THE belief that God is one substance, yet three persons, is one of
the central doctrines of the Christian religion. The concept of the
Trinity is believed by most professing Christians, whether Catholic
or Protestant.
A Gallup Poll taken in 1966 found that 97% of the American public
believed in God. Of that number, 83% believed that God is a
Trinity.
Yet for all this belief in the Trinity, it is a doctrine that is not
clearly understood by most Christian laymen. In fact, most have
neither the desire nor the incentive to understand what their church
teaches. Few laymen are aware of any problems with the doctrine of
the Trinity. They simply take it for granted — leaving the
mysterious doctrinal aspects to theologians.
And if the layman were to investigate further, he would be confronted
with discouraging statements similar to the following: “The mind
of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who
would try to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind. But he
who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul” (Harold Lindsell
and Charles J. Woodbridge, A Handbook of Christian Truth, pp.
51-52).
Such a statement means that the concept of the Trinity should be
accepted or else. But, merely to accept it as doctrine without
proving it would be totally contrary to Scripture. God inspired Paul
to write: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”
(I Thes. 5:21).
Peter further admonished Christians: “. . . Be ready always to
give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you.. .“ (I Peter 3:15).
Therefore the Christian is duty bound to prove whether or not God is
a Trinity.
If you were to confine yourself to reading the articles on the
Trinity in popular religious literature for laymen, you would
conclude that the Trinity is everywhere and clearly taught in the
Bible. However, if you were to begin to read what the more technical
Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries and books say on the subject, you
would come to an entirely different conclusion. And the more you
studied, the more you would find that the Trinity is built on a very
shaky foundation indeed.
The problems inherent in clearly explaining the Trinity are expressed
in nearly every technical article or book on the subject.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia begins: “It is difficult, in the
second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and
straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and
the theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity.
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a
somewhat unsteady silhouette” (Vol. XIV, p. 295). (Emphasis ours
throughout booklet.)
But why should the central doctrine of the Christian faith be so
difficult to understand? Why should such an important doctrine
present an unsteady silhouette? Isn't there a clear biblical
revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity? Didn't Christ and the
apostles plainly teach it?
Surely the Bible would be filled with teachings about such an
important subject as the Trinity. But, unfortunately the word
“Trinity” never appears in the Bible.
‘The term ‘Trinity’ is not a Biblical term, and we are
not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as
the doctrine” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
article “Trinity,” p. 3012).
Not only is the word “Trinity” never found in the Bible,
there is no substantive proof such a doctrine is even indicated.
In a recent book on the Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner
recognizes that theologians in the past have been “. . .
embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the Scriptures do not
explicitly present a doctrine of the ‘imminent’ Trinity
(even in John's prologue is no such doctrine)” (The Trinity, p.
22). (Author's emphasis.)
Other theologians also recognize the fact that the first chapter of
John's Gospel — the prologue — clearly shows the
pre-existence and divinity of Christ and does not teach the doctrine
of the Trinity. After discussing John's prologue, Dr. William Newton
Clarke writes: “There is no Trinity in this; but there is a
distinction in the Godhead, a duality in God. This distinction or
duality is used as basis for the idea of an only-begotten Son, and as
key to the possibility of an incarnation” (Outline of Christian
Theology, p. 167).
The first chapter of John's Gospel clearly shows the pre-existence of
Christ. It also illustrates the duality of God. And as Dr. Clarke
points out, the key to the possibility of the incarnation — the
fact that God could become man.
The Apostle John makes plain the unmistakable fact that Jesus Christ
is God (John 1:1-4). Yet we find no Trinity discussed in this
chapter.
Probably the most notorious scripture used in times past as
“proof” of a Trinity is I John 5:7. However, many
theologians recognize that this scripture was added to the New
Testament manuscripts probably as late as the eighth century A.D.
Notice what Jamieson, Fausset and Brown wrote in their commentary:
“The only Greek MSS. [manuscripts], in any form which
support the words, ‘in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear
witness in earth.. .‘ are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied
evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from the
Complutensian Polyglot; a MS. [manuscript] at Naples, with
the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of
the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of
the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words.”
The conclusions arrived at in their commentary, written over 100
years ago, are still valid today. More conservatively oriented The
New Bible Commentary (Revised) agrees, though “quietly”
with Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. “. . . The words are clearly a
gloss and are rightly excluded by RSV [Revised Standard
Version] even from its margin” (p. 1269).
The editors of Peake’s Commentary on the Bible wax more eloquent
in their belief that the words are not part of the original text.
“The famous interpolation after ‘three witnesses’ is
not printed even in RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony
of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in
the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains
it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the
Vulgate and finally the NT [New Testament] of Erasmus”
(p. 1038).
Scholars clearly recognize that I John 5:7 is not part of the New
Testament text. Yet it is still included by some fundamentalists as
biblical proof for the Trinity doctrine.
Even the majority of the more recent New Testament translations do
not contain the above words. They are not found in Moffatt, Phillips,
the Revised Standard Version, Williams, or The Living Bible (a
paraphrase).
It is clear, then, that these words are not part of the inspired
canon, but rather were added by a “recent hand.” The two
verses in I John should read: “For there are three that bear
record, the Spirit, and the water and the blood: and these three
agree in one.”
Three things bear record. But what do they bear record to? A Trinity?
We shall see.
The Spirit, the water and the blood bear record of the fact that
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is living His life over again in us.
John clarifies it in verses 11-12:
“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he
that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
But how do these three elements — the Spirit, the water, and the
blood — specifically bear witness to this basic biblical
truth?
“The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of God” (Rom. 8:16). (We will see more about the part
the Spirit plays in Chapter Three.)
Water is representative of baptism, which bears witness of the burial
of the old self and the beginning of a new life (Rom. 6:1-6).
The blood represents Christ's death by crucifixion, which pays the
penalty for our sins, reconciling us to God (Rom. 5:9, 10).
Now understand why Christ commanded the apostles to baptize in the
name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). First
of all, Jesus did not command the apostles to baptize in the name of
the Father, the Son and the Spirit as an indication that God is a
Trinity. No such relationship is indicated in the Bible.
Why, then, were they to baptize using these three names? The answer
is clear.
They were to baptize in the name of the Father because it is the
goodness of God that brings us to repentance (Rom. 2:4), and because
the Father is the One “of whom the whole family in heaven and
earth is named” (Eph. 3:15). In the name of the Son because He
is the one who died for our sins, and in the name of the Spirit
because God sends His Spirit, making us His begotten Sons (Rom.
8:16).
Many theologians have misunderstood the part that the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit play in each person’s salvation. The
doctrine of the Trinity is the result of that misunderstanding.
The Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. It has no basis in biblical
fact. Then how did this doctrine come to be believed by the
Church?
The ancient idea of monotheism was shattered by the sudden
appearance of Jesus Christ on the earth. Here was someone who claimed
He was the Son of God. But how could He be? The Jewish people
believed for centuries that there was only one God. If the claims of
“this Jesus” were accepted, then in their minds their
belief would be no different from that of the polytheistic pagans
around them. If He were the Son of God, their whole system of
monotheism would disintegrate.
When Jesus plainly told certain Jews of His day that He was the Son
of God, some were ready to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33).
To get around the problem of a plurality in the Godhead, the Jewish
community simply rejected Jesus. And to this day, Orthodox Jews will
not accept Jesus’ Messiahship. However, the more liberal Jews
will at least admit that He was a great man — maybe even a
prophet.
But the “new” Christian religion was still faced with the
problem. How would proponents explain that there was only one God,
not two?
“The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of
the Trinity in the church was the church's profound conviction of the
absolute Deity of Christ, on which - as on a pivot - the whole
Christian concept of God from the first origin of Christianity
turned” (International Standard Biblical Encyclopedia, article
“Trinity,” p. 3021).
But the Deity of Christ does not mean that a doctrine of the Trinity
is necessary, as we shall see in Chapter Two.
Many of the early church fathers were thoroughly educated in Greek
philosophy, from which they borrowed such non-biblical concepts as
dualism and the immortality of the soul. However, most theologians,
for obvious reasons, are generally careful to point out that they did
not borrow the idea of the Trinity from the Triads of Greek
philosophy or those of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians.
But some are not so careful to make such a distinction.
“Although the notion of a Triad or Trinity is characteristic of
the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In Indian
religion, e.g., we meet with the Trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva,
and Visnu; and the Egyptian religion with the Trinitarian group of
Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the
Father, Mother and Son in medieval Christian pictures. Nor is it only
in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One
recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or
Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by Plato . . .“
(Hasting’s Bible Dictionary, Vol. 12, p. 458).
Of course, the fact that someone else had a Trinity does not in
itself mean that the Christians borrowed it. McClintock and Strong
make the connection a little clearer.
“Toward the end of the 1st century, and during the 2nd, many
learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity.
These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their
Platonic ideas and phraseology” (article “Trinity,”
Vol. 10, p. 553).
In his book, A History of Christian Thought, Arthur Cushman McGiffert
points out that the main argument against those who believed that
there was only one God and that Christ was either an adopted or a
created being was that their idea did not agree with Platonic
philosophy. Such teachings were “offensive to theologians,
particularly to those who felt the influence of the Platonic
philosophy” (ibid., p. 240).
In the latter half of the third century, Paul of Samosata tried to
revive the adoptionist idea that Jesus was a mere man until the
Spirit of God came upon Him at baptism making him the Anointed One,
or Christ. In his beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ, he
“rejected the Platonic realism which underlay most of the
Christological speculation of the day” (ibid., p. 243).
At the end of his chapter on the Trinity, McGiffert concludes:
“. - . It has been the boast of orthodox theologians that in the
doctrine of the Trinity both religion and philosophy come to highest
expression” (Vol. I, p. 247).
The influence of Platonic philosophy on the Trinity doctrine can
hardly be denied.
However, Trinitarian ideas go much further back than Plato.
“Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as
monotheistic; yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over
the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and
western hemispheres, to north and south. Further, it is observed
that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one.... The
definition of Athanasius [a fourth-century Christian] who
lived in Egypt, applied to the trinities of all heathen
religions” (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, by James
Bonwick, F.R.G.S., p. 396).
It was Athanasius’ formulation for the Trinity which was adopted
by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325.
Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his philosophy was
also deeply rooted in Platonism.
“The Alexandrian catechetical school, which revered Clement of
Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologians of the Greek Church,
as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of
Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was
theological speculation. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians had
been included among its members. . .“ (Ecumenical Councils of
the Catholic Church, by Hubert Jedin, p. 29).
In order to explain the relationship of Christ to God the Father, the
church fathers felt that it was necessary to use the philosophy of
the day. They obviously thought that their religion would be more
palatable if they made it sound like the pagan philosophy that was
extant at the time. These men were versed in philosophy, and that
philosophy colored their understanding of the Bible.
It was the doctrine of the Trinity — colored by the philosophy
of the time — that was accepted by the Church in the early part
of the fourth century — over three hundred years after Christ's
death.
Even theologians recognize that the Trinity is a creation of the
fourth century, not the first!
“There is recognition on the part of exegetist and Biblical
theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman
Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New
Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely
parallel recognition— that when one does speak of unqualified
Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to
say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what
might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘one God in
three persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life
and thought” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, article
“Trinity,” Vol. 14, p. 295).
It was at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that two members of
the Alexandrian congregation, Anus, a priest, who believed that
Christ was not a God, but a created being; and Athanasius, a deacon
who believed that the Father, Son and Spirit are the same being
living in a threefold form (or in three relationships, as a man may
be at the same time a father, a son and a brother), presented their
cases.
The Council of Nicaea was not called by the church leaders, as one
might suppose. It was called by the Emperor Constantine. And he had a
far-from-spiritual reason for wanting to solve the dispute that had
arisen.
“In 325 the Emperor Constantine called an ecclesiastical council
to meet at Nicaea in Bithynia. In the hope of securing for his throne
the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them
considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church
vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity
and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to
the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop
Hosius who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet
representing the whole church both east and west, it might be
possible to restore harmony. Constantine himself of course neither
knew or cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager
to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius’ advice appealed
to him as sound” (A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p.
258).
EMPEROR CONSTANTINE convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. in an attempt to restore harmony and unity to a church divided by the Arian controversy. Ambassador College Art
The decision as to which of the two men the church was to follow was
a more or less arbitrary one. Constantine really didn't care which
choice was made — all he wanted was a united church. (Anus was
banished, but later recalled by Constantine, examined and found to be
without heresy.)
The majority of those present at the council were not ready to take
either side in the controversy. “A clearly defined standpoint
with regard to this problem — the relationship of Christ to God
— was held only by the attenuated group of Arians and a far from
numerous section of delegates, who adhered with unshaken conviction
to the Alexandrian [Athanasius’] view. The bulk of the
members occupied a position between these two extremes. They rejected
the formulae of Anus, and declined to accept those of his opponents..
. the voting was no criterion of the inward conviction of the
council” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., article
“Nicaea, Council of,” p. 641).
The council rejected Anus’ views, and rightly so, but they had
nothing with which to replace it. Thus the ideas of Athanasius —
also a minority view — prevailed. The rejection of Arianism was
not blanket acceptance of Athanasius. Yet, the church in all the
ensuing centuries has been “stuck,” so to speak, with the
job of upholding — right or wrong — the decision made at
Nicaea.
After the council the Trinity became official dogma in the church,
but the controversy did not end. In the next few years more
Christians were killed by other Christians over that doctrine than
were killed by all the pagan emperors of Rome. Yet, for all the
fighting and killing, neither of the two parties had a biblical leg
to stand on.