PHD 2016 Trinity

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity
Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.
Bring:
p. 1
Lecture 3, H ours 17-24
L ECTURE 3 - T HE T RINITY
Discussion of the readings
The Biblical basis for the Trinity
Ante-Nicene developments:
Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus, Modalism, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Novatian, Dionysisus,
Paul of Samosata
The Arian crisis
Arius, The Council of Nicaea, The reaction to Nicaea, Athanasius
Later developments
Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, The Council of Constantinople, The Cappadocians, The Filioque controversy
From the Middle Ages to Modern times
Calvin, Servetus
The modern era
Hegel, Schleiermacher, History of Religion school, Barth, Rahner, Moltmann, Pannenberg,
Oneness Pentecostalism
Discussion of the readings
14 Tertullian Against Praxeas ch 22 = Tertullian of Carthage, Against Praxeas, ch XXII, in The

Ante-Nicene fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its founder, Tertullian, Alexander Roberst
and James Donaldson, eds. (Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 617-618 = 2 pages.
DS Q: How does Tertullian use exegesis to refute Praxeas? Cf Jn 10.30
15 Origen on the Trinity = The Holy Trinity # 177 in in A new Eusebius: Documents illustrating
the history of the Church to AD 337, J. Stevenson, ed., rev. by W. H. C. Frend (SPCK, 1987), p.
202 = 1 page.
DS Q: Why does he say the Son is second to the Father and a second God ?
16 Arian heresy = The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy, c. 318" Ch 29 in A new Eusebius:
Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337, J. Stevenson, ed., rev. by W. H. C.
Frend (SPCK, 1987), pp. 321-332 = 12 pages.
DS Q: p. 326, # 284, bottom, then top p. 327: note Arius affirms three hypostases. So do the
orthodox. So what is the difference?
Arius does not see the three as equal.
NB: # 286 (p. 330) is Athanasius quoting Arius.
p. 2
17 Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople I = The Nicene Creed and the Niceno-Constantinoplitan
Creed # 20 in Readings in world Christian history, Volume 1: Earliest Christianity to 1453,
John W. Coakley and Andrea Sterk, eds. (Orbis, 2004), pp. 101-102 = 2 pages.
DS Q: In either creed, identify phrases that target a specific wrong teaching.
18 Cappadocian fathers on the Trinity = # 82 to 85 in Creeds, councils and controversies:

Documents illustrating the history of the Church AD 337-461, J. Stevenson, ed., W. H. C. Frend,
rev. (SPCK, 1989), pp. 104-108 = 5 pages.
19 Augustine On the Trinity = Augustine, The Trinity 1.1-3, Edmund Hill, trans. (New City Press,
1991), pp. 65-81 = 17 pages.
DS Q: Do you agree with his exegesis of the texts he cites in support of the Trinity? 69-72.
Note esp. p. 71 use of Jn 1.2: either Son is created or creator, no other option possible
and text specifically states he is creator.
20 Manges E Synopsis of Church councils = Ernest Manges, Church councils - a brief synopsis =
2 pages.
21 CCC on the Trinity = Catechism of the Catholic Church (Image, 1997), paragraphs 232 to 267,
pp. 69-79 = 10 pages.
DS Q: Identify any arguments that you view as valid for the Trinity. Any invalid ?
233: name singular baptized under
DS Q: React to the statment in 237 that the Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason
alone.
DS Q: Respond to paragraph 247 which defends the addition of the filioque clause to the creed of
Nicaea/Constantinople.
The main point of defense is the usage by Leo 1.
22 Boff & Jenson on the Trinity = Leonardo Boff on the Trinity as Good News for the Poor #
3.30 and Robert Jenson on the Trinity # 3.31 in The Christian theology reader, Alister E.
McGrath, ed. (Blackwell, 1995), pp. 121-125 = 5 pages.
The intent of this reading is to expose you to some more recent theological thinking on the
Trinity.
p. 3
DS Q: Respond to Boff at end of his first paragraph: To say that God is Father, Son and Holy
Spirit is revelation; to say that God is one substance and three Persons is theology, a human
endeavour to fit the revelation of God within the limitations of reason.
DS Q: Respond to his practical application of the Trinity to human society. Strengths?
Weaknesses?
Esp. 6 lines from bottom of p. 122 where we are called to live together and to enter into
the communion of the Trinity and 2 lines later where the Trinity is described as open and
egalitarian relationships.
23 Tennent T Is the father of Jesus the God of Muhammad = Timothy C. Tennent, Theology in the
context of world Christianity (Zondervan, 2007), Ch. 2 Is the father of Jesus the God of
Muhammad?, pp. 25-49 = 25 pages.
26: Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Cf the controversy at Wheaton.
DS Q: What is the early history of the word Allah ? 28 DS Q: Did Muuhammad take a pagan word for a moon god (Allah) to use in Islam? 28
No, Christians already had been using Allah for God and the mood god name is not
connected to the term Allah.
Christians present in Arabia by 200, and in 3rd cent. many thousands. 29
Some of these were non-Chalcedonian or Arian. 30
DS Q: What is the practical significance of his four points, bottom 30, top 31 ?
DS Q: What is his point about all monotheists on p. 31 ?
The issue is not what they mean by the term God, but what characteristics they assign to
that term (predicates).
32: Muslims worship God as described in the Quran, Christians worship God as described in the
Bible.
DS Q: He cites Muslim scholars who say we worship the same God. How do those Muslim
scholars explain the differences in predicates?
34: Any difference is due to corruption of the non-Islamic texts (OT, NT).
DS Q: How do the Bible and Quran compare in describing God? What are the implications?
36 diagram
DS Q: Why is the question, is the father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? a better question?
How does Tennent answer it?
37: in the negative
38: For the Christian, the doctrine of God cannot possibly be separated from Christology.
39: Trinity and deity of Christ are corrupted notions that we Christians should discard according
to Muslim apologists.
p. 4
Lecture
Christianity is unique in holding to the doctrine of the Trinity. As some have said, this is a
doctrine no one would ever create, it must be something revealed to us that reflects Gods true
nature.
We will begin this lecture on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity with the earliest layer
of evidence - the New Testament.
THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE TRINITY
(From Evangelical Theology, L 5, July 2004, CGST)
There are at least five distinct teachings from Scripture that form the Biblical basis for our
doctrine of the Trinity. Note that the data below does not mean we can state categorically that
the NT explicitly teaches the Trinity as a Christian doctrine. It does not. However we do believe
the later development of the doctrine is firmly based upon NT teachings, which we now explore
briefly.
1) The Father is God.
There are so many verses on this, just a few will suffice: 1 Cor 8.6
2) The Son is God.
Heb 1.6-10. Verse 6 applies Yahweh to the Son (from Deut 32.43). Verse 8 applies
Elohim to the Son (from Ps 45.6-7).
Jn 1.1 and 1.14.
Jn 20.28, the confession of Thomas: My Lord and my God.
Jesus applied to himself the title, Son of Man, which comes from Dan. 7.13-14 and
carries the idea of a being who has eternal sovereignty over the entire world. Jesus
uses it about himself and claims the role of God:
Mk 2.10, where he claimed divine power to forgive sins.
Mk 2.28, where he claimed authority over the OT Sabbath laws (Lord of the Sabbath).
Mk 10.45, where he claimed to be the ransom for the sins of all human beings, 1
3) The Holy Spirit is God.

Acts 5.3-4 (more on this in our lecture on the Holy Spirit).
The baptismal formula of the Great Commission: why are we baptized in the name of
these three, if one of them is not God? Mt. 28.19
R. G. Gruenler, Son of Man in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd edn, Walter A. Elwell, ed.
(Baker, 2001).
p. 5
4) There is only one God.

Deut 6.4.
5) Each of the three: Father, Son and Spirit, are separate persons.
The texts which support this idea are those which describe all three persons as working
together in a specific event or action. They work together, but are described as separate
persons: 2
- in the conception of Jesus, where the power of God uses the Spirit of God to
overshadow Mary that the Son of God might be born of a woman (Lk 1.35)
- in the baptism of Jesus, Mt 3.16-17 and Lk 3.21-22.
- all three indwell the believer (Rom 8.9-11)
- all three are involved in our redemption (1 Pet 1.2)
Various creedal statements are recorded in the NT which are trinitarian:
- the benediction of 2 Cor 13.14
- the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19
- the blessing prayer of Jude 20-21
1 John 5.7 is not a witness to the doctrine of the Trinity. Most modern Bibles have a note
indicating the three witnesses reading is not original. This is why the KJV and the NKJV are
not reliable on this point since they include this text with no indication of the textual problems.
NKJV: For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Spirit; and these three are one.3
A standard evangelical introduction to the NT by Carson, Moo and Morris gives the following
reasons for why we must reject this verse as part of the original, inspired text of 1 John 5:
This is certainly a gloss. It is found in no Greek manuscript before the fourteenth
century, except for one eleventh- and one twelfth century manuscript, where the
words have been added in the margin by a much later hand. None of the early
Greek fathers quotes the words, and it is quite certain that had they known of
them, they would have used them in the ancient Trinitarian debates.4
Enns, 202.
A note on 1 Jn 5.7 - in the KJV this verse appears to be a clear testimony to the trinity. In fact many
have accused modern translations of liberalism for omitting these words. However these words are not found in
the original of any Greek manuscript before the 14th century. The words probably were a marginal note which
were mistakenly copied into the text in the fifth century. Because it ended up in the Vulgate, it has had a longer
life than other copyist errors. See the discussion in F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and
Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 129-130 and D. A. Carson, The King James Debate: A Plea for
Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 34-35.
4
D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1992), 455.
p. 6
The OT does not specifically teach the trinity, but certain texts allow for it and even point to it.
The name for God, Elohim, is a plural. While it is a plural to emphasize the majesty of God, and
so cannot be used to establish the Trinity in the OT, it is consistent with the later revelation in the
NT of trinitarianism.
Here we must be cautious. We cannot say the Trinity is explicitly taught in the Bible.
It is remarkable that the Christian faith, which has its roots in Judaism - which is firmly
monotheistic - would develop a doctrine like the Trinity. Bruce Ware observes that it would have
been easier for the early church to move to a tri-theistic stance given the broader pagan cultural
context which was thoroughly polytheistic.5 25
But the early believers could not merely retreat into Judaic monotheism when presented with texts
like John 17.3 which affirm monotheism but with a twist: Now this is eternal life: that they know
you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. If only God can grant eternal
life, how is it that Jesus Christ is included with that and ? Bruce Ware says, eternal life comes
from both the Father and Jesus Christ, [so] the passage displays Christ as equivalent to the
Father.6 29-30
Other verses that produced the same tension: 1Cor 8.6, Jn 1.1, Jn 8.58, Mk 2.5-11. Heb. 1, etc.
ANTE -NICENE DEVELOPMENTS

There are four options to deal with the biblical evidence:
1) Monotheism where God has three sides or names = Modalism.
2) Monotheism where the Father alone is fully God = Arianism or Adoptionism.
3) Tri-theism.
4) Monotheism with a God who is triune.
The third option was never seriously taken up by any significant group in the early Church,
though the charge of tri-theism was made from time to time.
The first two options were serious contenders historically speaking. Modalism, Arianism, and
Adoptionism, at different times were significant factions.
Initially, however, the focus was not on ontology but on function, in other words on the various
roles each of the Three had, especially in relation to salvation. This is the economic Trinity.
Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, roles, and relevance (Crossway, 2005), 25.
Ware, 29-30
p. 7
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA (d. c. 156)

The eyewitness account of the arrest, trial, and execution of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, is one
of the earliest martyrdom accounts we have outside of the NT. Tradition has it that he was a
disciple of the Apostle John, which chronologically and geographically is certainly possible, if not
probable.
His prayer, at the moment of his execution, is an early witness to nascent Trinitarian language. It
ends thus:
I praise you, I bless you, I glorify you, through the eternal and heavenly High
Priest, Jesus Christ your beloved Son, through whom I give glory to you, and to
him and the Holy Spirit, both now and in all the ages to come. Amen! 7
JUSTIN MARTYR ( c. 100 - c. 165)

Justin Martyr is known as the first Apologist of the Church. He was educated as a pagan and
only after investigating a number of current philosophies (including Stoic, Peripatetic,
Pythagorean and Platonic schools) did he convert to the Christian faith.
We have three writings from Justin which have survived: the First Apology, the Second Apology
and an extended discussion on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, the Dialogue
with Trypho, A Jew. All three of these were probably written between 151 and 160 AD, making
them among the very earliest documents we possess from the time after the Apostles.
Since philosophy was highly regarded among the intellectuals of this time, Justin begins by saying
Christianity is actually the oldest of all philosophies (a powerful argument in Justins context).
(Dial. 1-2).
Justin wants to show that Christianity is deeply connected to the best of ancient Greek
philosophy. He proposes that the same Logos that inspired the OT prophets was also active in
pagan Greek philosophers like Plato, the Stoics and even pagan poets through the functioning of
the Logos as a seed. So Justin says:
And those of the Stoic school, since they were honorable at least in their ethical
teaching, as were also the poets in some particulars, on account of a seed of logos
implanted in every race of men and women. (2 Apol. 8.1).8
So pagan philosophers had some truth but it is incomplete.
Martyrdom of Polycarp [14] in Early Christian martyr stories, Bryan M. Litfin, ed. & trans. (Baker
Academic, 2014), 62.
8
ACW 56.79.
p. 8
In the center of Justins theology is his view of the divine Word (Logos) of God. This is not just
Gods thoughts, but the Word, active and personal. This is necessary to preserve the
transcendence of God: he requires an instrument that can enter into and interact with the world,
and this is his Logos. So the theophanies of the OT cannot be direct revelations of the Father, but
must be manifestations of the Logos.9
The view of the Father as completely transcendent is of course drawn from middle-Platonist
thinking, though we do not know if Justin had direct knowledge of Philo of Alexandria ( c. 20
B.C. to c. 50 A.D.). Philo used a logos doctrine to protect the transcendence of God.
Justin affirms that the Father and Son are distinct persons, but still one God: We can indisputably
learn taht [God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from himself and also a
rational Being.10
Justins baptismal formula follows that of Mt 28.18-20: In the name of God, the Father and Lord
of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they [new converts] then
receive the washing with water. 11
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (d. c. 185)

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, is one of the Apologists, having written Three Books to Autolycus
in which he attempts to convince his friend to become a Christian. His significance here is this: he
is the first person in the history of the Church known to use the term Trinity in reference to
God. He says: The three days which were before the lights are types of the Trinity [ JD4"H ]
of God, his Word, and his Wisdom. 12 This was written around 180 AD, more than twenty years
before Tertullians use of the same term in Latin.
MODALISM
(From Patristics L 9-10, AGST 2002)
Modalism is concerned to emphasize both the oneness of God and the complete deity of Christ.
The way it does this is to assert that the Father and Son are the same person, thus rejecting the
Logos Christology of Justin and others. An older name for this teaching is Modalist
Monarchianism because it strongly affirms monotheism.
Henry Chadwick, The Church In Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great (Oxford:
University Press, 2001), 95.
10
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 62, ANF 1.228, cited in Allison 234.
11
Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, ANF 1.
12
Theophilus, To Autolycus 2.15, ANF 1.487.
p. 9
Two names are associated with Modalism: Praxeas (late second century), against whom Tertullian
wrote; and Sabellius (third century). You are already acquainted with Tertullians Against
Praxeas. We dont know much more than the names of Praxeas and Sabellius, the latter being
dated only as specific as third century.
If Tertullian represented the views of Praxeas accurately, then it seems the modalism of Sabellius
is more refined and subtle than that of Praxeas: Sabellius regarded the Godhead as a monad
which expressed itself in three operations.13 The Father projects himself or manifests himself as
the Son and the Spirit. It is unclear but somehow Sabellius managed to dodge the charge of
patripassianism that was so devastating for Praxeas.
Modalism is important for understanding third century theology leading to the Council of Nicaea
because Arius is reacting to modalism.
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (d. 222)
Tertullian of Carthage is the first significant Latin theologian of the Church. He received a good
education and after conversion, probably in his youth,14 he gained a position of some responsibility
in the church at Carthage, though he was probably not ordained.15
Toward the end of his writing career he was drawn to a more rigorous group within the Church.
It is not correct to characterize him as a heretic or even a schismatic: Tertullian never left the
Catholic church, but rather continued his fight for a more vigorous and disciplined Christian
discipleship from within.16
Tertullian places himself under the authority of the Scriptures and the regula fidei. Both originate
from the apostolic ministry ordained directly by the Lord.17 Tertullian does draw from other
sources for his theological ideas, including secular philosophy, though he is highly suspicious of it,
in contrast to Clement.
In his later career Tertullian places the new revelations of the Spirit over Scripture, holding that
13
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th edn (San Francisco: Harper, 1978), 122.
14
The Ad uxorem assumes he married in the faith; his wife is dilectissima mihi in domino conserua ux.
1.1, CCSL 1.373.
15
Jeromes assertion (de viris illustribus 53) but this has been questioned by Barnes, Tertullian 1-29. He
did instruct catechumens, Quasten, Patrology 2.293, 296.
16
D. Rankin, Tertullian and the Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 28. See his
finely nuanced discussion, 27-51, as well as C. Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 66-76, and T. D. Barnes, Tertullian, rev. edn (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1985), 130-142.
17
Quasten, Patrology 2.271.
p. 10
such prophecies complete the teachings of the Apostles.18 He is most noted for his advances in
Christological and Trinitarian thought.19
He defines the divine unity through use of the concept of economy and so preserves the distinct
identity of each person of the Trinity, a term he probably coined in Latin.20
In Christology he provides us this milestone: We see plainly the twofold state, which is not
confounded, but conjoined in One Person Jesus, God and Man.21
He asserted against the modalism of his day (Praxeas) that Christ the Son and the Father are of
one divine substance. There are three persons in one Godly, or divine substance.
Modalists of ancient times and of modern times have often used John 10.30 to prove oneness
teaching: I and my Father are one. Tertullian, sometime around the year 213, addressed this in
his book Against Praxeas. Tertullian notes that the one here is in the neuter. Tertullian argues
from the Latin text, but the same is true in the Greek: one here is neuter ( < hen ) not the
masculine heis. So Tertullian says this use of the neuter does not imply singularity of number,
but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction and affection.22 So we could paraphrase John 10.30
as I and my Father are one thing (divine nature). This text is not talking about person, but
nature, thus the use of the neuter gender.
Tertullian is famous for being the first to use the term Trinity in Latin. The term had been used
at least once previously - in Greek - about 30 years before Tertullian by Theophilus of Alexandria
in his work To Autolycus (2.15). He uses the word triad (JD4VH) to describe the relationship
between God, the Word of God, and the Wisdom of God.23
In a portion of Against Praxeas earlier than the one you read. we find Tertullian describing the
18
virg. vel. 2.1, ANF 4.28 and mon. 14, ACW 13.102.
19
See summaries in Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 109-115 and G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic
Thought 97-106.
20
Prax. 2.4, CCSL 2.1161: trinitas. The Greek triad (JD4VH) appears in Theophilus, ad Autolycum
2.15 around 180 A.D., at least 28 years before adversus Praxean according to the revised chronology of Barnes,
which I follow, Tertullian 328.
21
Prax. 27.11, ANF 3.624 = CCSL 2.1199: Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in
una persona, Deum et hominem Iesum.
22
Tertullian, Against Praxeas 22. Translated by P. Holmes, in The Ante-Nicene fathers: Translations of
the writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 3.(Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1864-1897. Reproduction, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, version 4 [CD
ROM].)
23
Frederick W. Norris, Theophilus of Antioch, in Encyclopedia of early Christianity, Everett Ferguson,

ed., 2 edn (Garland, 1998). Hereafter EEChr.
nd
p. 11
heresy of Praxeas, who asserts that there is no other way to preserve monotheism:
. . . than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very
selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by
unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded,
which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in
degree; not in substance, but in form; not In power, but in aspect; yet of one
substance, and of one condition, and of one power . . . 24
HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME
The writer known to tradition as Hippolytus flourished as a theologian, exegete and church leader
in the church at Rome during the first third of the third century.25 He openly disgreed with four
successive bishops of Rome to the extent that during the reign of Callistus he may have put
himself forward as a rival to the see of Rome. He was exiled during the persecution of Maximin
(235-238) and may have died a martyr.
Major works of his which have survived include the so-called Apostolic Tradition, commentaries
on Daniel and the Song of Songs, a treatise against Noetus and his most famous work the
Refutation of All Heresies.26 Much has not survived and it is proposed that his divisive career
may have contributed to this loss.27 Hippolytus may have been called a holy bishop and martyr
24
Tertullian, Against Praxeas 2, Translated by P. Holmes, in The Ante-Nicene fathers: Translations of the
writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 3.(Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1864-1897), 598.
25
Summaries of his life in Quasten, Patrology 2.163-165, ODCC and now, A. Brent, Hippolytus and the
Roman Church in the Third Century (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
26
Exactly which of these and other works are genuinely his has engendered lively discussion. See M.
Marcovich, ed., Hippolytus: Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 8-17, who holds for
Hippolytus as author of the Elenchos, also CPG 1, 1870, 1899; Quasten, Patrology 2.165-198. R. Butterworth,
Hippolytus of Rome, Contra Noetum (London: Heythrop, 1977), 7-33 and Valle, Anti-Gnostic Polemics, 41-47.
The general consensus is that the works mentioned specifically above are likely to be by Hippolytus or a school
associated with him, though the debate continues, for which see A. Brent, Hippolytus, 197-198 who assigns only
the shorter Syntagma to Hippolytus himself. For the sake of simplicity we will use the name Hippolytus to
include the school.
27
Along with the fact that his Greek soon became unintelligible to most in the western church, ODCC,
Hippolytus. Brent (Hippolytus 416-420) argues that the term antipope is anachronistic when applied in the
early third century to Hippolytus.
p. 12
two centuries after his death,28 but in his own lifetime, he was a center of controversy.
His theology of God is revealed in his discourse against Noetus who held a patripassianist heresy
that Christ was the Father in person, and that the Father in person had been born and had
suffered and died.29 In other words Noetus had diminished to nil the distinction between the
Father and the Son, and Hippolytus must counter this while not falling into the error of ditheism.
He teaches that there is only one God, but within the economy (J< @6@<`:\"<).30 This
economy is actually a mystery which he sees uncovered in the statement in Isaiah:
in thee is God [45.14] revealed the mystery of the economy -- that once the
Word had taken flesh and was among men, the Father was in the Son and the Son
in the Father, while the Son was living among men. So this, brethren, is what was
being pointed out -- that the mystery of the economy really was this very Word
who fashioned from the Holy Spirit and the virgin an only Son for God.31
The mystery here is not the incarnation, which Noetus accepted, but the fact that the incarnate
Son while distinct from God the Father, nevertheless was one with God. So Hippolytus holds
that there is one God; but so far as regards the economy, His manifestation is threefold.32 This
distinction existed before the incarnation and continues after the ascension.33
ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (d. c. 254)
(from AGST Patristics Lecture THIRD_CN.9)
Origen is one of the most original and problematic figures of the early Church. Hans Urs von
Balthasar says, To overestimate Origen and his importance for the history of Christian thought is
all but impossible.34 His contemporaries acknowledged his almost divine facility in Biblical
studies. It was his broad command of the Scriptures and of philosophy which made his views
28
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Dialogue 2; Compendium of Heretical Fables 3.1.
29
c. Noet 1.2, Butterworth 42. Apart from Hippolytus we know little of Noetus, a native of Smyrna and
probably the originator of Patripassianism.
30
c. Noet. 3.4, Butterworth 48, cf. 4.5. He has taken this term from Irenaeus (Kelly Early Christian
Doctrines, 110). Cf. Irenaeus AH 1.10.3: dispositionem Dei reconstructed as @6@<@:\"< J@ 1,@, SC
264.162, also AH 3.12.12; 21.1; 24.1; SC 211.234-5, 398-9, 470-3; AH 4.1.1; 11.3; SC 1002.394-5; 506-7; AH
5.2.2; 13.2; 19.2; SC 153.30-1, 168-9, 250-1.
31
c. Noet. 4.7-8, Butterworth 52, cf 8.2.
32
Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 110, 106; cf. c. Noet. 8.1.
33
Hippolytus along with Tertullian and Methodius hold not only that Jesus took on flesh in the
incarnation but that he took it to heaven in the ascension, thus maintaining the distinction between the Father and
Son, C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 100.
34
Hans Urs von Balthasar, The von Balthasar Reader, trans. by R. J. Daly and F. Lawrence (New York:
Crossroad Herder, 1997), 384.
p. 13
impossible to ignore in the centuries after his death.

Origens chief contribution to the development of Christology is his doctrine of the eternal
generation of the Son. He developed this to explain passages in the NT like Col 1.15, where
Jesus is the firstborn over all creation. Origen rightly refused to interpret this as meaning the
Son at some time in the past was created. In fact he uses language that later was adopted against
the Arians: There was not a time when he was not.35
Instead, Origen said the Son is generated eternally from the Father. It must be an eternal
generation, without beginning, because God has never existed without his wisdom, his reason, his
word.36
However, Origen does view that fact that the Son is generated while the Father is not as
significant for the relationship within the Trinity. While both the Father and the Son are divine for
Origen, he does speak rather strongly of the subordination of the Son to the Father. In a passage
in Against Celsus, he says:
Therefore, though we may call him a second God, (*,bJ,D@H 2,`H) it should be
understood by this that we do not mean anything except the virtue which includes
all virtues, and the Logos which includes every logos whatsoever of the beings
which have been made according to nature, both those which are primary and
those that exist for the benefit of the whole. We say that this Logos dwelt in the
soul of Jesus and was united with it in a closer union than that of any other soul,
because he alone has been able perfectly to receive the highest participation in him
who is the very Logos and the very Wisdom, and the very Righteousness himself.37
So he urges us to pray only to the Father: We should not pray to any generate being, not even to
Christ, but only to the God and Father of the universe, to Whom our Savior Himself prayed.38 But in
practical terms, Origen himself was not consistent here, urging elsewhere, especially in homilies,
prayer to the Son.39
The Son is subordinate to the Father because his main role is as the bridge between the transcendent
Father and the created world.
35
On First Principles 1.2.9; 4.4.1; and Commentary on Romans 1.5 as cited in Henri Crouzel, Origen,
trans. by A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989), 187. Also see Homily on Jeremiah 9.4.
36
Crouzel, Origen, 187.
37
Against Celsus 5.39, Henry Chadwick, trans., Origen:Contra Celsum, Translated with an Introduction
& Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 296. The Greek supplied by Kelly, Early Christian
Doctrines, 128, who translates it a secondary God.
38
39
On Prayer 15.1, cited by Kelly, Early Chrstian Doctrines, 132.
John J. OMeara, Introduction, in Origen, Prayer and Exhortation to Martyrdom, ACW 19 (London:
Longmans, Green, 1954), 9.
p. 14
Origen uses the word trinity at least three times to describe the nature of God.40 In a discussion on
the Holy Spirit he says:
The person of the Holy Spirit is of so great authority and dignity that saving baptism
is not complete except when performed with the authority of the whole most excellent
Trinity, that is, by naming of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and that the name of the
Holy Spirit must be joined to taht of the unbegotton God the Father and his onlybegotten Son.41
Origen said that baptism must be by the authority of the most excellent Trinity42
His description of the Trinity is made in terms that caused later misunderstandings, since he describes
the Trinity in terms of three hypostases.43 Origen is using the word hypostasis to mean individual
subsistence,44 and so we could translate it person in this context. In other words, Origen seems to
use the word hypostasis in the same way Tertullian did the word persona.45 In this language Origen
is opposing the teachings of modalism.
A major interpreter of Origen notes that we must be careful to not judge Origens statements by the
standards of the Council of Nicaea, almost a century in the future.46
NOVATIAN (d. 258)

Novatian was a presbyter of the church at Rome who died during the persecution of Valerian ( r
253-260). Like Hippolytus in the previous generation, Novatian was involved in controversy and
was elected by a minority party as bishop of Rome. He was excommunicated in 251 by a synod in
Rome.47
His De trinitate is the earliest Latin theological treatise surviving from the church in Rome48 and is
40
On First Principles 1.6.4; 2.2.2; 4.3.15, cited in Crouzel, Origen, 199.
41
Origen, On first principles, 1.3.2, G. W. Butterworth, trans. (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973), 30.
42
Origen, On first principles 1.3.2.
43
Commentary on John 2.10.75.
44
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 129.
45
Richard A. Norris, Hypostasis in EEChr.
46
Crouzel, Origen, 188 and 203-204.
47
Eusebius, HE 6.42, cited in DeSimone, Novatian, FC 67 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of

America, 1972), 6. Socrates records his martyrdom, Hist. Eccl. 4.28. For a summary of his life and influence, see
Quasten, Patrology 2.212-216.
48
It was written well before 250, Quasten, Patrology 2.217.
p. 15
entirely orthodox. It was preserved despite his schismatic reputation by inclusion among the
works of Tertullian.49 It is a commentary on the rule of faith and a large portion (ch 12-28) sets
out proofs of the divinity of Christ.50
He makes a distinction between Christs two natures, the Son of God and the Son of man
which are united, Man is joined to God, and God is coupled to Man.51
He advances theology with his description of Christ as Verbum Dei incarnatum.52 He turns
tables on the docetics who disparage marriage by asking why their Christ would assume the
appearance of one born in marriage.53
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA
[Patristics 2014 L-3 CGST]
He was a student of Origen and became bishop of Alexandria from 247 to 265. His reign as
bishop was marked by many problems, including famine, plague and persecution.
He is not to be confused with several other figures by the same name, especially not with
Dionysius the Areopagite a writer of the fifth or sixth century, who attempted to identify
himself with Pauls convert mentioned in Acts 17.34, nor with Dionysius, Bishop of Rome who
was contemporary with Dionysius of Alexandria.
When some modalist teaching entered his territory, Dionysius responded. Of course any response
to modalism can fall into one of two pits: on the one hand tritheism, and on the other, a
subordinationist view. Dionysius, following his master Origen, fell into the latter error. This was
taken up by his modalist opponents and submitted as a charge to the bishop of Rome, who was
also named Dionysius (Bp: c. 260 - c. 268).
Dionysius defended himself against charges of using language that subordinated the Son to the
Father. The charges against him included: 54
49
ODCC, Novatianism. The word trinitas does not occur in the treatise and was probably added
sometime after Nicaea, DeSimone, FC 67.23, n. 1. His works de Spectaculis and de bono pudicitiae survived
under Cyprians name.
50
DeSimone, FC 67.14.
51
He uses these terms: permixtio, connexio, concordia, concretum and confibulatio, A. Grillmeier Christ
in Christian Tradition, Vol. 1: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), 2nd edn (London: Mowbrays, 1975),
1.131, citing trin. 24. Also trin. 15.4, FC 67.58.
52
trin. 24 in Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 1.132.
53
trin. 10.5, FC 67.45.
54
H. Chadwick, The Church In Ancient Society, 163.
p. 16
- he denied the eternality of the Son, implying there was a time when he did not exist
- he does not say Christ is of one being with God (using the word homoousios)
- he seems to speak of a creation of the Son by the Father
The Roman bishop Dionysius warned that the Origenist language of three hypostases is just short
of asserting tritheism. He said this Alexandrian theology was dangerous, making God into three
powers, three absolutely separate hypostases, three divinities. The view in Rome was that the
word hypostasis was equivalent to substantia, and carried the meaning of the indivisible concrete
reality of the Godhead.55
Dionysius of Alexandria replied by backtracking a bit, but he did not want to abandon the
language he inherited from his master, Origen on the three hypostases. He also answered the
charge that he did not use the word homoousios because it was not found in Scripture, even
though he accepted the concept behind it (or at least in a generic sense; he used illustrations like
the river and its source share the same nature).56
Kelly notes that with this disagreement between the two men who shared the name Dionysius we
have an illustration of the difference between West and East. In the West, as represented here by
the bishop of Rome, the beginning point to think about the Trinity was the unity: in the West there
was a monarchian bias. So any language of the individual persons was suspicious. In the East
the beginning point for the Trinity was to first think of the three (Kelly notes the stronger
influence here of a neo-Platonic hierarchy of being).57
PAUL OF SAMOSATA
(d. 275)
(From AGST, Historical Theology 105, Early Trinitarian doctrine)
Paul of Samosata became bishop of Antioch in 261. His teachings were a point of controversy
during three synods at Antioch, in 264, 265 and 268. During this third synod he was removed as
bishop for heretical views.
He came under suspicion for his attack on Origens description of God as three hypostases.
Instead Paul said Jesus was indwelt by the divine Logos.58 The Logos is an extension of the
one God and that Logos / Word is what entered into the human man, Jesus. This avoids the
pluralistic language for which he criticized Origen. In this way the Son and the Father are the
same.
This is a teaching called Adoptionism, emphasizing the idea that God adopted the man Jesus.
55
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 134, 136.
56
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 135-6.
57
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 136.
58
H. Chadwick, The Church In Ancient Society, 168.
p. 17
In this view, Jesus is an especially holy man and so remains in full communion with God, to the
extent he is adopted as Gods Son. This is a form of subordination of the Son.
While Pauls theology sounds like modalism, it is not. Modalists say Jesus is truly God because
he is one aspect or mode of God, who is one person. Adoptionists like Paul say Jesus is not truly
God, but one adopted by God.
The confusion is promoted by the unfortunate fact that modalism is sometimes called modalistic
monarchianism, while adoptionism is sometimes called dynamic monarchianism.
H. O. J. Brown points out that both are monarchistic because both heresies stress the oneness of
God. The differences between the two lie in their explanation of the identity of Jesus, the
modalist seeing him as true God because he is only a side of God, while the adoptionist will see
Jesus as a human. But neither would see Jesus as a second person of the Trinity, equal in divinity
to the Father.59
However, some modern modalists like Quiboloy apparently use adoptionist language when
discussing the death on the cross (since God cant die, it must have been the man Jesus).
THE ARIAN CRISIS
(This section Arian Crisis edited down from AGST Patr\THIRD_CN.9)
ARIUS (d. 336)

Arius was born in Africa, possibly in Alexandria. He became a presbyter in Alexandria in 312,
ordained by Bishop Achillas. The next bishop, Alexander (312-328), promoted Arius and gave
him responsibility in a part of the city near the docks where he became well known as a preacher
and ascetic.
Somewhere around the year 318 Bishop Alexander was interrupted during a sermon. The
protester was none other than Arius, who objected to his bishops language speaking of the Son
and the Father being equal from eternity.60 Arius said, If the Father begat the Son, he that was
begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time [sic] when
the Son was not.61
Alexander responded with a synod of about 100 bishops and priests who excommuicated Arius and
59
Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the
Apostles to the Present (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 95-96.
60
61
Socrates, H.E. 1.5 as summarized by Charles Kannengiesser, Arius in EEChr.
Socrates, H.E. 1.6, NPNF 2.2, CCEL CD. Arius did not say the Son was created in some distant past
time, but rather that the Son was begotten before all times. See H. Chadwick, Church in Ancient Society, 196-197.
p. 18
some of his followers. Alexander summarized the dangers of the Arian view. He said the Arian
Christ is neither fully God nor fully human. It is not fully God because it is created by God in
some timeless past. It is not fully human because it was not created as humans were.62
As with all heresies, the intentions were good: Arius was deeply concerned by modalist language.
He felt the modalist concept that so emphasizes the unity of God that it subsumes the Son into the
Father was quite wrong. Arius had Origen to draw from, and his language about the Son as a
secondary god and his subordinationism of the Son (see previous section on Origen).
Arius saw himself as following Lucian of Antioch (d. 312), who may have been following Paul of
Samosata (remember that Pauls views are adoptionist, not modalist, thereby reducing the rank of
the Son to less than full divinity rather than denying the separate personhood of the Son). The
key concept Arius took from this background was the idea of the subordination of the Son to the
Father.
In his rush to protect the unity of God (monarchianism) he responded with an over-reaction. To
preserve the oneness of God he had to relegate the Son to a lower level. Arius accused his
opponents of teaching either Sabellianism or ditheism.
Arius taught that Jesus was a created being. He taught that The Son has a beginning but...God is
without beginning.63 Arius said Jesus was of similar substance with the Father. The term son
is a metaphor for Arius, and does not carry any implication that the Son and Father share the same
status or being.64
Henry Chadwick summarizes the problem for Arius:
Arius did not see how an assertation of the divine presence in Christ the redeemer
could be made by a monotheist without some qualification, viz. that the Son is
subordinate to the Father from whom he derives his divinity. Indeed since he is the
mediator, his metaphysical position is best seen as halfway between Creator and
creature, at the summit of the created order, yet not in the same category as the
creation generally.
Arius referred to the testimony of the Gospels as favoring his view: Jesus was tempted but God is
immutable and cannot be tempted.65
62
From Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.6.4-13, summarized in W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 494.
63
From a letter by Arius, cited in Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd edn revised by
R. T. Handy (New York: C. Scribners Sons, 1970), 107.
64
Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Oxford,
Blackwell, 1998), 49.
65
H. Chadwick, Church in Ancient Society, 197.
p. 19
Arius claimed the support of Scripture for his views. He especially referred to Proverbs 8.22
The Lord created me [i.e. the Son] a beginning of his ways, for his works. and Colossians 1.15
where Jesus is described as the firstborn (BDTJ`J@6@H) of all creation.66
Arius attracted both those who fully supported him and others, who while not as willing to use
Arian language, did feel that Bishop Alexander had over reacted against his presbyter. Eusebius,
bishop of Nicomedia, a man who had close ties with the Emperor, Constantine, was part of those
who were more sympathetic to Arian theology.
But the Emperor was also hearing from those who were very disturbed by the Arian teachings.
Ossius (sometimes spelled Hosius), bishop of Cordoba, Spain (bp. c. 295 - c. 357) was one of the
anti-Arians. Nevertheless, he was dispatched by the Emperor to Antioch to get to the bottom of
this disagreement.
In a letter to Alexander and Arius the Emperor expressed his hope that this matter could be
quickly resolved as it was about trivial details of small significance:
Is it right on account of insignificant and vain contentions between you about
words, that brethren should be set in opposition against brethren; and that the
honorable communion should be distracted by unhallowed dissension, through our
striving with one another respecting things so unimportant, and by no means
essential? These quarrels are vulgar and rather consistent with puerile
thoughtlessness, than suitable to the intelligence of priests and prudent men. We
should spontaneously turn aside from the temptations of the devil. The great God
and Saviour of us all has extended to all the common light. Under his providence,
allow me, his servant, to bring this effort of mine to a successful issue; that by my
exhortation, ministry, and earnest admonition, I may lead you, his people, back to
unity of communion.67
Ossius presided over a council in Antioch in 325 where this issue arose, although the meeting was
also to work on other matters, namely the date of Easter. But it became obvious another, more
widely attended meeting needed to be called. And so a new and more broadly representative
meeting was set in a town more accessible to the hundreds who were coming, to Nicaea, where
the Emperor himself could be nearby in one of his palaces.68
66
These two texts cited from G. Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ, 106. Another set of texts (John 1:14,
1:18, 3:16, 3:18) uses the term only begotten, from the Greek monogenes :@<@(,<ZH which does not mean
born of or created by but rather one of a kind or unique. The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 2.725. See also Leon Morris, The
Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, The New International
Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 105.
67
Socrates, H.E. 1.7, NPNF 2.2, CCEL CD.
68
H. Chadwick, Church in Ancient Society, 198.
p. 20
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA 325

From the point of view of the Emperor, who had long demonstrated an interest in Christianity and
who had employed it as a unifying factor, this new quarrel between the bishops was not just
troublesome but dangerous to the order of society. It is with this in mind that he sponsors this
meeting we now call the Council of Nicaea.
More than 200 bishops69 came together in May and June of the year 325 in this place near the new
capital city of Constantinople, a town called Nicaea (now Iznik, Turkey). It was one of the first if
not the first gathering of bishops from all parts of the Empire. Of course, persecution had
hindered this before. And the fact that the bishops traveled at government expense also helped to
bring this council about.
Most of the representatives were from the East. Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome, did not attend,
sending as his representatives two presbyters. Athanasius attended as the secretary to the bishop
of Alexandria, Alexander.
Eusebius (most likely of Caesarea, not Nicomedia) put forth the first proposal, but it was quickly
rejected as being too broad. However care was taken to include him in further discussions
because of his large influence.
Some of the debate revolved around two Greek terms which differ by one single letter:
homoiousion - :@4@bF4@<
homoousion - :@@bF4@<
- of similar substance or being and

- of the same substance or being.
The orthodox party favored the second term (the one without the extra iota), which makes Jesus
divine in the exact same way that the Father is divine.
The second term, homoousios, makes it into the Nicene creed, rendered in English being of one
substance with the Father. It is usually translated into Latin as consubstantialis.70
The term homoousios was favored by some anti-Arians because Arius had explicitly rejected the
term before the Council met because he thought it implied Sabellianism.
69
H. Chadwick, Church In Ancient Society, 198, says the signature lists indicate the number of attending
bishops was probably closer to 200 than to the 318 mentioned in later sources.
70
The form of the Creed we have today actually dates from 381 and is properly called the NicenoConstantinopolitan creed.
p. 21
There is strong evidence that the term itself was introduced into the Councils consideration by
the Emperor Constantine.71
A chart of the terms by Harold O. J. Brown: 72

Greek
term
meaning of
Greek term
ousia
essence
or substance
hypostasis
person
prosopon
face or mask
secondary
meaning
direct Latin
equivalent
usual Latin
term
meaning of
Latin term
essentia
substantia
essence or
substance
substance
subsistentia
persona
person or
actor or role
person
facies
persona
person or
actor or role
The Greek work ousia should be translated into Latin as essentia, but instead was rendered
substantia, so the word homoousios is translated consubstantialis.
Confusion arises because in Greek thinking the words ousia and hypostasis could be used
interchangeably although in later developments their meanings separated: ousia becoming
underlying reality or being, and hypostasis meaning something like individual, personal
reality.
More confusion comes because sometimes hypostasis could also be connected with the Latin
71
Pier Franco Beatrice, The Word Homoousios from Hellenism to Christianity, Church History, 71.2
(June 2002), 243-272.
72
Adapted from Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and
Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 129.
p. 22
substantia.
Brown gives us two examples where a description of the Trinity was misunderstood in translation:
A Greek speaker might say: mia ousia en trisin hypostasesi
His intended meaning:
one substance / essence in three subsistences (persons)
Some Latins might hear:
one essence in three substances = tritheism
A Latin speaker might say:
His intended meaning:
Some Greeks might hear:
una substantia in tribus personis

one substance in three persons
one person (hypostasis) in three roles = modalism73
THE REACTION TO NICAEA

One might think that the Arian crisis was brought to a head and solved with the Council of Nicaea
in 325, but this is not the case. In fact, the crisis had only begun in 318 and continued well
beyond 325 but it was shaped in new directions after the Council. We could roughly define the
Arian crisis as beginning in 318 to 381 (Council of Constantinople).
In fact, the Nicene definition became the focal point of divisions within the Church that extended
well into the next century.
The key word in the Nicene statement, homoousios, was fairly new to the theological debate. It
became a point of disagreement in the years after Nicaea. The main concern from the Eastern
stance was that the Nicene definition did not guard against modalism. The unity of God had been
so emphasized that there was a danger, widely felt among the Eastern bishops, of falling into a
modalist view of God, which is precisely the point Arius was making when he proposed his
subordinationist model.
However, we must not think of the East as entirely Arian and the West as entirely pro-Nicene.
For one, much of the resistance to the language of Arius came from that great Eastern center,
Alexandria. Also we must keep in mind that the issues are more complex and in the East
especially we must be careful to acknowledge that many figures and synods which expressed an
unease with the homoousios formula were equally disturbed by the blatant subordinationism of
full blown Arianism. To cite but one example: the second definition of Antioch in 341 expressed
an unease with both Nicaea and Arius.
ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 296 - 373)
73
H. O. J. Brown, Heresies, 130.
p. 23
When Alexander, bishop of Alexandria attended the Council of Nicaea, he brought with him his
secretary, Athanasius. Just three years later the young secretary (not yet thirty years of age)
would succeed Alexander to the see at Alexandria.
Athanasius must have been chosen at least partly because it was known he would continue the
stance of Alexander, who was the bishop who had first put Arius under discipline. And so it
proved to be, since Athanasius stood out as the most vocal opponent of Arian theology after 325.
So much so that the Emperor Constantius 2 threatened to have him killed if he did not back off of
his campaign against the Arians.
Athanasius began his reign as bishop in 328. During the next 46 years (328-373) he would spend
17 years banished from his home.74 This was due to his uncompromising defense of Nicaea and
unyielding attack on those who did not follow the Council.
Things were brought to a head at the Council of Tyre, 335, which is a watershed for the evolving
relationship between the Church and the State. The Emperor summoned church leaders to deal
with the disputes that seemed to surround Athanasius. Like Nicaea this Council was called by the
Emperor and was presided over by his official, not by a Church leader.75
At Tyre Athanasius was handed a disciplinary sentence. He was found guilty of having been made
a bishop before the minimum age of thirty and of causing sacrilege and of using violent means
against the Meletians. He was exiled to Trier, where he made an acquaintance with the son of
Constantine and later Emperor, Constantine 2. It may have been during this exile that he
composed his famous treatise On the Incarnation.76
While Athanasius was absent, in exile, arrangements were set in motion to restore Arius to his
office of presbyter in Alexandria. However Arius died before this could happen (336). The next
year saw the death of the Emperor. In 337, when Constantine died, his son, Constantine 2,
ordered Athanasius restored to Alexandria.
Here are some of the statements of Athanasius, defending the Nicene view:
We believe in one unbegotten God, Father almighty . . . who has his being from
himself. And in one only-begotten Word, Wisdom, Son, begotten of the Father
without beginning and eternally . . . the true image of the Father, equal in honor
and glory. 77
He directly attacks the Arian claim that there was a time when the Son did not exist:
74
Gerald Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ (Fearn, Rossshire, UK: Mentor, 1984), 109.
75
Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 527.
76
Chadwick, 229.
77
Athanasius, Statement of faith 1, NPNF series 2, 4.84, cited in Allison 238.
p. 24
What belongs to the Father, belongs to the Son. . . . As then the Father is not a
creature, so neither is the Son; and as it is not possible to say of him [the Father],
there was a time when he was not, nor made of nothing, so it is not proper to
say the like of the Son either. But rather, as the Fathers attributes are
everlastingness, immortality, eternity, and not being a creature, it follows that thus
also we must think of the Son. 78
He also clearly distinguishes the persons:
Neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of
the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. 79
LATER DEVELOPMENTS
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (d. 386)
He was bishop of Jerusalem from about 350 to his death in 386. He is interesting because while
he did not support Arius, he also was suspicious of the new term being used against Arius,
homoousios.
He was twice banished from his see in Jerusalem due to the interplay between the theological
controversy over Arius and Imperial politics. His first exile was ordered by a local synod in 357
which was under the influence of a rival bishop, Acacius of Caesarea. He was briefly restored to
the see in Jerusalem in 359 but banished again in 360 by Emperor Constantius ( r: 337-361), son
of the great Constantine.
When Julian came to the Imperial throne in 361 he turned government policy in an anti-Christian
direction (thus his title, the Apostate). His reasons for promoting pagan religion are complex,
but partly due to the fact that he hated his uncle, Constantine the Great and his cousin,
Constantius, the latter because Julian held him responsible for the massacre of Imperial contenders
in 337 in which his parents were killed.
Julian put Cyril back on the bishops seat in Jerusalem, possibly because he knew it would create
more disturbance among the Christians.
How was it that Julian was able to sustain his anti-Christian policy? We must remember that it is
very likely that in his day the majority of the Empire was still pagan. Ramsay MacMullen believes
78
Athanasius, On Luke 10.22, 4, NPNF series 2, 4.89, cited and slightly clarified by Allison 238.
79
Athanasius, Statement of faith 2, NPNF series 2, 4.84, in Allison 238.
p. 25
that at the beginning of the fifth century (400 AD) up to half the population was non-Christian.80
Julian was killed in battle in Persia, 363, and with his death ended any real hope for the restoration
of paganism, despite the demographics. The clock could not be turned back: the Christian faith
had permeated the social and political structures, if not the heart and soul, of the Roman Empire.
If most were not yet Christians, they were now living in an increasingly Christian society.
Returning to Cyril, he was again exiled by the Emperor Valens ( r: 364-378) who was more
sympathetic to Arianism. He returned to Jerusalem when Valens died, in 378, so this was an
eleven year exile.
During his exile he apparently accepted the homoousios term (though he never uses it) and was
acknowledged to be orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 381, which he attended.
AUGUSTINE
(354-430)
Augustine was a Christian writer, theologian, and the bishop of Hippo, a town near Carthage. He
was from North Africa, like Cyprian and Tertullian. He was highly educated in pagan classic
literature and became a university teacher. He already had a mistress when he was sixteen years
old.
He was converted in 386, after hearing the preaching of Ambrose, bishop of Milan. He was 32
years old. Ten years later (396) he was appointed bishop at Hippo. In his life he wrote 93 literary
works, 232 books, hundreds of sermons and letters. We still have some six million words of his
work. During the fourteen centuries from the completion of the writing of the NT until the time
of Martin Luther, no one has had greater influence on the Church.
Concerning the doctrine of the trinity, most of the development of the technical language took
place in the East. However, we owe a debt to Augustine for extensive thought given to
explaining how this doctrine can be explained using analogies.
Augustine 81 follows the Western path of beginning with the fundamental unity of God. He set
out his thinking in his work On the Trinity, which he took twenty years to write, completing it in
419. It is almost unique when compared to other writings on the trinity in this time period due to
the fact that it was not written in response to any other position. David F. Wright comments that
80
Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, A.D. 100-400 (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1984), 83-85.
81
Much of this taken from David F. Wright, The Formation of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early
Church Reformation & Revival: A Quarterly Journal for Church Leadership, vol. 10, no. 2 (Summer 2001), 6993.
p. 26
this allows the treatise to take on the character of spiritual meditation as much as of speculative
dogmatics.82
Augustine prefers the word essentia over substantia to describe the unifying factor of the
Godhead. You will recall substantia was the term used by his fellow North-African, Tertullian,
almost two centuries previous. Wright points out that the word substantia could be interpreted as
allowing a distinction between substance and attributes in God, something orthodox thinkers
wished to avoid. Augustine also was very suspicious of Tertullians use of persona for the three
members of the trinity as this could be taken to mean three separate beings.
So he rather explained the trinity in terms of how the three related to one another. Augustine felt
the text in Genesis 1.26, Let us make man in our image should be read as teaching that the
internal workings of individual human beings in some dim way reflected the internal relationships
of the trinity. So he proposed the mind remembering, knowing and loving as an analogy of the
trinity. But he did not set out human psychology as a mere model which could explain the trinity;
he asserted rather that the human actions of remembering, understanding and loving God would
allow us to come to a deeper understanding of the triune God. In this way he combines reflection
on doctrine with spiritual maturing or sanctification.83
His description of the Holy Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and Son is an important
step towards the later Western development of the doctrine of the Filioque, which teaches that the
Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This doctrine has always been rejected in the
East as an unnecessary and unauthorized addition to the Nicene creed (in which point the Easterns
are correct).
God is all powerful, all present, creator of time. The Father is not the basis or substance of the
Godhead. All three need each other: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, alone, great,
omnipotent, good, just, merciful, creator of all things.. 84
THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 381

This council of about 150 Nicene and 36 non-Nicene bishops took place with little or no
representation from the western church. The assembly did reaffirm the Nicene definition, along
with the homoousios language. This Council finally defines the language for the trinity as one
ousia in three hypostaseis.85
82
Wright, Formation of the Doctrine of the Trinity, 90.
83
84
On the Trinity 7.6.12.
85
David F. Wright, Trinity, in EEChr.
p. 27
Apollinarianism was also condemned.

The creed we now recite as the Nicene Creed actually comes out of this council and is properly
called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.86
The origins of the Niceno-Constantinoplitan creed, or as some say, the Nicene Creed of 381, are
not clear. While it does reaffirm Nicaea of 325, it shows some development beyond, especially in
its language on the Holy Spirit, though it is not yet willing to speak of the Spirit as God in the
same way as it does speak so of the Son.87
The main theological contributions that led to the creed of 381 come from three figures known as
the Three Cappadocians. However trinitarian doctrine also benefitted from work of figures like
Didymus the Blind (d. 398), Amphilochius of Iconium (d. c. 394), Evagrinus of Pontus (d. 399)
and others.
THE THREE CAPPADOCIANS
(Note: the influence of these three preceeded the Council

but fit better here in the lecture)
The Cappadocian Fathers or the Three Cappadocians are a close knit social network of three
figures, two brothers, all three life-long friends. These three are:
Basil the Great (brother of Gregory of Nyssa)
Gregory of Nyssa (brother of Basil)
Gregory of Nazianzus
These three represent a truly post-Nicene theology, indeed none of them were yet born when the
first great Council met in 325.
BASIL OF CAESAREA (330-379)
Commonly known as Basil the Great. With Basil we are now full into a pattern that will
become very familiar: the theologian - monk. Prior to Basil we have encountered scholars who
were ascetics, indeed one thinks of Origen and of Athanasius. But these were ascetics as
individuals. Basils asceticism found its expression in an ascetic community. He founded a
monastery and is known for composing a monastic rule.
Basil was born into a wealthy family and received an excellent education. While yet a student he
formed a friendship with Gregory of Nazianzus.
His active theological career began in earnest when he was called out by Eusebius of Caesarea
(not the church historian who had been dead 30 years and not the Caesarea on the Mediterranean
86
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd edn (Harlow, Essex: Longman, 1972), 325-331.
87
Wright, The Formation of the Doctrine of the Trinity,69-93.
p. 28
coast but rather in Cappadocia, central Asia Minor) to defend the orthodox (Nicene) faith against
inroads made by the new Emperor, Valens ( r: 364-378), who was sympathetic to Arian theology.
For a while Basil associated with Apollinarius, but broke this off when the latters Christological
views became known as problematic.
His approach to the Trinitarian question was along Nicene lines. He employed some pagan
philosophy (Platonism) to help explain the Trinity. He said the three of the Godhead share a
common essence (ousia) but each has their own individual hypostasis.88 (Hypostasis can be
translated, as person.) 89
He proposes that these two terms ousia and hypostasis -- had previously been conflated and
even used synonymously, but now should be made distinct. In order to strengthen the Nicene
view, he puts forth this formulation: one ousia and three hypostases :\" @F\" JD,H
B@FJVF,4H . He says:
The distinction between @F\" and B@FJVF4H is the same as that between the
general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular
man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance
so as not to give a variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular
hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be
without confusion and clear. If we have no distinct perception of the separate
characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our
conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give a
sound account of our faith. We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the
particular to the common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular.
We must therefore combine the two and say, I believe in God the Father. The
like course must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the
particular with the common and say, I believe in God the Son, so in the case of
the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform to the appellation and say,
in God the Holy Ghost. Hence it results that there is a satisfactory preservation
of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead, while in the distinction of the
individual properties regarded in each there is the confession of the peculiar
properties of the Persons, and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are
convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius. 90
He understood the term homoousios in a generic sense: every human being has in common the
same ousia of humanity, and so the Father, Son and Spirit also share a common ousia, but they
88
Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 632.
89
Chadwick, 332-3.
90
Basil, Epistle 236.6, NPNF, 2nd series, 8.278, cited in Justo L. Gonzlez, A history of Christian thought:
Volume I: From the beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, revised edn (Abingdon, 1987), 307-8.
p. 29
remain also individual hypostases.

We must keep in mind that the Cappadocians were very influenced by Platonic thought, where a
hypostasis will be thought of not as an individual alone, but as a particular of a more concrete
universal. This means the Cappadocians are not tri-theists (as some thought) when using the
term hypostasis to speak of the three in the trinity.91
Basil also used the term theotokos to describe Mary.92
A major contribution of Basils to the development of doctrine is on the Holy Spirit. The Spirit
had been given a mere phrase in the Nicene creed, and [I believe] in the Holy Spirit. There was
some hesitation to openly declare the Holy Spirit as God since this might be seen as tri-theism.
In 375 he wrote a work entitled, On the Holy Spirit. While he probably did not write all of the
work as it has come down to us, he argues for the divinity of the Spirit, without calling him God
outright.93 The treatise is also significant for its use of tradition as a source of unfolding truth.
Basil is willing to say the Spirit is homoousios with the Father as is the Son, but he hesitates at
calling the Spirit God directly and indeed never states it so bluntly in this treatise.94 He argues
from the baptismal formula of the NT.
He collaborated with Gregory of Nazianzus to compile a digest of exegetical passages from
Origen, a labor of love which is known as the Philokalia.
He died in 378, three years short of being able to see much of his theology, especially his views on
the Spirit, being incorporated into the definition at the Council in Constantinople in 381.
GREGORY OF NYSSA (331 - c. 395)

Gregory was the youngest of the three Cappadocian Fathers and so was the younger brother of
Basil. Unlike his older brother he was not a monk; indeed before he was made a bishop he had
91
Wright, Trinity in EEC.
92
The first certain use of this term for Mary is in Alexander of Alexandria in 325, so Michael OCarroll,
Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, revised edition (Wilmington, DE: Michael
Glazier, 1983), Theotokos, God-Bearer.
93
Books 1-3 are his; books 4-5 belong to Didymus (the Blind) of Alexandria, F. W. Norris, Basil of
Caesarea in EEChr.
94
p. 30
married and pursued a secular career as a teacher of rhetoric.95

Basil selected his brother Gregory to be bishop of Nyssa in 372 (this despite his being married,
there were other married bishops at this time, though not common). Gregory was sent into exile
from his bishopric in 374 by the policy of the pro-Arian Emperor Valens. He was restored in 377
and soon thereafter his brother, much more well-known than he, died, in 379.
It is only after the death of his brother Basil that Gregory begins his career as a theologian in
earnest. He participated in the Synod of Antioch in 379 and began to write a defense of his
brother against Eunomius, who followed the broader Arian theology.
He was especially active at the Council of Constantinople in 381, giving the opening address (not
translated into English, see Migne, PG 46.544-553). The Councils creed is heavily informed by
the theology of the three Cappadocians.
He began a wide ministry of travel and giving public speeches, including funeral orations for
members of the Imperial family (some of this material is on your CD).
He affirmed unequivocally both the full divinity (against the Arian Eunomius) and the full
humanity (against Apollinarius) of Christ.96 He spoke of the generation of the Son and the
procession of the Spirit.
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS (c. 329 - 390)

He was an ascetic and pursued life as such along with Basil, his friend from their early student
days. He wrote on the Holy Spirit as well as addressing issues of the Trinity and of Christology, a
growing area of concern in theology. He emphasized the one nature of God and the three persons
of the Trinity.
His chief contribution to the development of Trinitarian thought is found in his refutation of the
Arianism of Eunomius (d. c. 393). Gregory, in his Theological Orations, asserts that the terms
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are terms of relation rather than of essence or of action.97
Gregory adds to trinitarian doctrinal development the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the
Father. He thus uses a different term than is used for the Son: generation or being begotten. He
95
Much of this summary of Gregorys life is from the Introduction by Jean Danilou in From Glory to
Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssas Mystical Writings, Herbert Musurillo, trans. and ed. (Crestwood, NY: St
Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2001), 3-78.
96
David L. Bals, Gregory of Nyssa in EEChr. Eunomius was a kind of Arian.
97
Gonzlez, A history of Christian thought, 1.313-4.
p. 31
bases this on John 15.26, When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father
the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father he will testify about me. 98
Gregory of Nyssa added to this the idea that the procession of the Spirit takes place from the
Father through the Son. This is an Eastern view which is now precluded in the West by the
addition in the West of the Filioque clause, inserted in Spain probably in the seventh century.99
(See below the discussion on the Filioque controversy).
Eastern thought has held that the Father - Son language in the NT means that the Father is the
sole fount of divinity and that the Filioque clause threatened the unique status of the Father
within the eternal relations of the Godhead. His divinity guaranteed the divinity of the Son and
the Spirit, as well as the unity of the three.100
After the intense debates on Trinitarian theology during the first five centuries, theologians did not
discuss the Trinity much until the 20th century.
THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY
[From Patristics L 6 2014 CGST]
The word filioque means and from the son in Latin. This word was added to the latest form
of the Nicene creed (of 381), probably at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. The addition is
significant because it teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. It
can be taken as putting the Holy Spirit into a lower state than the Son and Father.
The main objection to this addition came the Eastern churches, who felt it wrong to add anything
to a creed universally agreed upon (Nicaea). In fact the creed of Nicaea was never to be altered
according to canons accepted at both Ephesus and Chalcedon.
The NT says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Jn 15.26). This text can be read as
also implying the Spirit is sent by the Son as well (cf. Jn 14.26).
Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa and other Greek Fathers were hesitant to discuss this question as it
delved into the internal relationships within the Trinity. They would discuss the role of the Spirit
as following that of the Son in the area of salvation, but this did not reflect any view of the inner
workings of the Trinity.101
The West, beginning with Tertullian, was less reticent and restrained. There was a willingness to
98
99
Wright, 86.
100
Wright, 86.
101
Walter H. Principe, Filioque in EEChr.
p. 32
specify that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. So we see in Hilary of Potiers
this language, that the Spirit receives from both the Father and the Son, and so testifies to the
unity of the Trinity.102 This is similar to Augustine, who says the Spirit in the main proceeds from
the Father but in some sense also from the Son. The Son has it from the Father that the Holy
Spirit should also proceed from him.103
This contributed to the final break between the churches of the East and West in 1054. So, for
instance, in 867 the patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, accused some missionaries from the
West as teaching heresy because their version of the Nicene Creed contained the filioque clause.104
The Reformers and so most Evangelicals follow the inclusion of the filioque, in other words, we
teach that the Spirit does proceed from both the Father and the Son.
Comment on schism between East and West (Allison 243) where he asserts the addition of the
filioque is the main cause of the division. It contributed, but the division was already well on its
way to fruition long before. For example: the misunderstandings surrounding the terms used to
define the Trinity where the Greeks misread the Latins, and vice versa in the 4th century.
Some comments by a leading Evangelical theologian are in order:
The controversy was ultimately over such an obscure point of doctrine (essentially
the relationship between the Son and Spirit before creation) that it certainly did not
warrant division in the Church.105
FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO MODERN TIMES

Apart from continuing fallout from the Filioque controversy which was one of the factors that led
to the Great Schism of 1054, there was not much new development in trinitarian thought during
the Middle Ages.
During the Reformation the Trinity was one of those doctrines where the magisterial Reformers
and the Catholic Church remained in agreement. Here we cite Calvin not so much for any
originality but for his emphasis on the role of mystery in trinitarian thought.
102
Cited in Principe, Filioque in EEChr.
103
Augustine, Trin. 15.26.47, cited by Principe.
104
Walter H. Principe, Filioque in EEChr.
105
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity, 1994), 247.
p. 33
JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564)

Calvin is sometimes depicted as someone who was too precise and technical in his theology, even
to the point of denying any place for mystery. This picture of Calvin does not hold up if one
actually reads him. So on the trinity, he said:
Here, indeed, if anywhere in the secret mysteries of Scripture, we ought to play the
philosopher soberly and with great moderation; let us use great caution that neither
our thoughts nor our speech go beyond the limits to which the Word of God itself
extends. For how can the human mind measure off the measureless essence of
God according to its own little measure, a mind as yet unable to establish for
certain the nature of the suns body, though mens eyes daily gaze upon it?
Indeed, how can the mind by its own leading come to search out Gods essence
when it cannot even get to its own? Let us then willingly leave to God the
knowledge of himself. - Institutes 1.13.21 106
MICHAEL SERVETUS (1509-1553)

Most of those called Anabaptist were orthodox, but there was a small minority that deviated from
orthodox faith, especially in denial or questioning of the doctrine of the Trinity.
A commitment to rationalism led some to view the Trinity as a teaching that could not be
sustained in light of logic. Juan de Valds ( c. 1500 - 1541) questioned the Trinity, as did Faustus
Socinus (1539 - 1604).
The most infamous episode concerns Michael Servetus. In his native Spain he observed how the
Trinity was an obstacle to faith for both Muslims and Jews. He felt the NT did not support the
doctrine and therefore it should be rejected. His views caught the attention of authorities of the
Spanish Inquisition, so he fled to what he thought would be a safe haven, Protestant Geneva.
However the rulers of Geneva, influenced by their leading light John Calvin, declared him a
heretic. He was arrested and burned to death in Geneva.107 It should be noted also that he was a
pioneer in medicine - making the discovery that blood flowed from the heart to the lungs as well
as several other scientific findings. These were suppressed and forgotten for many years due to
his condemnation as a heretic.
106
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The
Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 146.
107
Gonzlez, A history of Christian thought, 3.102-3
p. 34
THE MODERN ERA

GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL (1770-1831)
Hegel was a German philosopher whose views had deep impact on theology. He attempted to
combine philosophy and religion, claiming that truth is God and God is truth. Traditional
Christian theology contains truth, but it needs to be re-stated in order to be accepted in the
modern world.
For Hegel philosophy and religion are somewhat the same though religion deals with
representations and symbols of reality while philosophy is of higher value as it moves behind
symbols to the reality they represent.108 Traditional doctrines such as the Trinity and resurrection
are merely signposts pointing to the Absolute Spirit. The cross is a symbol of how the infinite
suffers as it encounters the finite.109
FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER (1768-1834)

He is called the father of modern theology. Carl F. H. Henry calls him the founder of
Protestant Liberalism.110 He wished to protect the faith from attacks by radical skepicism and
scientific findings. His approach was to shift the entire topic of religion into a space separate from
history and science. He did this by proposing that theology concern itself not with the study of
God directly but rather by studying the experiences of religious people.
Religion for Schleiermacher is not a system of doctrines to believe, but a deep religious
experience. Religion is not knowing (theological constructions) nor doing (following morality)
but feeling. Thus he says,
that there are both a Knowing and a Doing which pertain to piety, but neither of
these constitutes the essence of piety: they only pertain to it inasmuch as the
stirred-up Feeling sometimes comes to rest in a thinking which fixes it, sometimes
discharges itself in an action which expresses it. . . . piety is a state in which
Knowing, Feeling, and Doing are combined.111
To protect religion from the modern questioning of doctrines and creeds, which were seen as
108
Robert R. Williams, Hegelianism in The Blackwell encyclopedia of modern Christian thought

[hereafter BEMCT], Alister E. McGrath, ed (Blackwell 1993).
109
Roger E. Olson, The journey of modern theology (IVP 2013), 95-6.
110
Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, TX: Word, 1976), 1.72.
111
The Christian faith: English translation of the second German edition, H. R. Mackintosh and J. S.
Stewart, eds (Harper Torchbooks, 1963), 3, 4 and 5, pp.109-110 in Mackintosh and Stewart.
p. 35
vestiges of a more simple time, Schleiermacher asserts that doctrines and creeds are merely a byproduct of ones religion, a vain attempt to express in words the deep, intimate feeling which is
religion in reality. He felt doctrines and creeds are not necessary to be truly religious.112
And so he denied major doctrines such as: the Trinity, the Fall of man, the virgin birth. For
Schleiermacher the Bible is the words of men about God, not words from God. But it is
extremely valuable as it preserves for us the religious reflections of Jesus and his earliest
followers.
And so, the Trinity is not an essential doctrine for him: The assumption of an eternal distinction
in the Supreme Being is not an utterance concerning the religious consciousness, for there it never
could emerge. 113
THE HISTORY OF RELIGION SCHOOL
The Trinity was one of the elements that was seen as Hellenistic and therefore not original to
Jesus and the Apostles according to the views of several of the so-called classic liberals. These
would point especially to the use of terms such as ousia and hypostatsis to show the Greek
corruption of the original teachings in the first century. This tendency is seen in the History of
Religion school and figures like Ferdinand C. Baur (1792-1860). The shift of theology away
from study of God to study of the religious feelings of humans (Friedrich Schleiermacher) also
contributed to the downplay if not the outright denial of Trinitarian thought. This continued in
the work of Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976).
KARL BARTH (1886-1968)
(From Modern Theology L3, 2014 CGST)
Karl Barth is often considered the most important theologian of the 20th century. His studies at
the universities of Bern, Berlin, Tbingen and Marburg trained him in classic liberal theology.
One of his professors, at Berlin, was Adolf Harnack. He became a pastor in his native
Switzerland where he began to reconsider his liberal training.
For Barth all of theology must begin and end with the Word of God, which is epitomized in Jesus
Christ. Olson observes that Theology, for him, remains irreducibly the science of Gods
Word.114 Human reason cannot know God, though if it is illuminated by God, it can lead to faith
in God and then one may know God because God in his freedom decides to make himself
known.115
112
Olson, 137.
113
Schleiermacher, The Christian faith, 739, cited in Allison 248.
114
Olson, Journey, 322.
115
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (Harper Torchbooks 1959), 23.
p. 36
From his emphasis on Christ Barth proceeds to revive the doctrine of the Trinity which had fallen
into disrepute at the hands of the liberal theological establishment. This is one of his greatest
legacies: the recovery of Trinitarian theology. Barth saw the Trinity as revealing the very nature
of God, and thus it is where his theology begins.
In his Church Dogmatics he says: The doctrine of the Trinity is what basically distinguishes the
Christian doctrine of God as Christian, in contrast to all other possible doctrines of God or
concepts of revelation.116 Unlike Schleiermacher, who confined discussion of the Trinity to the
final pages of his theology, Barth placed it at the start because trinitarian teaching fundamentally
distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God as Christian.117
He said also, He is, in Himself by nature and in eternity, and for us in time, the One in three ways
of being.118 This includes both the ontological and economic trinity. He justifies his use of the
phrase three ways of being (or modes of being as Allison translates)119 as distinct from the
modern concept of personhood. This is an important point because often we read the term
person from a post-Freud viewpoint back into the ancient definition of the Trinity.120 Barth
notes that the idea of person in the ancient Councils definitions is quite different from how we
think of the term person today. We tend to think of it like the way in which we men are
persons but this idea is as ill-suited as possible to describe what God the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit is.121
The three persons are eternally and continuously relating to one another. This is Barths emphasis
on the social Trinity, and is dimly reflected in human interactions:
In Gods own being and sphere there is a counterpart: a genuine but harmonious
self-encounter and self-discovery; a free co-existence and cooperation; an open
confrontation and reciprocity. Man is the repetition of this divine life form; its
copy and reflection. He is this first in the fact that he is the counterpart of God,
the encounter and discovery in God himself being copied and imitated in Gods
relation to man. But he is it also in the fact taht he is himself the counterpart of his
fellows and has in them a counerpart, the co-existence and cooperation in God
himself being repeated in the relation of man to man. Thus . . . the analogy
between God and man is simply the existence of the I and the Thou in
confrontation. This is first constitutive for God, and then for man created by God.
116
Barth, Church dogmatics I/1.309, in Olson 313.
117
Barth, Church dogmatics I/1.345 cited in Allison 249.
118
Barth, Outline, 42.
119
Allison, Historical theology, 249-250, who notes this is not classic modalism, but another way for
Barth to discuss the term person in relation to the Godhead.
120
This point about Freud is from me, not Barth nor Olson.
121
Barth, Outline, 43.
p. 37
122
KARL RAHNER (1904-1984)

Rahner is one of the most significant Catholic theologians of recent times. His overall concern
was to return to an appreciation of the transcendence of God, which he felt had been neglected.
In trinitarian theology he is famous for forming Rahners Rule, which is: The economic
Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.123 In other
words Gods revelatory acts toward us reflect the reality of who he is as triune. Some have
criticized this rule for opening the way to panentheism (God is in everything).
JRGEN MOLTMANN (1926 - )

Moltmann, 124 served as the pastor of a small Reformed church for five years. In 1957 he began
teaching, first at a school associated with the Confessing Church movement, then for a brief time
at the University of Bonn. After a year at Duke University in North Carolina, USA, he was
appointed as professor of systematic theology at the University of Tbingen in 1967.
The cross is central to Moltmanns thought for on the cross we see Gods love in action: it is a
love which can identify with us because God himself has suffered. This means that Moltmann
rejects the classical understanding of the impassibility of God.
Moltmann argues that the cross cannot be understood apart from the doctrine of the Trinity. At
Calvary God the Son suffers death and God the Father suffers the loss of the Son. This means the
ancient distinction drawn by the Cappadocians between the Trinity as we see it engaged in
salvation (economic) and the Trinity in itself (immanent) is discarded. The cross is internal to the
divine Trinitarian experience. It makes a difference to the Trinity as well as to the world.125
Some criticize Moltmann here that he makes the Trinity a part of history: the Trinity takes
122
Barth, Church dogmatics 185.
123
Rahner, The Trinity, 22, cited in Allison 250.
Chief sources for this summation of the life of Moltmann from S. J. Grenz and R. E. Olson, 20th
Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age (Intervarsity, 1992), 172-186 and articles by Richard
Bauckham in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, A. McGrath, ed. (Blackwell, 1993), D.
A. Currie in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, W. Elwell, ed., 2nd edn (Baker, 2001) and in the ODCC 3rd edn.
124
125
Bauckham.
p. 38
different forms throughout the history of Gods kingdom on the way to the future. However this
is not process theology because Moltmann does not see this as something happening to God, but
something that God allows to happen to himself as an act of love.126 We will see this theme
picked up by some Openness theologians.
Moltmann has used the phrase trinitarian panentheism for his views. He can be read as denying
the eternality of the Trinity:
The cross stands at the heart of the trinitarian being of God; it divides and conjoins
the persons in their relationships to each other and portrays them in a specific way.
For as we said, the theological dimension of the death of Jesus on the cross is what
happens between Jesus and his Father in the spirit of abandonment and surrender.
In these relationships the person of Jesus comes to the fore in its totality as the
Son, and the relationship of the Godhead and the manhood in his person fall into
the background. Anyone who really talks of the Trinity talks of the cross of Jesus,
and does not speculate in heavenly riddles. 127
The Trinity is the basis for which to understand Christian community as well. In the church we
must engage with one another in reciprocal relationships, just as in the Trinity we find such
interactions. However, in his emphasis on Trinitarian interaction, some have said Moltmann loses
sight of the unity of God.128
WOLFHART PANNENBERG
(1928 - 2014)
Pannenberg is another contemporary German theologian. While the Trinity is not as central for
Pannenberg as it is for Moltmann, he does accept it, though with a blurring (as in Moltmann)
between the eternal Trinity (immanent Trinity) and the engagement of each member in salvation
history (economic Trinity).
He also denied any primacy to the Father, insisting on completely mutual roles within the Trinity.
The Son cannot be the Son without the Father, but in turn, the Father cannot be the Father
without the Son.129
ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM
126
S. J. Grenz and R. E. Olson, 20th Century Theology, 180.
127
Jrgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (SCM, 1974, repr 1993), 207.
128
Michael Moxter and Ingolf U. Dalferth, Protestant Theology: Germany in The Blackwell
Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought.
129
Allison 251.
p. 39
A splinter group within the Assemblies of God began in the early part of the 20th century to teach
a form of modalism. The emphasis was on the name of Jesus, and baptism was administered
only in Jesus name rather than in the traditional trinitarian manner. An alternative name for this
movement is Jesus Name Pentecostalism. In 1914 the Assemblies of God expelled this group,
but it has continued to grow.
The most well-known name associated with this movement is T. D. Jakes (1957 - ), pastor of The
Potters House, a megachurch of 30,000. However he has said he accepts the Trinity.
In the Philippines we have Eli Soriano of Ang Dating Daan and Apollo Quiboloy, both who seem
to teach a modern version of modalism.

PHD 2016 Trinity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD 2016 Trinity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Lecture 3, H ours 17-24

Discussion of the readings

14 Tertullian Against Praxeas ch 22 = Tertullian of Carthage, Against Praxeas, ch XXII, in The

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

18 Cappadocian fathers on the Trinity = # 82 to 85 in Creeds, councils and controversies:

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE TRINITY

(From Evangelical Theology, L 5, July 2004, CGST)

3) The Holy Spirit is God.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

4) There is only one God.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

ANTE -NICENE DEVELOPMENTS

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

POLYCARP OF SMYRNA (d. c. 156)

JUSTIN MARTYR ( c. 100 - c. 165)

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (d. c. 185)

(From Patristics L 9-10, AGST 2002)

Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, ANF 1.

Theophilus, To Autolycus 2.15, ANF 1.487.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Quasten, Patrology 2.271.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Frederick W. Norris, Theophilus of Antioch, in Encyclopedia of early Christianity, Everett Ferguson,

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (d. c. 254)

(from AGST Patristics Lecture THIRD_CN.9)

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Dialogue 2; Compendium of Heretical Fables 3.1.

c. Noet. 4.7-8, Butterworth 52, cf 8.2.

Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 110, 106; cf. c. Noet. 8.1.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

impossible to ignore in the centuries after his death.

Crouzel, Origen, 187.

On Prayer 15.1, cited by Kelly, Early Chrstian Doctrines, 132.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

NOVATIAN (d. 258)

On First Principles 1.6.4; 2.2.2; 4.3.15, cited in Crouzel, Origen, 199.

Origen, On first principles 1.3.2.

Commentary on John 2.10.75.

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 129.

Richard A. Norris, Hypostasis in EEChr.

Crouzel, Origen, 188 and 203-204.

Eusebius, HE 6.42, cited in DeSimone, Novatian, FC 67 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of

It was written well before 250, Quasten, Patrology 2.217.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 25 Jan 2016 L-4: The Trinity