J
- Status
J
jcrichton
Guest
J
jcrichton
Guest
If that is the case, then the poster should be banned from this site–unless the Catholic Church is now in the business of accepting all theologies as sound!The poster referenced that we need to read the shack. Although I haven’t read it yet, it is on my summer reading list.
The book is supposed to be a very good read, but some of the theology is a little questionable, especially the part where God is a woman.I hope I’m not confusing stories.
Maran atha!
Angel
I
Ignatius
Guest
“Before Adam was I AM.”
J
jcrichton
Guest
Your problem is that you desire to know God through the wisdom of a man/men… here’s the difference between performers of miracles and Christ:
Christ is the Only Giver of the Holy Spirit, the Only Giver of Life, the Only Way to the Father, the Only Name by which all will be Saved, the Only True Shepherd, the Only King, the Only Lord, the Only Savior… all others are servants given some measure of the Power of God through the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
Ask your man savior to identify where the Father Begins and where He Ends and where the Son Begins and where He Ends:
11 And now I saw heaven open, and a white horse appear; its rider was called Trustworthy and True; in uprightness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were flames of fire, and he was crowned with many coronets; the name written on him was known only to himself,
13 his cloak was soaked in blood. He is known by the name, The Word of God. 14 Behind him, dressed in linen of dazzling white, rode the armies of heaven on white horses. 15 From his mouth came a sharp sword with which to strike the unbelievers; he is the one who will rule them with an iron sceptre, and tread out the wine of Almighty God’s fierce retribution. 16 On his cloak and on his thigh a name was written: King of kings and Lord of lords. (Apocalypse 19:11-16)
Don’t forget that whenever someone denies the Son he/she is also denying the Father:
1 My dear friends, not every spirit is to be trusted, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets are at large in the world. 2 This is the proof of the spirit of God: any spirit which acknowledges Jesus Christ, come in human nature, is from God,
3 and no spirit which fails to acknowledge Jesus is from God; it is the spirit of Antichrist, whose coming you have heard of; he is already at large in the world. 4 Children, you are from God and have overcome them, because he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world, and therefore the world inspires what they say, and listens to them. 6 We are from God; who ever recognises God listens to us; anyone who is not from God refuses to listen to us. This is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood. 7 My dear friends, let us love one another, since love is from God and everyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. 8 Whoever fails to love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is the revelation of God’s love for us, that God sent his only Son into the world that we might have life through him. 10 Love consists in this: it is not we who loved God, but God loved us and sent his Son to expiate our sins. 11 My dear friends, if God loved us so much, we too should love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God, but as long as we love one another God remains in us and his love comes to its perfection in us.
13 This is the proof that we remain in him and he in us, that he has given us a share in his Spirit. 14 We ourselves have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as Saviour of the world. 15 Anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God. 16 We have recognised for ourselves, and put our faith in, the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. 17 Love comes to its perfection in us when we can face the Day of Judgement fearlessly, because even in this world we have become as he is. (1 St. John 4:1-17)
I will pray for you so that the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, may enlighten your mind and spirit so that you repent and seek to join His Body!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
That’s because you lack understanding and humility… just listen to your own line of reason:another evidence… can you explain what is in luke 10: 21-22?? haha
i wish this may not be hard for you…
**21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
22"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."**
ok?
i wish you would not say that jesus is talking to his self or he is facing at a mirror. (huh?? haha) he is talking to the father/god, the almighty… how can you say that jesus is the true and only one god? hmmmm… jesus is a man, yes! but not god…
Jesus, who you claim to be a mere man, is strong than the Father since Only Jesus is the One able to reveal the Father to humanity…
Sadly, your theology is so flawed that you do not even see your error due to the myriad of holes and blotches it contains…
Unless you ignore Scriptures or remove the passages that negates your belief you cannot escape the fact that Jesus is God:
31 Look! You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David; 33 he will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end.’ 34 Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I have no knowledge of man?’ 35 The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.
39 Mary set out at that time and went as quickly as she could into the hill country to a town in Judah. 40 She went into Zechariah’s house and greeted Elizabeth. 41 Now it happened that as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 She gave a loud cry and said, 'Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 Why should I be honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord? 44 Look, the moment your greeting reached my ears, the child in my womb leapt for joy. (St. Luke 1:31-35, 39-44)
Please allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten you; do not be as Lucifer that thought that he could usurp God!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
You are making an arguement against yourself!
The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because they fully understood that He made Himself equal to Yahweh God by calling Himself the Son of God!
Please, remove your blinders and allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten you:
3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and bears the impress of God’s own being, sustaining all things by his powerful command; and now that he has purged sins away, he has taken his seat at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high. 4 So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name. 5 To which of the angels, then, has God ever said: You are my Son, today I have fathered you, or: I shall be a father to him and he a son to me? 6 Again, when he brings the First-born into the world, he says: Let all the angels of God pay him homage. 7 To the angels, he says: appointing the winds his messengers and flames of fire his servants, 8 but to the Son he says: Your throne, God, is for ever and ever; and: the sceptre of his kingdom is a sceptre of justice; 9 you love uprightness and detest evil. This is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness, as none of your rivals. 10 And again: Long ago, Lord, you laid earth’s foundations, the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They pass away but you remain, they all wear out like a garment. 12 Like a cloak you will roll them up, like a garment, and they will be changed. But you never alter and your years are unending. (Hebrews 1:3-12)
The Father Himself calls the Son God and pronounces that He is Eternal and Commands His Creatures to Serve Him… why do you doubt, Thomas?
Maran atha!
Angel
F
fghgj
Guest
R
read_me
Guest
TO JCRICHTON:
are statements also contradicting??
that you want to prove that jesus is god??
see then. you said these verses,
1 My dear friends, not every spirit is to be trusted, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets are at large in the world. 2 This is the proof of the spirit of God: any spirit which acknowledges Jesus Christ, come in human nature, is **from **God,
3 and no spirit which fails to acknowledge Jesus is from God; it is the spirit of Antichrist, whose coming you have heard of; he is already at large in the world. 4 Children, you are from God and have overcome them, because he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world, and therefore the world inspires what they say, and listens to them. 6 We are from God; who ever recognises God listens to us; anyone who is not from God refuses to listen to us. This is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood. 7 My dear friends, let us love one another, since love is from God and everyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. 8 Whoever fails to love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is the revelation of God’s love for us, that God sent his only Son into the world that we might have life through him. 10 Love consists in this: it is not we who loved God, but God loved us and sent his Son to expiate our sins. 11 My dear friends, if God loved us so much, we too should love one another. 12 No one has ever seen **God, **but as long as we love one another God remains in us and his love comes to its perfection in us.
13 This is the proof that we remain in him and he in us, that he has given us a share in his Spirit. 14 We ourselves have seen and **testify that the Father sent his Son as Saviour of the world. ** 15 Anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God. 16 We have recognised for ourselves, and put our faith in, the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. 17 Love comes to its perfection in us when we can face the Day of Judgement fearlessly, because even in this world we have become as he is(1 St. John 4:1-17)
at 2, it says that is FROM god, and not to jesus as himself. and at 3, it says that jesus is FROM god, it doesnt say that jesus is from himself, right?? because in 4, 5 and 6 and even to other verses, we are also FROM god because "everyone who loves is a child of God ." and the proof is at 9, that "This is the revelation of God’s love for us, that god sent his only Son into the world. and at 14,We ourselves have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as Saviour of the world. and at 15,Anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God… and etc! OK??? we cant end these proofs and these arguments and even we already full this site with comments or proofs! until everyone will be lighten up to the believe of trinity if it is wrong or right. right??? haha
are statements also contradicting??
that you want to prove that jesus is god??
see then. you said these verses,
1 My dear friends, not every spirit is to be trusted, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets are at large in the world. 2 This is the proof of the spirit of God: any spirit which acknowledges Jesus Christ, come in human nature, is **from **God,
3 and no spirit which fails to acknowledge Jesus is from God; it is the spirit of Antichrist, whose coming you have heard of; he is already at large in the world. 4 Children, you are from God and have overcome them, because he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world, and therefore the world inspires what they say, and listens to them. 6 We are from God; who ever recognises God listens to us; anyone who is not from God refuses to listen to us. This is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood. 7 My dear friends, let us love one another, since love is from God and everyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. 8 Whoever fails to love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is the revelation of God’s love for us, that God sent his only Son into the world that we might have life through him. 10 Love consists in this: it is not we who loved God, but God loved us and sent his Son to expiate our sins. 11 My dear friends, if God loved us so much, we too should love one another. 12 No one has ever seen **God, **but as long as we love one another God remains in us and his love comes to its perfection in us.
13 This is the proof that we remain in him and he in us, that he has given us a share in his Spirit. 14 We ourselves have seen and **testify that the Father sent his Son as Saviour of the world. ** 15 Anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God. 16 We have recognised for ourselves, and put our faith in, the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. 17 Love comes to its perfection in us when we can face the Day of Judgement fearlessly, because even in this world we have become as he is(1 St. John 4:1-17)
at 2, it says that is FROM god, and not to jesus as himself. and at 3, it says that jesus is FROM god, it doesnt say that jesus is from himself, right?? because in 4, 5 and 6 and even to other verses, we are also FROM god because "everyone who loves is a child of God ." and the proof is at 9, that "This is the revelation of God’s love for us, that god sent his only Son into the world. and at 14,We ourselves have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as Saviour of the world. and at 15,Anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God… and etc! OK??? we cant end these proofs and these arguments and even we already full this site with comments or proofs! until everyone will be lighten up to the believe of trinity if it is wrong or right. right??? haha
R
read_me
Guest
And see? even the devil or SATAN know about jesus!! he is asking jesus like this, “If you are the Son of god” and these are repeated!!
the devil doesnt asked jesus that “if you are god”
RIGHT??
J
jcrichton
Guest
I use Scriptures to demonstrate that Jesus is God, so there is no contradiction.
You use Scriptures that demonstrate that Jesus is God, yet you reject Scriptures by applying your own interpretation that denies the Son while Scriptures tell you that to deny the Son is to deny the Father–you live a contradiction!
Maran atha!
Angel
L
Louie1983
Guest
"- Matt. 4:7 Jesus tells satan, “you shall not tempt the Lord your God” in reference to Himself.
the phrase what i was bold is not written in the bible!!"
I know it wasn’t readme, that’s why i inserted the end quote after the word god…??? the bold in writing was me. i didn;t pretend that that quote was in the bible. In other words i was quoting the bible! and then i inserted my comment separately.
the phrase what i was bold is not written in the bible!!"
I know it wasn’t readme, that’s why i inserted the end quote after the word god…??? the bold in writing was me. i didn;t pretend that that quote was in the bible. In other words i was quoting the bible! and then i inserted my comment separately.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Yeah and? this proves nothing readme.
your quotes prove nothing…the quotes i provided wwere the verses and chapters only, then i put in my comments. i didn’t actually quote the verse as i thought it would have been well known to everyone. I think you have mistaken my quotea around, i apologise for this as i should have actually put the verse in there, i just left the verse and chapter in some cases.
Jesus tells satan you shall not tempt the lord your god because the devil is trying to tempt jesus! he is asking him to turn the stones into bread but jesus being god cannot contradict himself as he correctly rebukes the devil.
J
jcrichton
Guest
I will attempt to explain it to you:
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit out into the desert to be put to the test by the devil.
The Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Father, leads Jesus to the desert–God is completely aware of Satan’s desire to stop the Son from fulfilling His Mission (Genesis 3:15; Apocalypse 12:1-18) and Satan is allowed to test God’s resolve!
2 He fasted for forty days and forty nights, after which he was hungry,
It is doubtful that a mere man could fast (do without nurishment) for such a lengthy amount of time; Jesus human reserves were fortified by His connection to God’s Divinity.
3 and the tester came and said to him, ‘If you are Son of God, tell these stones to turn into loaves.’ 4 But he replied, ‘Scripture says: Human beings live not on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’
Satan knows Who Jesus is and is seeking to appeal to His human condition (hunger) to cause Jesus to reveal that He is God–this of course would violate the Mission of the Lamb of God who comes not for His own merits and glorification but to Glorify the Father and to teach us obedience and reliance upon the Father’s Will and Providence.
5 The devil then took him to the holy city and set him on the parapet of the Temple.
6 ‘If you are Son of God,’ he said, ‘throw yourself down; for scripture says: He has given his angels orders about you, and they will carry you in their arms in case you trip over a stone.’
7 Jesus said to him, ‘Scripture also says: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’
Here we are given a quick glance at Lucifers powers; though removed from God’s presence and fellowship Satan is still a spiritual being with powers beyond human abilities; he transports Jesus to a tall building and appeals to His vanity: being God’s Son He would not be subject to any undo pain or suffering; this too would violate His Mission as it would demonstrate that He is God (angels serving Him); yet, Jesus ego is fully checked as He reminds Satan not to test God’s resolve.
8 Next, taking him to a very high mountain, the devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour. 9 And he said to him, ‘I will give you all these, if you fall at my feet and do me homage.’ 10 Then Jesus replied, ‘Away with you, Satan! For scripture says: The Lord your God is the one to whom you must do homage, him alone you must serve.’ 11 Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels appeared and looked after him.
Finally, Satan appeals to Jesus’ Divinity; he knows that everything that was Created was Created by Him and for Him but that Jesus divested Himself of His Divinity in order to fulfill the Divine Salvific Plan where Yahweh God promises Israel that He will come to the Temple and Live among His people–that they will be Instructed by God; rather than allow Himself the Glory which was His had He reclaimed His full Divinity, Jesus ignores the offer, Commands Satan to leave His presence, and reminds Him that none but God Alone may receive homange (may be worshiped); Satan knows that he has been Commanded by God to make himself scarse and he vanishes into nothingness (leaves) without even the weakest confrontation; as Jesus remains victorious (last man standing) the angels serve Him!
Satan, with his full spiritual powers, could not cause Jesus, at his weakened human condition, to sabotage His course as God’s Only Begotten and Fully Obedient Son!
Your error lies in that you believe that the Lamb of God was supposed to behave as the Lion of Israel.
Maran atha!
Angel
B
baddog
Guest
Satan asks "if you are the Son of God. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Kind begets kind. A son has the same nature as his father. God’s nature is eternal. (From everlasting to everlasting.) Therefore the Son is also eternal. (Eternally begotten by His Father.)
Also God isn’t one and three in the same way. God is what God is, and person is who God is. Therefore we have one divine nature, (God) but three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) who are the one God. One God, but three persons.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Readme,
If we use your “pick and choose” literalistic interpretation and implement it into the rest of the New Testament, we would have to wonder who the Father of Jesus is.
Wouldn’t it be the Holy Spirit, and not God?
If we use your “pick and choose” literalistic interpretation and implement it into the rest of the New Testament, we would have to wonder who the Father of Jesus is.
Wouldn’t it be the Holy Spirit, and not God?
R
read_me
Guest
and i had just realized that i make my self tired because even i show all the proofs that jesus is not god and even that was in the BIBLE … still, i got SAME answers from all of you. at the end, it is about, the TRINITY, TRINITY, TRINITY… that was the reason why everyone cant escape from the teaching of trinity, and so, pointing out that jesus is god.
do all you noticed it? haha
FROM: iglesianicristo.info/incarticles_/fundamentalbelief.html
Notwithstanding the ordinary members’ familiar belief, both Catholic and Protestant theologians readily admit that the term “trinity” is not in the Scriptures. Protestant theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong in his Systematic Theology writes: The term “trinity” is not found in Scriptures …[Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907), p.304]
Catholic defenders, Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, in their popular work, Radio Replies, state:
As a matter of fact the term “trinity” cannot be found in the New nor in the Old Testament. "The word “Trinity” does not appear in the New Testament’ says a Catholic Catechism, “and the meanings of the words ‘person’ and ‘nature’, in the precise senses in which these words are used to bear the message of God, had to be carefully refined to bear that message rightly.” [Ronald Lawler, ed., The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, Nihil Obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D. (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. 1976), p. 177.]
Joseph Phohle, author of The Divine Trinity: A dogmatic Treatise, admits that “it cannot be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament.” He observes that “the exact terms in which the [Catholic] Church has formally defined the dogma of the Blessed Trinity are not in the Bible,” and concludes, that it “may, therefore, in a sense be called unscriptural” (p. 22).
The invention of the term trinity is ascribed to Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian. About the year 180, almost a century after the death of the Apostles, Theophilus wrote three books in defense of “Christianity.” These books were collected in one volume under the title Ad autolycum. There Theophilus speaks of the “Triad of the Godhead” using a single Greek term “trias” and thereby went down in the history of the Catholic doctrines as the first theologian to have so articulated the Catholic Church’s conception of the trinity.
About the year 220, the term found expression in Latin literature in the writings of a certain Tertullian who used the term “trinitas” as the equivalent of the Greek “trias.” A.A. Hodge gives the etymology and meaning of the word trinity thus:
… The Greek word trias was first used in this connection by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, in Syria, from A.D. 168 to A.D. 183. The Latin term Trinitas was first introduced by Tertullian, circum. 220 [A.A. Hodge, Outline of Theology: for Students and Laymen (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1879), p. 164.]
Gradually, the term - and the concept is obscurely represented - gained adherents. And it was not long before most of the early Catholic Church Fathers were speculating on this teaching producing an avalanche of literature that make the doctrine of the trinity seem to be a biblical precept to many readers of today. It was confounded by the introduction during those early centuries of such newly-coined words as “persona,” “substancia,” “hypostasis,” Such virtual theological overkill had done nothing more than to obscure the fact that the invention of the term trinity did not occur until the latter part of the second century and the early part of the third century and that it only came into the religious scene long after the death of the Apostles and after the last books of the New Testament were written.
So it must be stressed here that the Bible has nothing to do with the introduction of the term “trinity” into the language of the Catholic Church. The term, as far as the true Christians are concerned, is a radical innovation, a novel invention completely alien to the Holy Scriptures.
As a matter of fact, this is one instance in a series of gradual but very discernible changes that occurred in the doctrines of the true Christ Church after the death of the Apostles. Such changes indicated falling away or departure from the faith. They clearly reflected in the writings of the early Catholic Church Fathers.
Louis Berkhol noted that -
It is frequently remarked that in passing from the study of the New Testament to that of the Apostolic Fathers one is conscious of a tremendous change … And this is no wonder, for it means the transition from the truth given by infallible inspiration to truth reproduced by fallible pioneers. [Louis Berkhol, The History of Christian Doctrines (Michigan: Mallby, Inc., 1937), p. 38].
Consider, for instance, the introduction of the teaching that presents Christ as the true God. It has no biblical foundation. Rather, it contradicts every biblical teaching on the absolute oneness of God.
The New Testament never taught that Christ is the true God. Some Catholic theologians came to realize this after attempting to find biblical support for the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Raymond Brown testifies that -
do all you noticed it? haha
FROM: iglesianicristo.info/incarticles_/fundamentalbelief.html
Notwithstanding the ordinary members’ familiar belief, both Catholic and Protestant theologians readily admit that the term “trinity” is not in the Scriptures. Protestant theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong in his Systematic Theology writes: The term “trinity” is not found in Scriptures …[Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907), p.304]
Catholic defenders, Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, in their popular work, Radio Replies, state:
Code:
The Bible does not use the word purgatory any more than it uses the word Trinity, ...[Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, Radio Replies, Vol. III (Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1979), p. 224.]Joseph Phohle, author of The Divine Trinity: A dogmatic Treatise, admits that “it cannot be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament.” He observes that “the exact terms in which the [Catholic] Church has formally defined the dogma of the Blessed Trinity are not in the Bible,” and concludes, that it “may, therefore, in a sense be called unscriptural” (p. 22).
The invention of the term trinity is ascribed to Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian. About the year 180, almost a century after the death of the Apostles, Theophilus wrote three books in defense of “Christianity.” These books were collected in one volume under the title Ad autolycum. There Theophilus speaks of the “Triad of the Godhead” using a single Greek term “trias” and thereby went down in the history of the Catholic doctrines as the first theologian to have so articulated the Catholic Church’s conception of the trinity.
About the year 220, the term found expression in Latin literature in the writings of a certain Tertullian who used the term “trinitas” as the equivalent of the Greek “trias.” A.A. Hodge gives the etymology and meaning of the word trinity thus:
Code:
What is the etymology and meaning of the word Trinity, and when was it introduced into the language of the church?
The word trinity (Trinitas) is derived either from tres-unus, trinus, or from trias, three in one, or the one which is three, and the three which are one; not triplex - trinitas not triplicitas. This word is not found in the Scriptures.Gradually, the term - and the concept is obscurely represented - gained adherents. And it was not long before most of the early Catholic Church Fathers were speculating on this teaching producing an avalanche of literature that make the doctrine of the trinity seem to be a biblical precept to many readers of today. It was confounded by the introduction during those early centuries of such newly-coined words as “persona,” “substancia,” “hypostasis,” Such virtual theological overkill had done nothing more than to obscure the fact that the invention of the term trinity did not occur until the latter part of the second century and the early part of the third century and that it only came into the religious scene long after the death of the Apostles and after the last books of the New Testament were written.
So it must be stressed here that the Bible has nothing to do with the introduction of the term “trinity” into the language of the Catholic Church. The term, as far as the true Christians are concerned, is a radical innovation, a novel invention completely alien to the Holy Scriptures.
As a matter of fact, this is one instance in a series of gradual but very discernible changes that occurred in the doctrines of the true Christ Church after the death of the Apostles. Such changes indicated falling away or departure from the faith. They clearly reflected in the writings of the early Catholic Church Fathers.
Louis Berkhol noted that -
It is frequently remarked that in passing from the study of the New Testament to that of the Apostolic Fathers one is conscious of a tremendous change … And this is no wonder, for it means the transition from the truth given by infallible inspiration to truth reproduced by fallible pioneers. [Louis Berkhol, The History of Christian Doctrines (Michigan: Mallby, Inc., 1937), p. 38].
Consider, for instance, the introduction of the teaching that presents Christ as the true God. It has no biblical foundation. Rather, it contradicts every biblical teaching on the absolute oneness of God.
The New Testament never taught that Christ is the true God. Some Catholic theologians came to realize this after attempting to find biblical support for the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Raymond Brown testifies that -
R
read_me
Guest
continuation…
Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like MK. 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus w as called God in the earliest layer of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in nay epistle written before 58. [Raymond Brown, Jesus God and Man (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 19670, p. 30]
It is quite true. The New Testament never called Jesus God simply because it would contradict the teaching it has already set, in no uncertain terms, that Christ is man; and the very fact that Christ is man is sufficient proof that He is not God.
So it is indeed remarkable that, after the death of the Apostles, a teaching so different from what they preached crept into the mainstream of the early Christian belief.
The New Testament teaches that Christ is man, whereas, “The oldest surviving sermon of the Christian * church after the New Testament opened with the words: ‘Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God’ … Clearly it was the message of what the church believed and taught that ‘God’ was an appropriate name of Jesus Christ.” [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), p. 173).]
Rudolf Bultmann, a well-known theologian, observes that “it is only with the Apostolic Fathers that free unambiguous reference to Jesus Christ as ‘our God’ begins” [Raymond Brown, Jesus God and Man, p. 29.].
These confirm Berkhol’s observation that “in passing from the study of the New Testament to that of the Apostolic Fathers one is conscious of a tremendous change.” The change from the Apostles’ belief that Christ is man to the early Catholic Church Fathers’ belief that He is God is indeed a tremendous one.
It should not surprise us though, for the Apostles had forewarned that deceivers would come preaching “another Jesus, whom we have not preached” (II Cor. 11:4). We now know that fulfillment of that prophecy.
Now, take note that we are not actually digressing from the subject we set out to discuss here, namely, the trinity. The doctrine of the so-called trinity is very closely related to the doctrine of the so-called deity of Christ. As a matter of fact the two doctrines have, what we may call, a symbiotic relation. If they are valid at all, this “validity,” too, is interdependent, so that they are from the very start doomed to crumble together.
To trace the origin of the doctrine of the trinity one has to begin with the doctrine of the so-called deity of Christ. After all, as Shedd puts it:
The construction of the doctrine of the Trinity started not so much from a consideration of the three Persons, as from a belief in the deity of one of them, namely the Son. This was the root of the most speculative dogma in the Christian system. [William G.T. Shedd, D.D., History of the Christian Doctrine, Vol. I (Minnesota: Klock and Klock Christian Publishers, 1889), p. 262.]
We have seen that it was not until after the death of the Apostles that the doctrine of the deity of Christ emerged. It w as introduced by the early Catholic Church Fathers, and the Apostles had nothing to do with them nor with their teachings. This fact poses a very pertinent question: Why did the early Catholics, the so-called Christians of the second and third centuries, teach that Christ is the true God?
During the second and third centuries the Church was severely persecuted by both the Greeks and the Jews. One particular object of such attacks was the Christian practice of worshipping Christ. The Jews denounced such worship as utter polytheism. This is understandable, considering the Jews’ strict adherence to the Old Testament teaching on the absolute oneness of God. The Greeks, on the other hand, denounced the Christians as atheists. Church historian Williston Walker puts it thus:
The charges brought against the Christians were atheism and anarchy. Their rejection of the old gods seemed atheism; and their refusal to join in emperor-worship appeared treasonable. [Williston Walker; A History Of The Christian Church, 3rd ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1970), p.43).
Some of the contemporary philosophers charged them with polytheism too:
Thus Celsus, a scoffing philosopher of the third century, contended that the Christians had no right to criticize the polytheism of the pagan world since their own worship of Christ was essentially polytheistic. ‘The Christians,’ he declared, ‘worshipped no God; no, not even a demon, but only a dead man … If they do not wish to worship the pagan gods,’ he said, 'why should they not rather pay their devotions to some of their own prophets than to a man who had been crucified by the Jews?" [Rev. John A. O’Brien, Ll. D., The Faith of Millions, Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edward A. Miller, Imprimatur: John Francis Noll (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1939) p. 99.]
It was in the process of answering this hostile criticism, that the early Catholic Church Fathers came up with the teaching that presents Christ as God. That, certainly, was a great blunder! They could have simply retorted that the Christians worship Christ not because He is God but because it was the will of God. As it is written in Philippians 2:9-11:
For this reason God raised him to the highest place above and gave him the name that is greater than any other name. And so, in honor of the name of Jesus all beings in heaven, on earth, and in the world below will fall on their knees. And all will openly proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (TEV)*
Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like MK. 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus w as called God in the earliest layer of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in nay epistle written before 58. [Raymond Brown, Jesus God and Man (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 19670, p. 30]
It is quite true. The New Testament never called Jesus God simply because it would contradict the teaching it has already set, in no uncertain terms, that Christ is man; and the very fact that Christ is man is sufficient proof that He is not God.
So it is indeed remarkable that, after the death of the Apostles, a teaching so different from what they preached crept into the mainstream of the early Christian belief.
The New Testament teaches that Christ is man, whereas, “The oldest surviving sermon of the Christian * church after the New Testament opened with the words: ‘Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God’ … Clearly it was the message of what the church believed and taught that ‘God’ was an appropriate name of Jesus Christ.” [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), p. 173).]
Rudolf Bultmann, a well-known theologian, observes that “it is only with the Apostolic Fathers that free unambiguous reference to Jesus Christ as ‘our God’ begins” [Raymond Brown, Jesus God and Man, p. 29.].
These confirm Berkhol’s observation that “in passing from the study of the New Testament to that of the Apostolic Fathers one is conscious of a tremendous change.” The change from the Apostles’ belief that Christ is man to the early Catholic Church Fathers’ belief that He is God is indeed a tremendous one.
It should not surprise us though, for the Apostles had forewarned that deceivers would come preaching “another Jesus, whom we have not preached” (II Cor. 11:4). We now know that fulfillment of that prophecy.
Now, take note that we are not actually digressing from the subject we set out to discuss here, namely, the trinity. The doctrine of the so-called trinity is very closely related to the doctrine of the so-called deity of Christ. As a matter of fact the two doctrines have, what we may call, a symbiotic relation. If they are valid at all, this “validity,” too, is interdependent, so that they are from the very start doomed to crumble together.
To trace the origin of the doctrine of the trinity one has to begin with the doctrine of the so-called deity of Christ. After all, as Shedd puts it:
The construction of the doctrine of the Trinity started not so much from a consideration of the three Persons, as from a belief in the deity of one of them, namely the Son. This was the root of the most speculative dogma in the Christian system. [William G.T. Shedd, D.D., History of the Christian Doctrine, Vol. I (Minnesota: Klock and Klock Christian Publishers, 1889), p. 262.]
We have seen that it was not until after the death of the Apostles that the doctrine of the deity of Christ emerged. It w as introduced by the early Catholic Church Fathers, and the Apostles had nothing to do with them nor with their teachings. This fact poses a very pertinent question: Why did the early Catholics, the so-called Christians of the second and third centuries, teach that Christ is the true God?
During the second and third centuries the Church was severely persecuted by both the Greeks and the Jews. One particular object of such attacks was the Christian practice of worshipping Christ. The Jews denounced such worship as utter polytheism. This is understandable, considering the Jews’ strict adherence to the Old Testament teaching on the absolute oneness of God. The Greeks, on the other hand, denounced the Christians as atheists. Church historian Williston Walker puts it thus:
The charges brought against the Christians were atheism and anarchy. Their rejection of the old gods seemed atheism; and their refusal to join in emperor-worship appeared treasonable. [Williston Walker; A History Of The Christian Church, 3rd ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1970), p.43).
Some of the contemporary philosophers charged them with polytheism too:
Thus Celsus, a scoffing philosopher of the third century, contended that the Christians had no right to criticize the polytheism of the pagan world since their own worship of Christ was essentially polytheistic. ‘The Christians,’ he declared, ‘worshipped no God; no, not even a demon, but only a dead man … If they do not wish to worship the pagan gods,’ he said, 'why should they not rather pay their devotions to some of their own prophets than to a man who had been crucified by the Jews?" [Rev. John A. O’Brien, Ll. D., The Faith of Millions, Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edward A. Miller, Imprimatur: John Francis Noll (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1939) p. 99.]
It was in the process of answering this hostile criticism, that the early Catholic Church Fathers came up with the teaching that presents Christ as God. That, certainly, was a great blunder! They could have simply retorted that the Christians worship Christ not because He is God but because it was the will of God. As it is written in Philippians 2:9-11:
For this reason God raised him to the highest place above and gave him the name that is greater than any other name. And so, in honor of the name of Jesus all beings in heaven, on earth, and in the world below will fall on their knees. And all will openly proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (TEV)*
R
read_me
Guest
continuation…
Had they held fast to that teaching, maybe, just maybe, they would not have fallen away from the pristine Christian faith. But it seems that they did not want to justify their act of worshipping Christ using only the express teachings of the Apostles. Or perchance they did not feel such teachings were convincing enough.
How then did they answer their detractors? O’Brien states:
Origen, the greatest of the early Christian writers, defended the Christians from the attacks of Celsus. This he did, not by denying the charge that they worshipped Christ but by showing that the Savior was worthy of such adoration because He was God. “The gods of the pagans,” he answers Celsus, “were unworthy of worship: the Jewish prophets had no claim to it; on the other hand, Christ was worshipped not as a mere man, but as the Son of God, as God Himself …” [John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, p. 99.]
That answer might have been convincing to the pagans. Paul Johnson i n his book A History of Christianity states that the teaching of “the divinity of Christ gave Christianity its tremendous initial impact and assisted its universality.” But it certainly was not in line with the thought of the Apostles. The Jews were not happy either. Monotheists as they were, the Jews rejected any teaching that might jeopardize their cherished belief in the numerical oneness of God. And so, to quote Johnson again:
…it left Christian Theologians with a dilemma: how to explain the divinity of Christ while maintaining the singularity of God. Were there not two Gods? Or, if the concept of the Spirit were introduced as a separate manifestation of divinity, three? [Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, p. 89]
Catholic theologians and apologists were therefore compelled to come up with a viable explanation that would extricate them from their dilemma. The dilemma consists in these: If they say Christ is man, it might appease the Jews but would enrage the Greeks; and if they say Christ is God, it might appease the Greeks but would enrage the Jews. So if only they could think of an explanation that would satisfy the Greeks without obviously departing from the Jewish belief in the oneness of God …
It seems that the only recourse left for them was to pursue the concept of the trinity which was advanced by Theophilus and Tertullian. They must have thought it useful in establishing the relation of the Son to the Father. They tried to prove that although the Son is God and the Father is God, too, yet they are only one God. Well, they tried hard, all right.
So in 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicaea they affirmed the official Catholic belief that Christ is God. And now that the so-called Second Person of the Trinity has arrived, the “Third Person” must not be far behind. Thus, 56 years later (381 A.D.) at the Council of Constantinople, the so-called Third Person finally took its place in the trinitarian concept of the Catholic Church [Rev. Clement H. Crock, Discourses On the Apostles’ Creed, Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanian, S.T.D., Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1938), p. 206.].
It should be noted that the Holy Spirit, the so-called Third Person of the trinity, was not regarded or even called God in the past.
Theologian Joseph Pohle attests that "the Bible nowhere expressly calls the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity ‘God’ …’ (The Divine Trinity, p. 109).
Jaroslav Pelikan, author of The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), remarked that -
At Nicea the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had been disposed of in lapidary brevity: “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.” Nor does there seem to have been a single treatise dealing specifically with the person of the Spirit composed before the second half of the fourth century. [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100 - 600), p. 211.].
It is clear then that the invention of the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit should be ascribed to the Council of Constantinople. This was invented to support the doctrines of the trinity and the deity of Christ.
So here in a classic case of reasoning in a circle. An error was committed by the introduction of the doctrine of the deity of Christ which meant a departure from the pristine Christian faith. Now, realizing that there was no backing out anymore, they tried to remedy the situation by positing another theory, another error in the making: the teaching of the trinity which in turn has a built-in error in itself, i.e., the teaching that presents the Holy Spirit as the true God.
Since two wrongs do not make a right, such teachings are hardly defensible. The defense of those teachings, if at all there is one, depends on circular reasoning. Thus, to prove the doctrine of the deity of Christ they adduce to the so-called trinity, and to prove the doctrine of the trinity they adduce to the so-called deity of Christ. Now, that is a vicious cycle, if we may say so.
It is also interesting to note that although the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity began in the fourth century, it was completed only in the seventh century.
Had they held fast to that teaching, maybe, just maybe, they would not have fallen away from the pristine Christian faith. But it seems that they did not want to justify their act of worshipping Christ using only the express teachings of the Apostles. Or perchance they did not feel such teachings were convincing enough.
How then did they answer their detractors? O’Brien states:
Origen, the greatest of the early Christian writers, defended the Christians from the attacks of Celsus. This he did, not by denying the charge that they worshipped Christ but by showing that the Savior was worthy of such adoration because He was God. “The gods of the pagans,” he answers Celsus, “were unworthy of worship: the Jewish prophets had no claim to it; on the other hand, Christ was worshipped not as a mere man, but as the Son of God, as God Himself …” [John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, p. 99.]
That answer might have been convincing to the pagans. Paul Johnson i n his book A History of Christianity states that the teaching of “the divinity of Christ gave Christianity its tremendous initial impact and assisted its universality.” But it certainly was not in line with the thought of the Apostles. The Jews were not happy either. Monotheists as they were, the Jews rejected any teaching that might jeopardize their cherished belief in the numerical oneness of God. And so, to quote Johnson again:
…it left Christian Theologians with a dilemma: how to explain the divinity of Christ while maintaining the singularity of God. Were there not two Gods? Or, if the concept of the Spirit were introduced as a separate manifestation of divinity, three? [Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, p. 89]
Catholic theologians and apologists were therefore compelled to come up with a viable explanation that would extricate them from their dilemma. The dilemma consists in these: If they say Christ is man, it might appease the Jews but would enrage the Greeks; and if they say Christ is God, it might appease the Greeks but would enrage the Jews. So if only they could think of an explanation that would satisfy the Greeks without obviously departing from the Jewish belief in the oneness of God …
It seems that the only recourse left for them was to pursue the concept of the trinity which was advanced by Theophilus and Tertullian. They must have thought it useful in establishing the relation of the Son to the Father. They tried to prove that although the Son is God and the Father is God, too, yet they are only one God. Well, they tried hard, all right.
So in 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicaea they affirmed the official Catholic belief that Christ is God. And now that the so-called Second Person of the Trinity has arrived, the “Third Person” must not be far behind. Thus, 56 years later (381 A.D.) at the Council of Constantinople, the so-called Third Person finally took its place in the trinitarian concept of the Catholic Church [Rev. Clement H. Crock, Discourses On the Apostles’ Creed, Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanian, S.T.D., Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1938), p. 206.].
It should be noted that the Holy Spirit, the so-called Third Person of the trinity, was not regarded or even called God in the past.
Theologian Joseph Pohle attests that "the Bible nowhere expressly calls the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity ‘God’ …’ (The Divine Trinity, p. 109).
Jaroslav Pelikan, author of The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), remarked that -
At Nicea the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had been disposed of in lapidary brevity: “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.” Nor does there seem to have been a single treatise dealing specifically with the person of the Spirit composed before the second half of the fourth century. [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100 - 600), p. 211.].
It is clear then that the invention of the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit should be ascribed to the Council of Constantinople. This was invented to support the doctrines of the trinity and the deity of Christ.
So here in a classic case of reasoning in a circle. An error was committed by the introduction of the doctrine of the deity of Christ which meant a departure from the pristine Christian faith. Now, realizing that there was no backing out anymore, they tried to remedy the situation by positing another theory, another error in the making: the teaching of the trinity which in turn has a built-in error in itself, i.e., the teaching that presents the Holy Spirit as the true God.
Since two wrongs do not make a right, such teachings are hardly defensible. The defense of those teachings, if at all there is one, depends on circular reasoning. Thus, to prove the doctrine of the deity of Christ they adduce to the so-called trinity, and to prove the doctrine of the trinity they adduce to the so-called deity of Christ. Now, that is a vicious cycle, if we may say so.
It is also interesting to note that although the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity began in the fourth century, it was completed only in the seventh century.
R
read_me
Guest
continuation…
The most complete formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in a Creed since the times of the Fathers is found in the Symbol of the 11th Synod of Toledo (675), which is composed mosaic-like out of texts from the fathers (above all from St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Isidore of Seville), and of former Synods (especially that of the 6th Synod of Toledo, 638). [Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O’Sullivan, D.D., Imprimatur: Cornelius (Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1960), p.53)]
And this brings us to another question: Why did it take the Catholic Church so many centuries to complete its formulation of the doctrine of the trinity?
Lack of agreement among the early Catholic Fathers who attempted to organize the still “inchoate doctrine concerning the relation of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit” prolonged and “gave scope to acrimonious disputes,” says John Noss. [John B. Noss, Man’s Religions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1949, p. 624.]
This was due largely to the fact that the early Catholic Church Fathers themselves did not understand what they were talking about. Says Berkhof:
The early Church Fathers, as we have seen had no clear conception of the Trinity. [Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 83]
Naturally their teachings would not agree with one another. So while they intended to prove that the three distinct Persons in the trinity are perfectly equal to each other, their early theologians and apologists did not seem to be headed towards that direction.
For instance, according to Justin Martyr, the son is subordinate to the Father and is called “second god” - a lower level of divinity. As a matter of fact, history attest that -
Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father, even so the Spirit is subordinate to the Son. Says Berkhof:
Origen went even farther by affirming that as the Son is subordinate to the Father, even so the Spirit is subordinate to the Son. Says Berkhof:
Origen went even father in this direction by teaching explicitly that the Son is subordinate to the Father in respect to essence, and that the Holy Spirit is subordinate even to the Son. [L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Michigan Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1939, p. 82]
This was another way of saying that there is no co-equality in the persons of the trinity.
Space does not allow us to discuss here in minute detail the hairsplitting disputes that punctuated the evolution of the doctrine of the trinity. But anyone with even an elementary knowledge on the emergence of the Catholic doctrine will think twice before he contradicts the fact that conflicts in the early centuries over this doctrine became so grave as to endanger even the stability of the roman empire. “Doctrine,” says Jaroslav Pelikan, “often seemed to be the victim - or the product of Church politics and of conflicts of personality.”
To smooth out the differences, no less than Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire interfered to ensure that a compromise be reached.
It was in this spirit that Constantine (and the great majority of his successors) approached his role in Church politics. He was to be a mediator, a role he was good at and enjoyed. From Eusebius’s description of Constantine presiding at the Council of Nicea in 325 and at other great ecclesiastical gatherings we see the emperor in his element, arranging elaborate ceremony, dramatic entrances and processions and splendid services. He brought his skill in public relations to the management of Church affairs. It was a far cry from the days of the “pillars” and the council of Jerusalem. Constantine, in fact, may be said to have created the decor and ritual of Christian concillar practice. He tried also to set the tone of debate: eirenic, concillatory, urbane. It was he who insisted, as a formula for compromise, the insertion of the phrase ‘consubstantial with the Father’ in the creedal agreement. [Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1979) p. 88,]
No wonder, it took the Catholic Church so many centuries before they were able to come up with a complete formulation of the doctrine of the trinity. It was because of the lack of agreement among them which was due largely to the fact that they did not even have a clear conception and understanding of what they were talking about in the first place.
Now, here is another question: After finally completing their trinitarian formulation, does it mean they now have a clear understanding of their doctrine of the trinity?
Let us quote the candid confession of Martin J. Scott, S.J.:
The most complete formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in a Creed since the times of the Fathers is found in the Symbol of the 11th Synod of Toledo (675), which is composed mosaic-like out of texts from the fathers (above all from St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Isidore of Seville), and of former Synods (especially that of the 6th Synod of Toledo, 638). [Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O’Sullivan, D.D., Imprimatur: Cornelius (Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1960), p.53)]
And this brings us to another question: Why did it take the Catholic Church so many centuries to complete its formulation of the doctrine of the trinity?
Lack of agreement among the early Catholic Fathers who attempted to organize the still “inchoate doctrine concerning the relation of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit” prolonged and “gave scope to acrimonious disputes,” says John Noss. [John B. Noss, Man’s Religions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1949, p. 624.]
This was due largely to the fact that the early Catholic Church Fathers themselves did not understand what they were talking about. Says Berkhof:
The early Church Fathers, as we have seen had no clear conception of the Trinity. [Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 83]
Naturally their teachings would not agree with one another. So while they intended to prove that the three distinct Persons in the trinity are perfectly equal to each other, their early theologians and apologists did not seem to be headed towards that direction.
For instance, according to Justin Martyr, the son is subordinate to the Father and is called “second god” - a lower level of divinity. As a matter of fact, history attest that -
Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father, even so the Spirit is subordinate to the Son. Says Berkhof:
Origen went even farther by affirming that as the Son is subordinate to the Father, even so the Spirit is subordinate to the Son. Says Berkhof:
Origen went even father in this direction by teaching explicitly that the Son is subordinate to the Father in respect to essence, and that the Holy Spirit is subordinate even to the Son. [L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Michigan Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1939, p. 82]
This was another way of saying that there is no co-equality in the persons of the trinity.
Space does not allow us to discuss here in minute detail the hairsplitting disputes that punctuated the evolution of the doctrine of the trinity. But anyone with even an elementary knowledge on the emergence of the Catholic doctrine will think twice before he contradicts the fact that conflicts in the early centuries over this doctrine became so grave as to endanger even the stability of the roman empire. “Doctrine,” says Jaroslav Pelikan, “often seemed to be the victim - or the product of Church politics and of conflicts of personality.”
To smooth out the differences, no less than Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire interfered to ensure that a compromise be reached.
It was in this spirit that Constantine (and the great majority of his successors) approached his role in Church politics. He was to be a mediator, a role he was good at and enjoyed. From Eusebius’s description of Constantine presiding at the Council of Nicea in 325 and at other great ecclesiastical gatherings we see the emperor in his element, arranging elaborate ceremony, dramatic entrances and processions and splendid services. He brought his skill in public relations to the management of Church affairs. It was a far cry from the days of the “pillars” and the council of Jerusalem. Constantine, in fact, may be said to have created the decor and ritual of Christian concillar practice. He tried also to set the tone of debate: eirenic, concillatory, urbane. It was he who insisted, as a formula for compromise, the insertion of the phrase ‘consubstantial with the Father’ in the creedal agreement. [Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1979) p. 88,]
No wonder, it took the Catholic Church so many centuries before they were able to come up with a complete formulation of the doctrine of the trinity. It was because of the lack of agreement among them which was due largely to the fact that they did not even have a clear conception and understanding of what they were talking about in the first place.
Now, here is another question: After finally completing their trinitarian formulation, does it mean they now have a clear understanding of their doctrine of the trinity?
Let us quote the candid confession of Martin J. Scott, S.J.:
- Status