ANGLICAN TRAINING INSTITUTE, MAIDUGURI

 June 1994

                                                                       

TOPIC:   THE DIVINE TRINITY

LECTURER:    REV. (DR) I. U. IBEME

                     PriscAquila Christian Resource Centre  http://priscaquila.t35.com  

 

CONTENTS

THE TRINITY: ANSWER TO ALL MYSTERIES

SCRIPTURAL BASIS OF THE TRINITY

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITY

            Ecumenical Councils on the Trinity

            Heretical Teachings before Nicaea

            Heretical Teachings from Nicaea onwards

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY OF THE TRINITY

 

INTRODUCTION:

The doctrine of the Trinity of the Godhead is the Church’s best understanding of the One True God, Who is revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The doctrine of the Trinity of the Godhead is too great for the human mind, yet it is the most important truth for the salvation of humanity. When writing about the Trinity C.C. Richardson put it this way:

       “No doctrine is so important and so implicitly difficult in Christianity”

 

To some theologians the Trinity is a problem and an enigma; however, Trinity should be seen as the solution and an answer to a problem, if it is received humbly and willingly by faith as a revealed and Gospel mystery. Without the revelation of the truth of the Trinity, one would not make sense of the Biblical Scripture, Salvation of humankind from consequences and condemnation of sin, the Divinity of the Godhead and personal relationship with God. The truth of the Trinity needs not and cannot be proved by philosophical reasoning (for in itself, it is a proof of all that reason cannot philosophize) but proclaimed and taught for it is the ultimate doctrine of the One True God, which is revealed through Christ and the Gospel. Allen Richardson puts it thus:

       “There is no problem at all of reconciling the divinity of Christ and the Spirit with Jewish monotheism.”

 

The doctrine of the Trinity makes the fullness and personhood of the Godhead known (Col 1:19, 2:9; John 1:14, 16). Without being a trinity, God would be deficient, lacking fullness, personality and self-existence.

 

BACK TO TOP

 

THE TRINITY: ANSWER TO ALL MYSTERIES

 

Only in the context of a triune God could eternal salvation by redemption be possible. Otherwise we end up with insufficient conjectures like illumination, karma, restitution, cyclic sacrifices, or cyclic reincarnations, equilibration, annihilation, or the despair of agnostic atheism.

 

The God that is not Triune is impersonal, alone and lonely, dependent, not self-existent, not self-revelatory nor redemptive. A non-triune deity does not deserve any worship nor moral/spiritual religion, since it cannot offer salvation from sin and death. Only the Triune self-relating God could be God of peace and harmony, God of life and goodness, God of love and mercy, and God of power and justice.

 

In the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed the explanation of all things and the meaning for all things created and uncreated; past, present and future; moral, material and mental; visible and invisible, from creation till eschaton.

 

Only in the glorious Trinity is humanity offered eternal salvation through predestination, propitiation and regeneration; unto election, redemption and sanctification.

 

The revelation of the mystery of the Trinity is final answer to the menacing question of being and existence.

 

BACK TO TOP

 

SCRIPTURAL BASIS OF THE TRINITY.

 

(I)   THE DIVERSITY AND PLURALITY IN THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD AS FOUND IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

For both Christians and Jews, “The Lord our God is one God”, (Deut 6:4) (The Shema) “For us there is only one God” (1Cor 8:6), “And there is no other but one” (1Cor 8:4). However the Jews affirm the unity of God without further affirmation of the Trinity (THREE PERSONAL MANIFESTATIONS OR THREE ANTHROPOMORPHIC SUBSISTENCES) in this unity as the Christians do. This is because in the Old Testament, there is only enough evidence to show the plurality or diversity in the unity of the Godhead.

1.   There are passages that refer to God with plural name “Elohim” though God is clearly said to be one.

2.   There are also passages where God himself is quoted as referring to himself as “Us” (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8).

3.   There are passages where God is referred to as thrice holy (Isa 6:3) and as thrice benedictory (Num 6:24-26).

4.   There are passages that attribute personal deity to the Wisdom and Word of God (Prov 8; Ps 33:6-9).

5.   There are passages that show God, His Word and His Spirit working together as Divine unity (Gen 1: 2-3; Isa 63:8-10).

6.   There are also passages that speak of the Messiah as God (Ps 2; Isa 9:6).

7.   There are “Theophany” passages that refer to “the Angel of the Lord” as God yet distinct (Gen 18; Exd 3:2-6; Judges 13:2-22).

 

Therefore the monotheistic Jewish religion of the O.T. points, though vaguely, to the Trinity. For it shows personal diversity and plurality in the Godhead and it points to no other persons than Yahweh, the coming Messiah (i.e. the Son, the Word and the Wisdom of Yahweh) and the Spirit of Yahweh. However the Jews still find it difficult to accept the Trinity up till today. All the same, the Jews believe that God has personal characteristics (Anthropomorphism) and should be related to as a Person, not a cosmic super-force.

 

(II) THE TRINITY IN THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD AS FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Whereas the Trinity is implicit in the O.T., it is quite explicit in the N.T. With the revelation of the Tri-personal nature of God, the NT adds a new dimension to the doctrine of God. Hitherto the study of God would have at its best been limited to:

1.   The existence and being of God (either as a non-personal FORCE or a purposeful, spiritual and PERSONAL Being).

2.   The perfect Nature of God as evident in 

(a)          Perfect names;

(b)         Perfect attributes which are:

i)                       Natural (i.e. Oneness, Personhood, Infinity, Eternity, Immutability, Sovereignty, Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence.) and

ii)                     Moral (i.e. Goodness, Holiness and Righteousness)

3.   The work of God in Creation and Preservation – i.e. PROVIDENCE.

           

However with the revealed truth of the Trinity, a lot of dimensions have now been made known to humanity about the nature and the work of God (such as the plurality of anthropomorphic PERSONS in the ONE Divine Essence and His Redemptive work of grace). Also a whole new vista of relating with God has been opened (such as our personal walk with God and Personal indwelling and purposeful leading by God through the Holy Spirit). Today therefore, we do not only talk about worshipping of the real-living, perfect and powerful God but also about walking with the purposeful, Tri-Personal God who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the unique offer of Christianity to humanity. This offer of ultimate revelation also makes the ultimate demand on each human, to relate with and love God with all our spirit, soul, mind, strength, heart, body, and substance.

 

This new offer by Christianity about the essential nature of God as “Three-Persons-in-one” God and how the three Persons-in-God are significant in reaching humanity for our salvation is evident from the following passages of the NT Scriptures:

1.   At the annunciation, Lk 1:35

2.   At Christ’s baptism, Matt 3:13-17

3.   In Christ’s teachings, e.g. John 10:30; 14:6,7,26; 4:26, 15:26

4.   In the Baptismal formula of the Great Commission, Matt 28:19

5.   In the Pentecostal sermon, Acts 2:32-33

6.   In the Apostolic Benediction, 2Cor 13:14

7.   In the Apostolic teachings:

(a)                On the Spiritual Gifts, e.g. 1Cor 12:4-6;

(b)               On the mystery of Election e.g. Eph 1:3-14; 2Thes 2:13-14; 1 Pet 1:2;

(c)                On the Atonement, e.g. Heb 9:14;

(d)               On the work of Redemption, e.g. Eph 2:18;

(e)                On the mystery of Adoption, e.g. Gal 4:4-7;

(f)                  On the Unity of the Church, e.g. Eph 4:4-6;

(g)               On worship access Eph 2:18, and worship singing Eph 18-20;

(h)               On the mystery of the Apostolic ministry e.g. Eph 3:2-5.

And so on and so forth.

 

Also the NT contains other verses that refer to Christ as God: John 1:1-2; 14; John 1:18; John 20:28; Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1John 5:20.

These all declare the divinity of Christ.

 

Again the personality of the divine Spirit, the Holy Spirit of God, is very clear from the NT as in the following:

1.   He is referred to in the personal pronoun e.g. John 14:26; 15:26.

2.   He has will, 1Cor 12:7

3.   He has intellect 1Cor 2:11

4.   He has affection, Eph 4:30; Rom 15:30

5.   He indwells, 1Cor 3:16

6.   He intercedes, Rom 8:26

7.   He speaks Act 28:25

8.   He leads Rom 8:14

9.   He guides, Jn 16:13.

The Holy Spirit is therefore a personal Spirit not an impersonal force or power.

 

With these staggering revelations in the NT, the only conclusion is that God is one, but He subsists in three Persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is a great mystery. The fullness of the Godhead is the three Persons of the Godhead (Not three separate or substitute ‘individualities’ as such, but three intra-relating and co-existing ‘Persons’ or anthropomorphic Subsistences of the one true God).

 

BACK TO TOP

 

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITY.

 

(I)   COUNCILS AND FORMULATIONS ON THE TRINITY

Over the years men have sought to see if the NT or even the OT has further revelations about these persons in the Godhead. Others have dismissed the whole revelation as too much to be true. But the NT church has stood up to defend the Christian revelation for the past 2000 yrs against any unbiblical falsification or discredit.

 

Seven ecumenical councils, which were ever held by the Church universal, were mainly to formulate the Orthodox biblical truth on the Trinity. Outside the council many theologians sought answer to some questions that have arisen from this new revelation. Some got things mixed up others got things straightened out. Sometimes it was with the nature of the Persons of the Trinity; some times it was with the relation among the Persons within the Trinity.

 

It was Tertullian of Carthage who first used the term Trinity to describe the THREENESS of God as he discovered it in the NT. Other terms used in the time of Tertullian (i.e. 200 AD) were Holy Triad or the Triad in the Godhead. This Triad or Trinity was referring to anthropomorphisms of the Godhead called the subsistences or emanations (Greek=hypostasis) or the persons (Greek=prosopon) or the performance characters or responsible agents or relational identities (Latin=persona) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

As a result of this flux of teachings the Ecumenical Church councils were called and the creedal formulations which are universally accepted as most apostolic were written. The following are the Ecumenical councils which were concerned with these controversies.

BACK TO TOP

 

1.   The Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) TRINITARIAN

This first council was summoned by Emperor Constantine. It discussed the Arian controversy and declared that the Son is HOMO-OUSIOS (same substance) with the Father and drafted the Nicene Creed. Athanasius of Alexandria played a prominent role here.

 

2.   The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) TRINITARIAN

Political intrigue by the Arians against, and genuine reflections on the Nicene Position had become on the increase. So the Church universal came together again to review their position. At the end they confirmed the Nicene Creed and anathematised Arianism.

 

3.   The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) CHRISTOLOGICAL

This rejected Nestorian doctrine of separation of the Natures of Christ and accepted the Alexandrian biblical doctrine of the union of the two Natures even in the virgin’s womb without losing His divine power and functions at any time.

 

4.   The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) CHRISTOLOGICAL

Confirmed the formulation at Ephesus and formulated a more comprehensive presentation of the doctrine of the two Natures in the one Person of the Son.

             

The other three ecumenical councils at Constantinople 553 and 680 at Nicaea in 787 did not add much to the Christological issues and are usually not regarded as authoritative by the reformation Churches because they became more academic and rather less scriptural in their deliberations.

 

BACK TO TOP

 

(II) HERETICAL TEACHINGS REJECTED BY THE COUNCILS

 

(A)  BEFORE NICAEA:-

Before the council of Nicaea (325 AD), many heretical teachings had been decisively dealt with by the church without any council; these included:

 

1.   Marcionism  (AD 150). This claimed that the God of the OT is not the same as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Their Christ was not born but appeared suddenly from Heaven. To them the OT God was the Creator God who is harshly righteous while the Father of Christ, the Redeemer God is merciful. Macionism was condemned by the Church Doctors and Fathers as non-apostolic and against Scripture.

 

2.   Gnosticism (AD 100-200). This was a syncretistic religion of Greek philosophy and Middle-eastern superstition, mingled with Christian ideas. To them Christ was neither God nor man. He only seemed to be human. He did not come in the flesh, He did not die nor resurrect. Only those born with natural ability to know the God-of-lights could be saved from the shackles of the Creator-God! This was rejected entirely by the Church as Anti-Christian (1John 2:21-23; 4:1-6).

 

3.   Montanism  (AD 150). This claims that the special gifts of the Holy Spirit for its followers including ecstasies, prophecies and revelations are equal in authority with that of the Apostles. The Church reacted to Montanism by fixing the Canonical Scriptures as the rule of faith and discouraging the use of Spiritual gifts which claimed extraordinary authority outside or above the Scriptures.

 

4.   Docetism  (AD 80). This taught that Christ “seemed” (Gk = doceo) to be human, because they believed that true divinity can never come in contact with evil matter and humanity, as the Greeks thought. This was condemned by the Church as unscriptural.

 

5.   Ebionism (AD 100). This was an offshoot of Jewish Messianic Christianity. To them Christ was an ordinary man but was divinely appointed. This was rejected by the Church teachers as unscriptural.

 

6.   Sabellianism or Modalistic Monarchianism (AD 200). These, in order to avoid teaching what appeared to present God as more than one, they taught that the Son was another mode of existence of the Father, so is the Spirit. The Father was the mode of God in the OT, the Son was the form of God in the time of Christ and the Spirit was the mode that God revealed himself after the ascension. The Church condemned the doctrine because it means that it was the Father who was crucified as the Son (Patripassionism). Again it means that the Son is not seated at the right hand of the Father. Modalism is also called economic or dispensational Trinitarianism – that God changes into a different form for every dispensation!

 

7.   Adoptionism or Dynamic Monarchianism (AD 200). This is another unscriptural attempt to avoid preaching Faith in what appeared be more than one God (though God is more than one Person and in God there is pluralism). It taught that the Holy Spirit was the same as the Christ. This Christ (i.e. Holy Spirit) came upon a man called Jesus of Nazareth at his baptism, hence making him the Saviour. So Jesus was an ordinary man, but because of his righteousness God adopted him as His Son, by giving him the Christ (i.e. Holy Spirit). This was rejected totally by the Church.

 

BACK TO TOP

 

(B)  FROM NICAEA ONWARDS:

While reaffirming their stand against all the above heretical doctrines of God, the Church was faced with another major heretical movement, which was lead by an Egyptian Presbyter called Arius (256-336 AD). His teaching called Arianism was what led to the summoning of the council of Nicaea (325 AD) by King Constantine. This was the first Ecumenical Church council. It sat for two months May 20-July 25, AD 325.

 

1.   Arianism: Arius, under the influence of Adoptionism and Greek philosophy of God and creation, taught that God could not create the material world (Since matter is evil and has no link with true divinity as the Greeks taught). Arius also taught that the Christ was created by God in eternity, so that Christ would create other creations including the Holy Spirit. To Arius there was a time Christ was not; therefore he is not co-eternal with the Father and not the same-substance (homo-ousios) with the Father. At best he could only be of like-substance (homoi-ousios) with the Father. Again the Son had a divine soul and a human body so that he is neither fully man nor fully God but somewhere in-between (i.e. demi-god?).

 

During the two-month-long council, a few like Eusebius of Nicomedia supported Arius while the rest like Alexander of Alexandria (whose secretary was Deacon Athanasius) and Eusebius of Caesarea who was the most learned man of his time supported Athanasius who eventually championed the orthodox biblical truth against Arius’ philosophical view. Athanasius led the drafting of the Nicene Creed, which presented Christ as homo-ousios (not homoi-ousios) with the Father as the Scripture plainly teaches. The Sonship of Christ implies same-substance John 1:1-4; 5:8; 10:30; 14:9, 11; exact-image Heb 1:3; and fullness Col 1:19; 2:9; with/of God the Father, NOT A DIMINUTION of the Godhead.

 

Arius and his followers began political intrigue and confusion in order to reinstate their heresy. Later a group called Macedonians led by one Macedonius pushed a modified form of Arianism (semi-Arianism), backed with their political connections. As a result another council was summoned at Constantinople (381 AD).

 

At Constantinople, the Arians and Macedonians failed to prove their doctrine because they lacked apostolic and scriptural authority. Athanasius was vindicated and the Nicene Creed was confirmed by the Church while the Arians were excommunicated and anathematised.

 

2.   Apollinarianism: This was a mid-way stand between Athanasius and Arius. He disagreed with Arius in everyway but held that the Logos became the soul of Christ. So that Christ has no human soul but divine soul and human flesh. This was rejected together with Arianism because it denies that God truly took up flesh and became man and was in everyway like us except in sin (John 1:14; Heb 4:15).

 

3.    Nestorianism: (400 AD). Nestorius of Constantinople taught that the two natures of Christ (divine and human) were separate. This implies that the Logos was not incarnate in Christ but in fellowship with the man Jesus (as the case with OT saints) or morally indwelling the man Jesus (as the case with NT saints). The Person of the Son then, was not a unity and the divine was not present in the womb of the Virgin Mary. So that Mary could not be said to be the God-bearer (Theotokos) but at the most, Christ-bearer (Christ-tokos). This was discussed at Ephesus (431 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) and condemned. There the Church affirmed that Mary was God-bearer (not mother-of-God as Roman Catholics say), since the divine and the human natures of Christ have never been separated or divided, or changed into semi-divine state nor confused. Mary conceived only Christ’s humanity but carried both the humanity and the divinity of Christ in her womb. Christ was affirmed to be perfect man and perfect God, same substance with the Father and the Godhead and same substance with us in manhood. These two full natures of Christ are preserved and concurred in the one “Person” or one “Subsistence” of the Son. The divinity in Christ did NOT “lose divine attribute and powers nor the divine glory and dignity” (so called “Kenosis”) BUT humbled or emptied Himself to take up humanity into “hypostatic union” to redeem the world.

 

What happened is that the Son humbled Himself in the incarnation and birth, was humiliated willingly in His passion and death, and was exalted in His resurrection and ascension. This is what self-emptying (giving up of reputation) in Philippians 2:5-9 mean.

 

True Christological doctrine that would agree with the Scriptures must present the Christ who is the Mediator between God and man and a Saviour of man from the wrath of God, reconciling man to God. If He was less than God, He could not reveal God nor reconcile anyone to God.  If He was less than man or was superman or demigod, He could not identify with humanity either on the cross or at the right hand of the Father. In fact if the full divinity was lost, what would become of the universe during Christ’s life and death? If the divinity was enclosed as the soul in a semi-babe or semi-man, what portion has full humans in such a Christ?

 

4.   Eutycheans and Monophysites: These attempted to present a Christ, which is a third sort of being (demigod) with a composite nature in which the two natures were fused in one. Hence their Christ is neither true God nor true man and so could NOT be a mediator between God and man. This was rejected at Chalcedon together with Nestorianism.

 

BACK TO TOP

 

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY OF THE TRINITY.

 

THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

The scriptural doctrine of the Trinity was championed by many Church Doctors and Fathers of the 4th Century. These were Athanasius, the Cappadocia Fathers, and Augustine of Hippo. The Cappadocia fathers (Basil of Caesarea 329-375, Gregory of Nazianzus 330-390, and Gregory of Nyssa 330-395) under the leadership of Basil sought to show how the three Persons are in one God. Athanasius had set to show how the one God subsists in the three Persons. Augustine set to penetrate into the Mystery of one God in three Persons and three Persons in one God and the relations within the divine essence.

      

For the Cappadocians:

The Father is the “cause” and “fount” of Deity not begotten

The Son is caused by generation not creation

The Spirit is caused by procession not creation

      

For Athanasius and Augustine the Spirit also proceeded from the Son, not only from the Father. The Cappadocians could only condone a procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. Augustine basing his teaching on the fact that “God is Love” likened the Father as the Lover, the Son as the Beloved and the Spirit as the Love shared. Love usually proceeds from the lover as well as the beloved.

      

While the Eastern Church remained under the influence of the Cappadocians the Western Church was under the influence of Athanasius and Augustine. Hence in 589 at Toledo, the Western church added the FILIOQUE (i.e. AND THE SON) to the procession clause of the Nicene Creed. This has remained the main reason (apart from political disputes about the authority of the papacy) for the division between Eastern and Western Churches in 1054. Attempts in 1439 and 1453 made to arrive at a compromise (such as replacing AND THE SON with THROUGH/BY THE SON) and bring the East and West together failed. This division has remained till today.

      

A summary of the Orthodox biblical doctrine of the Trinity is found in the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed (Quiqunque vult) and the Apostles Creed as well as the Chalcedonian formula on the union of the two natures in Christ. The main tenets of the doctrine are outlined below:

 

1.                     There is only one God of one indivisible substance or essence (1Cor 8:4).

 

2.                     Within this one and the same substance or essence of the Godhead, there are three Subsistences (hypostasis) or three Persons (prosopon); these are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Through these three anthropomorphic Subsistences God has revealed Himself in a personal way such that we can personally relate with Him.

 

3.                     The three Persons or Subsistences are not three Gods but one God co-equal in glory (John 17:5) and in power (Rom 15:19; Matt 28:19) and in majesty co-eternal (Heb 9:14; Rev 1:8) and uncreated; therefore they are to be believed, worshiped and obeyed together as one and same God and Lord, not as three Gods.

 

4.                     The three Persons in the Godhead, work together in fulfilling God’s gracious mission to mankind such as creation (Gen 1:1-3) election (Eph 1:3-14) and redemption (Heb 9:14); nevertheless each of these Personal Subsistences become prominent for particular purpose:

(a)                      God the Father is very prominent in creation. He made man "in His own image” (i.e. moral, personal and spiritual), to rule in a beautiful world; He preserves the creation by His providence and controls it by His governance;

(b)                     God the Son is particularly known for redemption; He was born man to identify with mankind, died to bring about man’s forgiveness and resurrected to bring new life to humanity – as many as believe;

(c)                      God the Holy Spirit is very prominent in Sanctification; He came to convict man of sin, baptise as many as believe into Christ through the new birth, and fill the believer with His divine grace (gifts and fruit) unto a perfect man.

 

5.                     The Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father only in relation (Jn 14:28) but not in essence (John 10:30):

(a)                      The Father is the Fount of Deity, neither begotten nor proceeding;

(b)                     The Son is begotten from the Father in eternity but not proceeding;

(c)                      The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in eternity (John 14:26; 15:26; Acts 2:33), but not begotten.

 

6.                     The Son is fully God and fully man, of one substance (homo-ousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead and of same substance with humanity as regards his manhood, like us in all aspects apart from sin (Heb 4:15); so in the one Person of the Son, there are two distinct and full natures preserved in union.

 

7.                     This divine nature of the Son was begotten of the Father before all worlds, while his human nature was born of the Virgin Mary in the world.

        

This is the Christian doctrine of “One God in three Person” and “three Persons in one God”, the mystery unveiled by the Christian Faith to the human race.

 

BACK TO TOP

 

 

      Last Updated January 29, 2009

By The Ven Dr. I. U. Ibeme

Copyright  © PriscAquila Publishing, Maiduguri, Nigeria.

                             Click Here For

          PriscAquila Christian Resource Centre  http://priscaquila.6te.net

 

Free Web Hosting