|
|
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
|
| |
|
| The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by theologians of scripture and philosophy, argued in debate and treatises. In 325 A.D. this doctrine was accepted by the Christian Bishops in attendance at the council of Nicea, under the watchful eye of the pagan Emperor, Constantine I. | | The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by theologians of scripture and philosophy, argued in debate and treatises. In 325 A.D. this doctrine was accepted by the Christian Bishops in attendance at the council of Nicea, under the watchful eye of the pagan Emperor, Constantine I. |
| | | [[Image:3people.jpg|thumb|150px|A misleading impression of the Trinity (by Fridolin Leiber) as "person" does not mean "individual".]] |
| Theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very difficult issue: | | Theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very difficult issue: |
|
| |
|
| :''We do not think it open to full explication in human thought. It is not wise to attempt more than is attainable. Yet the manifest prudence of this law has often been violated in strivings after an unattainable solution of this doctrine. We shall not repeat the error. Still, the divine Trinity is so manifestly a truth of Scripture, and so cardinal in Christian theology, that the question cannot be omitted. If a full solution cannot be attained, the facts may be so presented as not to appear in contradictory opposition. With this attainment, nothing hinders the credibility of the doctrine on the ground of Scripture.'' <ref>John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 223 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1892)</ref> | | :''We do not think it open to full explication in human thought. It is not wise to attempt more than is attainable. Yet the manifest prudence of this law has often been violated in strivings after an unattainable solution of this doctrine. We shall not repeat the error. Still, the divine Trinity is so manifestly a truth of Scripture, and so cardinal in Christian theology, that the question cannot be omitted. If a full solution cannot be attained, the facts may be so presented as not to appear in contradictory opposition. With this attainment, nothing hinders the credibility of the doctrine on the ground of Scripture.'' <ref>John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 223 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1892)</ref> |
|
| |
| [[Image:3people.jpg|thumb|150px|A misleading impression of the Trinity (by Fridolin Leiber) as "person" does not mean "individual".]]
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| | =The Church's Concern with Modalism= |
|
| |
|
| As evidence that the Catholic Church has not always believed the Trinity, the doctrine of Callixtus I, the Bishop of Rome (i.e., Pope) between 217 – 222 A.D. and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church, is recorded as follows:
| | Sabellius was the original proponent of modalism. He was seen as having a false belief because he counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as almost of no importance, arguing that it was not because of any distinction that they were put forward, but that they were diverse attributes of God, of which sort there are very many. If it came to a debate, he was accustomed to confess that he recognized the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Spirit as God; but afterward a way out was found, contending that he had said nothing else than if he had spoken of God as strong, and just, and wise. And so he re-echoed another old song, that the Father is the Son, and the Holy Spirit the Father, without rank, without distinction. <ref> John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volumes 1 & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, 125 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).</ref> |
|
| |
|
| :''“For the Father, who subsisted in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so that Father and Son must be styled one God, and that this Person being one, cannot be two.”'' ~ Hippolytus, the Refutation of all Heresies: Chapter XXIII
| |
|
| |
|
| While a familiar phrase to describe the Trinity is “God in Three Persons”, Callixtus I declared that God is one Person, not more. The origins of the notion “God in three persons” traces back to a man named Valentinus, who was recognized as a heretic by the early church fathers.
| |
|
| |
|
| :''“Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise…the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons – father, son, and holy spirit.”'' ~ Marcellus of Ancyra, On the Holy Church, 9
| |
|
| |
| Early Christians who did not follow the doctrine of the Trinity are often referred to as ‘Modalists’ by Trinitarians. NewAdvent.org (a Catholic encyclopedia) describes ‘Modalists’ as those who “exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person.” NewAdvent.org discloses that the Latin word for person ('''''“persona”''''') was originally used to denote a mask worn by an actor, but then uses commentary from Boethius (480 – 524 A.D.) and St. Tomas of Aquinas (1225 – 1274 A.D) to explain how the Latin language evolved so that the word ‘persona’ meant 'individual' at the time of the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The reason for this change in definition is critical, because if ‘persona’ had meant a role of an actor in 381 A.D., the members of this council would have been Modalist rather than Trinitarian.
| |
|
| |
| Callixtus I doctrine was further recorded as follows:
| |
|
| |
| :''“there is one Father and God, viz., the Creator of the universe, and that this (God) is spoken of, and called by the name of Son, yet that in substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity, is, he says, not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity; therefore this one person, (according to Callistus,) is divided nominally, but substantially not so.”'' ~ Hippolytus, the Refutation of all Heresies: Chapter XXIII
| |
|
| |
| Logos is Greek for “Word” (see John 1). When Callixtus I describes the Spirit as “not any being different from the Logos” he is saying that the Spirit and the Logos are the same being. By this definition Callixtus I was an unorthodox Modalist, saying “this Person” in reference to the Father and Son, while a man recognized by the early church fathers as a heretic (Valentinus) might now be considered orthodox in his understanding of the Godhead. Based on Colossians 2:9, “God in one person” is a more fitting description of Jesus Christ, the temple of God.
| |
|
| |
| In practice, a church member may describe the Trinity as being like “three grapes in a bunch” or like “ice, water and steam” – because these are the kind of explanations taught by Sunday Schools. What is interesting is that the first analogy is Trinitarian, while the second definition is Oneness.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| {|style="background-color:#F0DCC8; border:1px #E8B399 solid; text-align:center;"
| |
| |''God didn't have three people up there, and He sent one of them, His Son. It was God, Himself, come in the form of a Son. A son has a beginning, and the Son had a beginning. That, some of you dear Catholic people, I got your book, Facts Of Our Faith, said, "The Eternal sonship of God." How you going to express that word? How you going to make it have sense? How can it be Eternal? That's not the Bible. That's your book, "Eternal sonship." They don't... That word is not right. For, anything that's a son had a beginning, and Eternal has no beginning, so it isn't Eternal sonship. Christ become flesh and dwelt among us. He had a beginning. Wasn't no Eternal sonship. It's the Eternal Godhead, not sonship. Now, He come to redeem us, and He did redeem us.'' (William Braham, Sermon: Hebrews Ch. 5 & 6, September 8, 1957)
| |
| |- | | |- |
| |} | | |} |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| =References= | | =References= |