11,153
edits
Trinity: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
|} | |} | ||
{{col-end}} | {{col-end}} | ||
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: | |||
:''“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) | |||