Trinity Doctrine

By /

Overview

Anomalies in the Trinity Doctrine

Several apparent anomalies can be identified in the orthodox Trinity doctrine:

The Father and Son are two Modes, not two Persons.

First, the New Testament appears to present the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, as two distinct Beings with distinct minds. In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father and the Son are one Being with a single mind, consciousness, and will. Apologists often explain the Trinity doctrine as saying that God is one Being in three Persons. However, the term “Persons” is misleading because it suggests three distinct minds. Leading Trinitarian scholars, such as the Catholic scholar Karl Rahner and the Reformed scholar Karl Barth, propose that, in the orthodox Trinity doctrine, the so-called Persons are more accurately understood as three modes of existing as God.

Jesus did not exist before His human birth.

Second, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ appears to be the preincarnate Son, merely in human form. In the Trinity doctrine, however, Jesus Christ has two natures, one divine and one human, and therefore two minds and two wills united in one person. Defined in this way, Jesus Christ is not identical with the preincarnate Son. The incarnated Son has a human mind that did not exist before His human birth. Therefore, Jesus Christ did not exist before His human birth.

The Son cannot become Incarnate.

Third, in the New Testament, the preexistent Son of God became incarnate as the man Jesus Christ. By contrast, within the Trinity doctrine, the Son of God as such cannot be incarnated because the Father and the Son are one invisible, indivisible, immutable (cannot change), and impassible (cannot suffer) Being.

The Son did not die.

Fourth, in the New Testament, the divine Son of God suffered and died for the sins of the world. In the Trinity doctrine, however, the Son cannot and did not suffer or die because He is God, and God is understood to be impassible (unable to suffer) and immortal (unable to die).

Conclusion

For these and other reasons, the Trinity doctrine contradicts the Bible. The true nature of this doctrine is often left unexplained. By complex philosophical arguments, warnings that God is beyond human understanding, and threats of excommunication, people are discouraged from examining it closely. But the reality is that this doctrine contradicts the Bible.

Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

Given these challenges, why did the Church adopt the Trinity doctrine? In a series of articles, this site argues that the decision to adopt this doctrine was not taken by the Church, but by a Roman Emperor:

Traditional View – During the first three centuries, the majority view was that the Son is a second divine Being, subordinate to the Father. The view that the Father and Son are a single Being, as in the Trinity doctrine, did exist as Modalistic Monarchianism in the 2nd century and as Sabellianism in the 3rd. Importantly, Rome had a Monarchian tradition. However, ‘one Being’ theology remained a minority view. Sabellius himself was deposed, while Origen, the most influential writer of that age, maintained three hypostases in God, but “one in likemindedness, harmony … and … will” (Williams, p. 132), meaning three distinct Beings.

Emperors – In ancient times, rulers generally determined the religions of their kingdoms. Similarly, the Roman Empire outlawed Christianity during the first three centuries. It legalized Christianity in the early fourth century (in 313), but the emperor remained the final judge in doctrinal disputes. The emperors decided which factions to allow and exiled bishops with opposing views.

Ecumenical Councils – The so-called ecumenical councils of the 4th century were, in fact, initiated, called, and controlled by the emperor for their own purpose. These councils are better understood as meetings to determine the Empire’s religious policy. The emperor might listen to all sides, but had the final say. Church and State were united under the Emperor.

Edict of Thessalonica – The controversy was brought to an end, not by a Church decision, but by a Roman Emperor. In 380, the Emperor Theodosius, through the Edict of Thessalonica, made Nicene theology its state religion. All Roman subjects were required to profess Nicene Christianity, while Arianism was outlawed.

Second Ecumenical Council – The following year, in 381, the emperor convened the so-called Second Ecumenical Council. However, because he had already outlawed Arianism, he invited only Nicenes. Moreover, to ensure that the Council reached an acceptable conclusion, he appointed one of his unbaptized government officials as presiding officer.

Roman State Church – Emperor Theodosius confiscated Arian churches and prohibited Arians from preaching or residing in cities and towns. In this way, he eliminated Arianism—previously the dominant view in the East—from the Roman State Church.

Fifth Century – Outside the Roman Empire, Christianity remained predominantly Arian. In the fifth century, Germanic peoples (Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, etc.) conquered and ruled the Western Empire. They were Arians, but wished to remain part of the Roman Empire. Therefore, they allowed the Roman State Church to remain, serving the Roman population in the West.

End of Arianism – In the sixth century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian defeated and subjected the Arian kingdoms of the West and established the Byzantine Papacy, a system through which the Eastern Empire governed the West through the Roman army and through the Roman State Church. This continued for two centuries, transforming the Roman State Church into a powerful political organization. During this period of Roman domination, the Western kings abandoned Arianism and converted their kingdoms to the Roman State Church.

End of the Roman Empire – By the eighth century, Muslim victories had significantly weakened the Eastern Empire’s ability to dictate the West. But the Roman State Church was now protected by the Western kingdoms that had previously converted to Roman theology over the previous two centuries.

High Middle Ages – Western monarchs continued to dominate the Church. Like the Roman emperors before them, they appointed the pope and senior bishops. This changed during the tenth and eleventh centuries, when the Church, through the Investiture Controversy, gained not only independence from secular rulers but also authority over them. The result was the High Middle Ages, a period in which the Roman Church exercised power over kings.

Conclusion – The Church, as such, never adopted the Trinity doctrine. By royal command, the Roman State Church adopted Nicene theology. Due to the dominance of the Roman Empire, other Christian nations converted to the Roman Church. After the Empire collapsed, the Roman Church continued, grew in power, and became the Roman Church of later centuries. From there, the Trinity doctrine spread to nearly all Christian denominations. In a significant sense, therefore, the modern world inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Empire.

The Social Trinity

There are several doctrines of the Trinity. This site uses the phrase “Trinity doctrine” usually for the orthodox version. One form of Trinitarian doctrine, known as the Social Trinity, understands the Father, Son, and Spirit as three distinct Beings with three distinct minds who nevertheless share the same kind of substance, implying the same kind of divinity. Consequently, the Son is God in the same sense that the Father is God. This model appears to correspond more closely to the New Testament, where the Father and the Son seem to be distinct Beings. However, difficulties remain:

    • This appears to be the view of certain individuals. I am not aware of any denomination that officially endorses Social Trinitarianism.
    • It is difficult to explain how three distinct Beings, each with a distinct mind, could exist without cause. The view therefore seems to resemble tritheism.
    • In this view, the Son remains omnipresent, immortal, invisible, immutable, and impassible. In other words, He cannot become incarnate, and He cannot die.

End of the overview

The Trinity Doctrine

The term “Trinity” refers to the Father, Son, and Spirit. The phrase “doctrine of the Trinity” refers to explanations of how the Three relate. But there are several such explanations or doctrines. This site uses the term “Trinity doctrine” for the orthodox doctrine, accepted by most denominations.

“Three Persons” is misleading.

The Trinity doctrine is often described as one God existing in three Persons. [Show More]

Three Persons would mean Three Minds

The phrase “three Persons” suggests three distinct minds. Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, acknowledges in his The Trinity that the word “persons” commonly implies distinct minds:

“When today we speak of person in the plural, we think almost necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several spiritual centers of activity [minds], of several subjectivities [biases, views] and liberties [freedoms].”

Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics, London: T & T Clark, 2010. Study Edition), a leading Reformed Scholar, confirms that the term “person” implies “self-consciousness:”

“What is called ‘personality’ in the conceptual vocabulary of the 19th century is distinguished from the patristic and mediaeval persona by the addition of the attribute of self-consciousness. This really complicates the whole issue” — [p. 357].

The Trinity doctrine teaches only One Divine Mind

In contrast, in orthodox Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share one mind—one will and only one self-awareness or consciousness. The three ‘Persons’ do not each have a distinct mind. Rather, the mind, will, and consciousness arise from the one divine essence that the ‘Persons’ share:

“There are not three of these in God. … There are not three consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold way. There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit” (Rahner).

“The element of consciousness … does not belong to it [the Person] in our context [the official doctrine of the {Catholic} Church]” (Rahner). [Show More]

The Athanasian Creed describes God as (Latin) “tres (three) personae.” As already quoted, according to Karl Barth, “persona” (singular of the plural personae) in the patristic writings did not mean a thinking thing. It does not suggest “self-consciousness.”

“What is called ‘personality’ in the conceptual vocabulary of the 19th century is distinguished from the patristic and mediaeval persona by the addition of the attribute of self-consciousness” — [Karl Barth p. 357].

By stating that the Trinity doctrine does not teach three I’s, but only one I, repeated three times, Barth confirms that the Trinity doctrine does not teach three personalities or three minds in God, for that would be tritheism:

“Person” as used in the Church doctrine of the Trinity bears no direct relation to personality. The meaning of the doctrine is not, then, that there are three personalities in God. This would be the worst and most extreme expression of tritheism, against which we must be on guard at this stage. . . . But in it we are speaking not of three divine I’s, but thrice of the one divine I. — [Karl Barth p. 351].

Lewis Ayres similarly states that the Persons do not “possess different natures, wills, or activities.” [Show More]

Scholars acknowledge “Persons” is Misleading

Trinitarian scholars therefore acknowledge that describing the Father, Son, and Spirit as “Persons” can be misleading. After describing the Three as three hypostases, three Realities, and three Entities, R. P. C. Hanson deliberately avoids the word “Person.” Instead, he calls them “three ways of being or modes of existing as God”:

“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word ‘Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God” (Hanson Lecture).

Khaled Anatolios, another leading patristic scholar, likewise describes the three as hypostases while warning that the word “persons” can mislead modern readers.

“By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers,’ these three constituent members, of what God is, came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete individuals’) or, more misleadingly, for us moderns, as prosōpa (‘persons’)” (Anatolios, xiii).

“Three hypostases” is also misleading.

As quoted above, scholars sometimes describe the Three as “three hypostases,” but this also fails to express the doctrine of the Trinity clearly because, while the Trinity doctrine presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as one Being with one mind, the Greek word hypostasis ordinarily denotes something that exists distinctly from other things. This becomes clear from scholarly definitions of the term, such as:

    • An “individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193);
    • “Distinct individuality” (Hanson, p. 53);
    • “Distinct reality” (Hanson, p. 190);
    • “Something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality” (Lienhard);
    • “Distinct personalities,” “distinct existences,” and “to be existent” (Litfin);
    • “Concrete individuals” (Anatolios, xiii).

In the fourth century, this understanding of hypostasis implied that each hypostasis had a distinct mind, as the historical use of the term shows:

The Arians confessed three hypostases that were “one in agreement.” This qualification indicates that they understood the three hypostases as three distinct minds. [Show More]

By contrast, the original Nicenes, such as Athanasius, confessed one hypostasis in the Godhead (see here). Therefore, they understood God as having a single mind. For example, Athanasius, the leading Nicene theologian, “is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428).  [Show More]

Similarly, at Serdica in 343, the Western Nicenes rejected the Arian idea of distinct minds in the Godhead, arguing that it would allow “differences and disputes” between God the Father Almighty and the Son—an idea they regarded as “altogether absurd” (Hanson, p. 302).

However, the explanation of the Trinity doctrine as one Being existing as three hypostases does not use hypostasis in this fourth-century sense. It does not use a hypostasis as a distinct Being with a distinct mind. This shift in meaning creates confusion: a modern reader familiar only with later Trinitarian usage may misunderstand what Origen and the Arians meant by “three hypostases.”

The distinction between the Persons is invisible.

So far, this article has argued that the words “Persons” and “hypostases” are misleading when used to explain the Trinity doctrine. A further main point is that, in the Trinity doctrine, the distinction among the Father, Son, and Spirit is invisible to the created universe: creation experiences only one outward divine agent:

For example, as Anatolios explains, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit always act outwardly in creation as one, although they are internally differentiated. Their only distinction lies in their relations of origin, which are internal to God:

“By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts … had led … to what later generations generally think of as ‘the doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, operating outward in creation always as a unity, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another” (Anatolios, xiii).

Thomas Aquinas, the famous Catholic scholar, confirmed that, in the orthodox Trinity doctrine, the only difference between the ‘Persons’ is their relationships:

“So then the only question left is what makes the persons distinct from one another? What makes the distinction real? The answer is that they are distinct only in their relation to one another” [Summa 1028]

“It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He (the Holy Ghost) could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him (the Son)” [Summa 1036]

Ayres expresses the point this way: “The distinctions between them are real, but we do not know what it is to exist distinctly in this state” (Ayres, p. 295).

The point is that created beings cannot tell the difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit.

The three Persons are really “three modes.”

Because “Persons” and “hypostases” can be misleading, and because the distinctions among the Three are invisible to the creation, the Three in the Trinity doctrine may be more accurately described as three modes of God.

Karl Barth  proposed replacing the Trinitarian formula of “one God in three persons” with “one God in three (German) Seinweise,” which can be translated as “one God in three modes of being,” or “three ways of being.” [Show More]

“The idealist direction of [Karl] Rahner’s thought is further seen in the way he articulates his substitution of ‘manner of subsisting’ (distinkte Subsistenzweisen). The concept serves better than the modern understanding of person because that concept would indicate God consists of three distinct centres of consciousness and action whereas God is only one” (Ayres, p. 410-1).

Hanson refers to them as “three ways of being or modes of existing as God.”

“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word’ Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God” (Hanson Lecture).

The challenge would be to explain how this differs from Modalism, the second-century form of Monarchianism in which “Father” and “Son” are merely two names for the same Being.

To summarize: within Trinitarian doctrine, the “Persons” are not persons or hypostases in the ordinary sense because they share one mind. Their distinctions are not outwardly visible; they are three modes of the one God.

Three equal Minds would be Tritheism.

A reader might respond: “That may describe orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, but I believe in three divine Persons with three distinct minds.” Such a view might be more consistent with the Bible and is defended by some advocates of the Social Trinity. Yet if the three Persons are fully equal, the result would be three almighty Beings—that is, Tritheism. [Show More]

If the Godhead contains three distinct minds, avoiding belief in three Gods would require two of those minds to be subordinate to the third. Yet acknowledging the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father would amount to what is commonly labeled ‘Arianism.’ The Eusebians (Arians) of the fourth century believed in a trinity of three distinct divine Beings, each possessing a distinct mind. They confessed, “three in hypostasis but one in agreement” (Ayres, p. 118). Anatolios, for example, writes:

“We have to resist the anachronistic characterization of him (Arius) as an antitrinitarian theologian.” “He writes simply, ‘So there are three hypostaseis,’” meaning “the set of beings that form the object (or objects) of Christian confession. . . . the three hypostaseis seemingly form a certain unity” (Anatolios, p. 47-48).

The frequently repeated claim that the Arians regarded the Son as a created being is Nicene polemics but seriously misrepresents Arian views. The ‘Arians’ believed that the Son is the only Being brought forth from God’s own being. They called Him God, identified Him as Yahweh, and worshiped Him. From the perspective of the beings created through the Son, the Son is the Creator, divine, and eternal. Hanson described some of Athanasius’s statements—that ‘Arians’ believed the Son is a created being—as malicious distortion (see here).

To avoid both Tritheism (three equal Gods) and ‘Arianism’ (three unequal Gods), orthodox Trinitarian doctrine has to maintain that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind.

The Incarnation

So far, we have focused on the Son’s pre-incarnate nature. We will now proceed to discuss His incarnate nature. The different views of the Incarnation are discussed in more detail here. The following is a summary:

Athanasius’s View

We will first discuss Athanasius’s View. He was the leading Nicene of the fourth century. In his view, Jesus Christ is God in a mindless human body, like an astronaut in a spacesuit. He only pretended to suffer, fear, and die. Athanasius did not recognize a human mind in Jesus. He did not hold to a ‘two natures’ view. For example, Hanson wrote:

“Logically, Athanasius ought to have said that the human body was capable of making human decisions, was morally responsible for its actions… But Athanasius will not allow this, he will not admit that Jesus Christ was ‘alterable’. Once again, his failure to recognize the existence of a human mind in Jesus lands him in an absurd and impossible situation” (Hanson, p. 449).

Ayres wrote similarly:

“Athanasius emphasizes God’s unmediated action in the material world, and sees the Arian emphasis, on the intermediate nature of the Logos, as serving to prevent this connection” (Ayres, p. 77). [Show More]

In this extreme view of the incarnation, since Jesus is God Himself, Athanasius described Mary as the Mother of God.

Chalcedonian View

We will next discuss the Chalcedonian view. The Incarnation came under scrutiny in the fifth century. Views that opposed Athanasius emerged. At Chalcedon, in 451, the Council softened Athanasius’s ‘one nature’ position. It was decided that Jesus Christ has two distinct natures, unmixed, in one undivided Person. He has both the nature of God Almighty and the nature of a failing human being.

This is one big contradiction. Jesus is both invisible and visible, both mortal and immortal, both mutable and immutable, both finite and infinite.

Sometimes the human nature in Jesus acted, for example, when He said that He does not know the day or hour (Matt 24:36). At other times, it was the divine nature that acted. For example, when He said that the Father and He are one

How one Person could have both a finite human nature and an infinite divine nature is impossible to understand.

Nevertheless, what seems clear is that the Son cannot become incarnate. Since the Father and preincarnate Son are a single undivided Being, with a single mind, how can the Son, as such, be separated from the Father to become human, or to appear in human form?

Furthermore, to become incarnate implies change, but God is immutable, meaning He cannot change. If the Son is God, the Son cannot change. Consequently, He cannot become incarnate.

What is also clear is that only the human nature of Jesus Christ suffered and died. The divine Son did not die. God is impassible, meaning He cannot suffer. God is also immortal. If the Son is God, He cannot suffer or die. Consequently, it was a mere man, or merely the human part of Jesus Christ, that suffered and died.

One may object that this implies that we are not saved, for the death of a mere human being cannot save sinners. The Bible is clear that we are saved by the death of the divine Son of God (e.g., I Thess 5:9-10; 1 Peter 3:18).

The Arian View

Perhaps we should also discuss the Arian View of the Incarnation. The contrast between the Nicene and Arian views may help clarify both views.

In the Nicene view, as taught by Athanasius, the preincarnate Son is an internal aspect of the Father (see here). In other words, in the Godhead, only one divine Being exists. In contrast, in the Arian view, the preincarnate Son of God is a second divine Being, distinct from the Father. That second divine Being became incarnate as Jesus Christ.

Arians denied that Jesus Christ has a human mind. He has a human body, but Jesus Christ is the same Being as the preincarnate Son, merely in human form. Consequently, everything Jesus said was said by God’s eternal Son.

In the Arian view, although Jesus Christ is divine, the Creator and God, He also suffered and died. Since all sides agreed that God cannot suffer or die, Arians deduced that the preincarnate Son has a lower level of divinity, which made Him passible and mortal. Therefore, in the Arian view, the divine Son of God, the Creator and God of the earth, really suffered and really died.

In this view, that was not the first time the Son appeared in human form. They held that all Old Testament personal appearances of Yahweh are, in fact, the one who later appeared as Jesus Christ. The Son was temporarily incarnate, for example, when he walked in the garden in the cool of the evening, wrestled with Jacob, appeared in the burning bush, gave the law to Moses, and spoke through the prophets. [Show More]

Concluding Remarks

The Trinity doctrine is not explained to ordinary Christians. We are not told that the ‘Persons’ are not really ‘Persons.’ We are not told that the Son of God did not really die. The explanation of the Trinity doctrine is often limited to superficial, misleading clichés, such as that God is one Being existing as three Persons.

We are warned that humans cannot understand the doctrine because humans cannot understand God. [Show More]

But that is false logic. Yes, we will never fully understand God. But the Trinity doctrine is a human invention. Since finite human minds developed the Trinity doctrine to explain Christ, human minds must be able to understand it. [Show More]

The Trinity doctrine is more than mere interpretation. It is development. It goes beyond what the Bible teaches. The Bible never says that the Father and Son are one Being, or that they have the same substance, homoousios, or that Jesus Christ has two natures. These things were added to the Bible. For example, Hanson wrote:

“I think that a consideration of the whole history of the gradual formation of this doctrine must convince students of the subject that the doctrine of the Trinity is a development” (Hanson). [Show More]

The Trinity doctrine attempts to reconcile conflicting views:

Athanasius taught that the Trinity is a single Being. In the Cappadocian view, they are three Beings. Attempting to reconcile these views, the Trinity doctrine holds that the Trinity is both one and three.

Sometimes the Bible presents Jesus as human. At other times, He seems divine. Attempting to reconcile these views, the Trinity doctrine claims that He is both divine and human.

Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

So, given these challenges, why did the church accept the Trinity doctrine?

In reality, the decision to adopt the Trinity doctrine was not made by the Church. It was made by the Roman Empire. In summary, the events were as follows:

In the 4th century, the Church was divided into factions, but the Roman Empire did not tolerate divisions. Therefore, in 380, through the Edict of Thessalonica, the Empire made one faction, that is, Nicene theology, the Roman State Church. That same edict outlawed Arianism. The edict was followed by severe persecution of Arianism. Since Nicene Christianity was now the Roman State Church, all Romans, not only Christians, were required to confess Nicene Christianity.

However, other European nations remained Arian. Consequently, in the fifth century, after the Western Empire fell, Arian kingdoms ruled Europe.

Nevertheless, the Roman State Church, that is, the organization that was formed within the Roman Empire, with its Nicene theology and hierarchy of Nicene bishops, survived the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, it grew in power. Eventually, it became the Roman Church of the Middle Ages. During those centuries, it dominated the European kings, killing and torturing millions of God’s people. [Show More]

The mainstream Church of today inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Church, which was the child of the Roman Empire, and inherited the Trinity doctrine from it. The Trinity doctrine is the legacy of the ancient Roman Empire.

The Origin of the Trinity doctrine is discussed in much more detail in another article. The following are merely some key points:

The Orthodox View

Firstly, what was the orthodox view when the Roman Empire legalized Christianity in 313?

In the third century, and when the Controversy began in the early 4th century, Logos-theology was the standard explanation of Jesus Christ (see here). The vast majority of delegates to the Nicene Council were Logos-theologians. [Show More]

In Logos-theology, the Son is a second divine Being, subordinate to the Father. Arianism continued this view (see here). Contrary to the traditional account, Arius did not develop a new theology. He was a conservative. He defended a traditional Alexandrian view.

Consistent with this, when the Controversy began, contrary to what most people think, each and every theologian regarded the preincarnate Son as subordinate to the Father, a view which is today often associated with Arianism. Therefore, subordination did not distinguish Arianism from Nicene theology. [Show More]

The Core Issue

The core issue in the Controversy was something else:

The Nicenes of the 4th century were not Trinitarians. In their view, the Son is an internal aspect of the Father’s being (see here). Therefore, the Son is homoousios with the Father, meaning of the same substance, but also meaning ontologically subordinate to the Father. If the Son is an internal aspect of the Father, as the original Nicenes believed, then only one divine Person exists, namely, the Father. They were the Monotheists. [Show More]

In contrast, the Arians believed that the Son is a second divine Being. They had two Beings in the Godhead.

That was the core issue in the Controversy. All, or most, other differences between the Nicenes and Arians derive from this core issue.

Role of the Emperor

Understanding the Emperor’s role in the Arian Controversy is critically important.

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The emperors were dictators. They decided which religions to allow. After the Empire had legalized Christianity in 313, the emperor also decided which Christian factions to allow. In this way, the emperor became the ultimate judge in doctrinal disputes. There was no Church-State divide. The emperor was head of both. For example, R.P.C. Hanson wrote as follows:

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority” (Hanson, p. 849).

Ecumenical Councils

It is equally important to understand the nature of the Ecumenical Councils.

Two of the 4th-century councils are today called ecumenical, meaning a meeting of the worldwide Church. But they were not ecumenical. They were not even church meetings. These councils were not requested or called by the Church. They were called by the emperors on their own initiative and for their own purpose. The idea of a general council was invented by the emperors. These councils were the means by which the emperors ruled the church. For that reason, the emperors controlled the proceedings to ensure the outcome they thought best. For example, the eminent scholar, R.P.C. Hanson, wrote:

“The history of the period shows time and time again that local councils could be overawed or manipulated by the Emperor or his agents. The general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils, or councils aspiring to be general, were the children of imperial policy, and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855).

Specifically, with respect to the so-called First Ecumenical Council, in 325, Hanson wrote:

“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850).

There were also other general councils in the fourth century. The series of councils in 359-360, called by Emperor Constantius, compared to the councils of 325 and 381, were arguably more representative and less subject to emperor domination. However, since the outcome was an Arian Creed, these councils are today not called ‘Ecumenical.’ [Show More]

First Ecumenical Council

With respect to the First Ecumenical Council, Emperor Constantine called the Council to end the dispute between Arius and Alexander.

Until 324, Constantine was emperor only of the Western Empire, and he decided to take the side of the Western Church. In particular, the Church in Rome had a Monarchian tradition, which was a form of monotheism, in contrast to the Arian view of two divine Beings in the Godhead. In other words, Constantine took Alexander’s side.

In the same year as the Nicene Council, but before it, Constantine’s religious advisor, Ossius, held a council in Antioch. Antioch was probably selected because the bishop of that city, Eustathius, was the leading Eastern monotheist. The council consisted mainly of people who sympathized with Alexander. It provisionally excommunicated Eusebius of Caesarea, who was one of Arius’s main supporters, but who was also the most respected theologian of that time. These events confirm that Constantine had made up his mind already before the Nicene Council.

At the main council, the emperor used his influence to force the assembly to accept the Nicene Creed. See here for a more detailed discussion.

Return to Arianism

However, in the decade after the Council, Constantine switched sides. This allowed the Church to return to Arianism. In that decade, all leading Nicenes were exiled, and all exiled Arians were allowed to return. Thereafter, ‘Arianism’ continued to dominate for most of the fourth century.

The Church in Rome

However, the Church in Rome increasingly opposed the Arianism of the Eastern Church.

Christianity began in the Eastern Empire. During the first three centuries, while Christians were persecuted, the Western Empire remained less Christianized. For example, the bulk of the extant ancient Christian writings are in Greek, which was the language of the Eastern Empire.

As stated, the Church in Rome had a Monarchian tradition. However, until 313, while Christianity was still fiercely persecuted, the influence of the Church in Rome was limited. But after the emperor himself had become a Christian, and had taken his seat in Rome, the influence of the Church in Rome grew steadily. Therefore, over the course of the fourth century, the Western Church increasingly opposed the Arianism of the Eastern Greek Church.

Athanasius

Athanasius was a Greek-speaking Easterner, but was excommunicated in 335 by the Eastern Church. While in exile in the late 330s, he appealed to the Church in Rome, which vindicated him at a council in 341, causing severe friction between the Western and Eastern Churches. With the support of the Church in Rome, he became a main opponent of the Eastern Church.

Nevertheless, Arianism continued to dominate in the East, with significant pockets of Arianism in the West as well.

Edict of Thessalonica

The turning point came in 379, when a committed Nicene, Theodosius, became emperor in the East. In 380, the year before the Second Ecumenical Council, he issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Nicene theology the Roman State Religion. That means that all Romans, not only Christians, were obliged to confess Nicene theology. That edict also outlawed Arianism. Arians were severely persecuted. Their churches were confiscated, and they were prohibited from meeting and from living in cities and towns. 

Through this edict, the theology of the Church in Rome triumphed. The edict specifically mentioned the bishop of Rome as the norm for acceptable religion. [Show More]

Second Ecumenical Council

The Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of Constantinople in 381, was not ecumenical. It was a local council of Antioch. Furthermore, since the emperor had already made Nicene theology the sole legal religion, and had already begun to severely persecute the Arians, only Nicenes were invited and attended:

“Only about 150 bishops attended and they appear to have been carefully chosen from areas which would be friendly to Meletius, who was its president, that is areas under the influence of the see of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 806). See here for a discussion of the council.

Fifth Century Europe

In the fifth century, Nicene theology remained the Roman State religion. However, in that century, other European nations conquered the Western Empire. These other nations had converted to Arianism in the 4th century, when Arianism still dominated. In the fifth century, they remained Arian. Consequently, Europe was again Arian-dominated. It follows that the fifth-century decisions, for example, at Chalcedon, were the decisions of the Roman State Church in the East. The Arian nations in the West were not involved. [Show More]

Justinian and the Byzantine Papacy

After the Roman Empire had fragmented, the State Church of the Roman Empire, also called the Roman Church, survived as a distinct organization. However, it was now subject to Arian rule. In the 6th century, in an effort to restore the Empire to its previous glory, and also to liberate the Roman Church from Arian domination, the Eastern Emperor Justinian, through military conquests, subjected the Western Arian nations.

Those conquests marked the beginning of the Byzantine Papacy, a period in which the Eastern emperors ruled, not only the Papacy, but also the Western nations through the Papacy. This continued for about two centuries. It was in this period that Arianism officially came to an end. The political and military dominance of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire, forced rulers in the West to follow the example of the Roman Empire. One after the other, they accepted the Papacy as their state religion. In those times, rulers decided which religion the nation would adopt. State and Church were one. For further discussion, see here.

The Roman Church

In the 8th century, the Eastern Roman Empire was significantly weakened by Muslim advances. It was no longer able to support or control the Papacy. However, the Papacy was supported by the Western nations that had, over the previous centuries, accepted it as their state church. In fact, it grew in power to become the Roman Church of the Middle Ages.

Summary

In summary, in the 4th century, the Edict of Thessalonica made Nicene Christianity the Roman State Church. The emperor was the head of the church. After the fall of the Roman Empire, that same church organization continued, but the Pope took the place of the Emperor.  That Church evolved into the present-day Roman Church, with the Pope as its head and the Trinity doctrine as its identifying mark. For many, the Trinity doctrine is the mark of true Christianity, the boundary between the Church and the outsiders. [Show More]

The Traditional Account

To readers familiar only with the traditional account of the Controversy, the explanations above might sound very strange. In the 19th century, the Controversy was explained very differently. In the 20th century, based on extensive research, scholars discovered that the 19th-century version of the Arian Controversy, which was the Nicene version, is history written by the winner. It is a complete travesty, and should today be entirely ignored:

“The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95-96).

The “conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty” (Hanson).

Unfortunately, modern Nicene theologians find it convenient to continue and teach the traditional Nicene account. The revised account cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Trinity doctrine.

Arianism

In conclusion, I recommend that readers study Arianism. It is today regarded as a great heresy. However, it was the orthodox view when the Controversy began, and dominated for much of the fourth and fifth centuries. The eminent scholar Rowan Williams, later Archbishop, wrote as follows about Arius:

“Arius may stand for an important dimension in Christian life that was disedifyingly and unfortunately crushed by policy or circumstance” (Williams, p. 94).

Arius is “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (Williams, p. 116).

Personally, I don’t know what the right answer is. However, I do believe that Arianism explains the complex Biblical evidence, regarding the nature of the Son of God, better than the Trinity doctrine does. Very few people today seem to know what the Arians taught. No denomination seems to teach Arianism, as it was taught in the mid-fourth century, after it evolved and was improved through many discussions and debates. It is my desire and goal to contribute to a better understanding of the 4th-century theologies.

Authors quoted

Hanson, Bishop R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987].

Anatolios, Khaled, Retrieving Nicaea, 2011

Rahner, Karl, The Trinity

Articles:

Bryan Litfin – Tertullian on the Trinity

(Hanson Lecture)

Lienhard Joseph – The “Arian” Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, a 1987 article

Lienhard – Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’

Other Articles

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top