's okay; its actual statement is quite cumbersome.

The first thing that's important is to acknowledge that the scriptural contradiction exists, and it's not trivial. Then we can talk about how to resolve it.

 

[Jack]

You guys are arguing about what you THINK the Trinity doctrine says instead of what it really asserts. But that's okay; its actual statement is quite cumbersome.

The first thing that's important is to acknowledge that the scriptural contradiction exists, and it's not trivial. Then we can talk about how to resolve it.

Scriptural contradiction?

 

[Lambano]

Point 4 is easily explained by understanding the crucial role Christ plays in creation, for without Him, nothing that exists would exist, as everything is held under sin.

That might work for point 5 (though Christ's human contribution was only as a propitiatory sacrifice), but not point 4. The claim is that Christ existed before Creation (before sin existed), and Christ was intimately involved in Creation.

 

[Lambano]

Since none of these traits directly suggest that Jesus is on par with God (implying far more than mere divinity) ...

The "lesser god" theory. Should we bow down and make proskuneo before a lesser god?

 

[Lambano]

Scriptural contradiction?

Got your attention now, did I?

The first step is to acknowledge that you have a problem.