Ante-Nicene Fathers On The Trinity

[MasterXploder7]

So in preparing a seminar against “Oneness” I have come to the roadblock that is the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

For those who don’t know, “Oneness” (from my experience) is a combination of Arianism, Modalism and Nestorianism (all heresies).

Those who teach “Oneness” openly quote the apostolic fathers to persuade people to their religion. And the closest thing to a champion for the Trinity is Tertullian who also posits a subordination view (i.e. Christ and the Holy Ghost are below the Father). Now, this wouldn’t be much of an issue, given the understanding of the Nicene creed, that both the Word and the Holy Spirit are generated from the Father except that part of the Trinity doctrine is its co-equality aspect.

I should note, Tertullian does give an amazing defense of the idea of the Trinity in his work “Against Praxeas”. The clarity by which he describes that Jesus is a person distinct from the Father (but not separate in divine nature) is mind blowing and incredible. But the failure in his doctrine is that he does not properly ascent to the co-equality aspect. I should mention I am only about half-way through the document.

Am I to understand that the co-equality of the Trinity is not part of the originally taught faith - which would make it a potentially superfluous addition?

This isn’t to say I am in danger of apostasy, I think any form of Modalism wreaks havoc on the Bible’s narrative and message (especially the Nestorian aspect of the “Oneness” movement). But I would really like some help in figuring out how to defend every aspect of the Trinity.

EDIT:
. . . . Here are a few presentations from Catholic Answers affirming belief in the Trinity in both the Bible and early Church.

What the Early Church Believed: The Trinity | Catholic Answers Tract

How to Defend the Doctrine of the Trinity | Catholic Answers Magazine

Defending the Trinity | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Montrose]

You have given a link to CARM. As CARM is an anti-Catholic website I believe it is against forum rules to give such a link.

 

[Hodos]

The subordination that Tertullian speaks of is one of the internal workings within the Godhead, and is completely scriptural. The Son does subject himself to the Father’s will, as does the Holy Spirit within their roles in the oikonomia of salvation. This is different than the inequality of the subordinationists who insist that this inequality in the work of salvation translates to the idea that the Son and the Holy Spirit are lesser divinities. As the author of Hebrews says, the Son is the exact representation of the Father’s nature, and yet, in the outworking of salvation, he serves as the mediator between the Father and man. The word co-equal means that in their nature the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally divine.

 

[Vico]

So in preparing a seminar against “Oneness” I have come to the roadblock that is the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
… But I would really like some help in figuring out how to defend every aspect of the Trinity.
…

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was where consubstantial (homoousios) was accepted by the whole Church according to the apostolic tradition. Those before the council professing the Holy Trinity, include St. Justin Martyr (100-165) that wrote that the Messiah was “Son who is God” in Dialogue with Trypho. Irenaeus of Lyons (120–202) wrote in Against Heresies 3, 6, 2 that "God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father and has the Father in himself”. Tertullian (145-220) wrote in Against Praxeas, Chapter II “… yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.” And Origen (185-254) wrote in Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter VI: “… they who are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth … there was no goodness in them by essential being, as in God and His Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of essential being; while others possess it as an accidental and perishable quality, and only then enjoy blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in divinity itself.”

It was reaffirmed after that date also since the Symbol of Faith was amended by local synod of 381 and accepted by Rome also in 451 Council of Chalcedon. However some of the Christians that accepted 325 Council of Nicaea accepted neither the 381 Council of Constantinople nor the 451 Council of Chalcedon.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed “the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father”.67

66 The English phrases “of one being” and “one in being” translate the Greek word homoousios , which was rendered in Latin by consubstantialis .
67Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed; cf. DS 150.

247 … Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. …

253 The Trinity is One . We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 …

83 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 421.

 

[Gorgias]

Am I to understand that the co-equality of the Trinity is not part of the originally taught faith - which would make it a potentially superfluous addition?

No. Prior to the conciliar writings on the understanding of the divinity of Jesus and on the Trinity, there were a number of ideas floating around. (In fact, the whole reason for calling councils in the first place was to address the various ideas that some folks had, in order to declare a definitive teaching!)

So, I think I would say that it was more the case that the common understanding was “Jesus is a divine person” and “the Trinity is co-equal”, but that there were others who attempted to teach other ideas that conflicted with these thoughts. The role of the councils, then, was to quash these untrue doctrines.

 

[runningdude]

Am I to understand that the co-equality of the Trinity is not part of the originally taught faith - which would make it a potentially superfluous addition?

Does Turtellian outright say Jesus is not equal?

It may rather be a case of implied philosophical necessarity. It doesn’t seem intuitively logical how God could could possess an attribute that is inferior to anyone, even inferior to himself.

 

[MasterXploder7]

Tertullian says that Jesus is derived from the Father - because Jesus is the Intelligence of God.
Quite literally, Tertullian describes Jesus as the person within God that helps God think. This is the way by which Tertullian argues that Jesus has always existed (not by being the Word only but also the Reason within God). Thus we can synthesize from Tertullian that: Jesus is eternal because of God’s omniscience.

This doesn’t answer your question though. He states that Jesus is derived from the Father. This is not an issue of nature or essence, because Tertullian gives no hints that he is suggesting that Jesus is of a different nature/essence. Just that Jesus finds his generation from the Father.

I understand that this generation by the Father amounts to something that the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rite would know as being the “Monarchy of the Father”.

The Monarchy of the Father, so I have found, is an acceptable “degree” of subordinationism within the Trinity, because it doesn’t denigrate any of the persons of the Godhead, but I haven’t found any straightforward articles saying such a thing - only that it is implied.

 

[po18guy]

You have given a link to CARM. As CARM is an anti-Catholic website I believe it is against forum rules to give such a link.

And, never mind the Trinity - Slick Matt no longer believes that baptism is necessary for salvation.