Overview
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is distinct from the Father. The Bible also seems to say that the incarnated Jesus Christ is the same as the preincarnate Son, merely in human form. It would then follow that the preincarnate Son is distinct from the Father. In other words, the Father and Son have two distinct minds. In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father and Son are a single Being with a single mind. In this doctrine, the Son did not exist as a distinct Being before His human birth, and He does not have a distinct mind.
The Trinity doctrine often explains God as one Being but three Persons. But the term “Persons” is misleading because it implies distinct minds. Scholars confirm that, in the Trinity doctrine, the so-called Persons are better understood as three modes of existing as God.
A second difference between the New Testament and the Trinity doctrine is as follows: In the New Testament, the preexistent Son of God was incarnated to become the man Jesus Christ. In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, the Son of God, as such, cannot be incarnated because the Father and Son are a single undivided Being, with a single mind, and because God never changes.
Thirdly, in the New Testament, the divine Son of God suffered and died for the sins of the world. In the Trinity doctrine, the Son cannot and did not suffer or die because God is impassible and immortal, meaning unable to suffer or die.
For these reasons, the Trinity doctrine contradicts the Bible. The true nature of the Trinity doctrine is often not explained to people. They are kept away from it by complex philosophical arguments, by warnings that it is impossible to understand God, and by threats of excommunication. But the reality is that it contradicts the Bible.
Given these challenges, why did the Church adopt the Trinity doctrine? In reality, the Church never adopted it:
The Controversy in the 4th century was mainly between the Nicenes and Arians.
The Controversy was ended, not by the Church, but by the Roman Empire. In 380, the Empire made Nicene theology its State Religion. This means that all Romans, not only Christians, were obliged to confess Nicene Christianity. At the same time, the Empire outlawed Arianism. It confiscated Arian churches and prohibited Arians from preaching and living in the cities and towns.
In the following year, 381, the emperor called the so-called Second Ecumenical Council. However, since Arianism was already outlawed, he only invited Nicenes. Furthermore, to ensure that the Council complies with his wishes, the emperor appointed an unbaptized layman as chair and as bishop of Constantinople.
In the fifth century, Germanic nations conquered the Western Empire. These nations were Arians. However, they wished to remain part of the Roman Empire. Therefore, they allowed the Roman State Church to remain in the West.
In the sixth century, troops from the Eastern Emperor Justinian defeated the Western Arian kingdom. He then set op the Byzantine Papacy, a system in which the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire ruled both the Papacy and the West through the Papacy. This continued for two centuries. During these centuries, due to the dominance of the Eastern Empire, the Western kingdoms accepted the Roman Church as their State Church.
In the eighth century, due to Muslim victories, the Eastern Empire lost the ability to rule the West. However, the Roman Church was now protected by the Western kingdoms that previously adopted it as their State Church.
However, the monarchs continued to dominate the Church. They continued to appoint the Pope and senior bishops.
But in the 10th and 11th centuries, the Church was able to win, not only independence from the kings, but also superiority over the kings. This led to the Middle Ages, where the Roman Church ruled over the kings.
In this way, the organization that was formed within the Roman Empire, after the Empire, in 380, had made Nicene theology its State Religion, survived the Fall of Rome, grew in power, and became the Roman Church of later centuries, with the Pope replacing the emperor as head of the Church. From the Roman Church, the Trinity doctrine spread to almost all denominations. In a very real sense, the modern world inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Empire.
That ends the overview. We will now discuss this subject in more detail. See here for this article in MP3 format.
The Trinity
“Three Persons” is misleading.
This article first elaborates on the statement above that the phrase “three Persons” is misleading.
The Trinity doctrine is often explained as one God, existing as three Persons. For example, GotQuestions defines “the doctrine of the Trinity” as follows:
“There is one and only one true and living God” who “exists in three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.”
However, while the phrase “three Persons” implies three distinct minds, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind. In other words, they share a single will, consciousness, and self-awareness.
Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, in his book, ‘The Trinity,’ admits that the term “persons” implies distinct minds. He wrote:
“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]” (Rahner).
However, Rahner added that, in God, there exists only one power, one will, one mind, one self-presence, one consciousness, and only one self-awareness. He states that these qualities do not distinguish the divine Persons from one another, but are derived from the shared essence.
Lewis Ayres stated similarly that the Persons do not “possess different natures, wills, or activities.”
Consequently, Trinitarian scholars confirm that it is misleading to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as “Persons.” For example, R.P.C. Hanson, after explaining the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Trinity doctrine as three hypostases, three realities, and three entities, stated that he refrains from using the misleading word’ Person.’ He stated that they should rather be described as, and I quote, 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).
Another leading scholar, Khaled Anatolios, also describes them as three hypostases, but adds that the term ‘persons’ would be misleading.
“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.
The second main point of this article is that the phrase ‘three hypostases’ also fails to express the Trinity doctrine.
The standard Trinity doctrine is sometimes explained, using fourth-century Greek terms, as one ousia, or substance, but three hypostases. For example, both Hanson and Anatolios, as quoted above, described the Trinity as three hypostases. However, while the Father, Son, and Spirit, in the Trinity doctrine, are a single Being with one single mind, the Greek term hypostasis means something that exists distinct from other things.
We can firstly see this in how scholars define the term: an individual existence, a distinct individuality, something that really exists in itself, or a concrete individual.
With that understanding, in the fourth century, each hypostasis has a distinct mind. We see that in how this term was used:
The Arians confessed three hypostases but one in agreement. By adding “one in agreement,” Arians indicate that the three hypostases are three distinct minds.
In opposition to them, the original Nicenes, who were not yet Trinitarians, proclaimed one hypostasis in the Godhead, by which they meant a single mind.
For example, Athanasius, the leading Nicene, “is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son exercises his own judgment of free-will.” (Hanson, p. 428). As another example, at Serdica, in 343, the Nicenes criticized the Arian view of distinct minds in the Godhead. They stated that “differences and disputes could exist between God the Father Almighty and the Son, which is altogether absurd” (Hanson, p. 302).
However, the Trinity doctrine does not use the term as it was used in the fourth century. In the Trinity doctrine, a hypostasis does not mean a distinct Being with a distinct mind. This causes confusion. A present-day person, who understands the term hypostasis as it is used in the Trinity doctrine, would not understand what Origen and the Arians meant by three hypostases.
The distinction between the Persons is invisible.
So far, we have argued that the terms “Persons” and “hypostases” in the Trinity doctrine are misleading. The third main point of this article is that, in the Trinity doctrine, the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is invisible to the created universe. The creation only sees one Person:
For example, Anatolios wrote that, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, outwardly in creation, always operate as a unity, but they are internally differentiated. The only difference between them is their relationships of origin, but that is an internal distinction.
Ayres stated this principle like this: “The distinctions between them are real, but we do not know what it is to exist distinctly in this state” (Ayres, p. 295).
The three Persons are really “three modes.”
Therefore, as the fourth main point of this article, in the Trinity doctrine, since the terms ‘Persons’ and ‘hypostases’ are misleading, and since the distinction between them is invisible, the three Persons are better described as “three modes” of God. Scholars confirm this. 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).
Karl Rahner described them as three ways in which God subsists.
“The idealist direction of [Karl] Rahner’s thought is further seen in the way he articulates his substitution of ‘manner of subsisting’ (distinkte Susbsistenzweisen). 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).
The challenge is to show how this differs from Modalism, the second-century Monarchianism, in which Father and Son are merely two names for the same Being.
To repeat, in the Trinity doctrine, the ‘Persons’ are not real persons or hypostases because they share one single mind. The distinction between them is invisible. They are merely three modes of the one God.
Three equal Minds would be Tritheism.
Given these points, the reader might be inclined to respond and say, ‘Yes, that may be the orthodox Trinity doctrine, but I believe in a Trinity of three Persons with three distinct minds.’ That might be consistent with the Bible. In what is known as the Social Trinity, several scholars support such a view. However, if the three Persons are equal, there would be three Almighty Beings, which is Tritheism.
When one holds to three distinct Minds in the Godhead, to avoid confessing three Gods, two of the Minds must be subordinate to the other. On the other hand, to admit that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father would be tantamount to ‘Arianism.’
The Arians believed in a trinity of three distinct divine Beings, each with a distinct mind (see here). The often-repeated statement that the Arians believed that the Son is a created being is an anachronism (see here). For example, Anatolios wrote, “We have to resist the anachronistic characterization of him (that is, Arius) as an antitrinitarian theologian.” Arius simply wrote, “There are three hypostaseis.” In other words, these three Beings form a certain unity and are the object of Christian confession.
It is to avoid both Tritheism, three equal Gods, and Arianism, three unequal Gods, that the orthodox Trinity doctrine has to maintain that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind.
The Incarnation
So far, we have focused on the Son’s pre-incarnate nature. We will now proceed to discuss His incarnated 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).
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 incarnated
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 incarnated 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.
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 cliches, 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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 a 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.
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
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
Other articles in this series
Trinity Doctrine
Arian Controversy
Pre-Nicene Fathers
Arius
-
-
- Arianism was orthodox when the Controversy began.
- Arius Scholarship over the Centuries
- What did Arius teach?
- Did Arius say time existed before the Son?
- Did he cause the Arian Controversy?
- Why do many regard him as an antichrist?
- How did he differ from the pre-Nicene fathers?
- Was Origen the ultimate source of his heresy?
-
The Nicene Council (AD 325)
-
-
- Emperor Constantine manipulated the Council.
- How Arians justified acceptance of the Creed
- Was the Creed a Sabellian victory?
- The Trinity doctrine did not exist in 325.
- The Trinity doctrine deviates from the Nicene Creed.
- Subordination in the Nicene Creed MP3
- What did homoousios mean?
- The Egyptian Origin of Homoousios
- Homoousios disappeared after Nicaea.
- All main Nicenes were deposed after Nicaea.
-
The Divided Empire (340s)
Arianism
Nicenes
-
-
- Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian.
- Athanasius’s view of Incarnation
- Athanasius’ revised explanation of the Nicene Creed (362)
- Was Athanasius justly deposed for violence?
- What did the Sabellians teach?
- Basil of Caesarea taught three divine Beings.
- The Meletian Schism – Athanasius vs. Basil
-
Emperor Theodosius
Later Centuries