I’ve blogged about these folks before. I do not enjoy criticizing apologists, because I think Christian apologetics is important. And the folks at Credo House Ministries seem like good-hearted and hard working Christians who are doing their best to help Christians love God with their minds. And I think Patton is an excellent blogger and writer.
But I feel compelled to correct some of their inaccurate statements about “the” doctrine of the Trinity. In this video, they want to correct the myth that “The Trinity” – by which they mean “the” doctrine of the Trinity, or rather, the widely accepted catholic creedal formulas -“was invented.”
Well, given that it is a doctrine which we’re talking about, a theory, which didn’t exist in BC times, of course it was “invented,” i.e first formulated and stated by some folks.
But it actually wasn’t in 325, at Nicea! That formula, as then understood, was consistent with Christian unitarian theology.
But let’s go through their video.
- 1:10 – they actually start
- 1:38 – “one God who eternally exists in three persons” – the vague but standard formulation nowadays.
- 2:00 – Monotheism: good. But three “persons” in “the Godhead.”
- 2:25 – Nope, not in the Bible. Correct. BUT the “concept” is there.
Comment: there’s no term expressing the concept of a tripersonal deity anywhere in the Bible. So they can only mean that things the writers say imply that they had it. OK, then, what are these things?
- Baptismal formula at the end of Matthew. Jesus and his Father both called “God.”
I’m sorry, but that won’t do. Yes, I know they could and do add to those claims. (I’ll discuss their biblical argument to the Trinity in another post.) For now: these claims do not, even taken all together, imply the existence of a deity somehow containing three equally divine persons. The most you can say is that you have a theory which best explains those true statements. But so long as you think the Bible implies your theory, you’ll see no need to show why your theory is a better explanation of the texts than its rivals. You’ll just cite the texts, and say, “See?”
- 3:10 – They urge that “the” Trinity doctrine (which Christians already believed) was merely “articulated more fully” at Nicea in 325.
No, not really. It was still subordinationist (both ontological and functional) unitarian theology, but they foisted the controversial new term homoousios onto the bishops and everyone else, leading directly to decades of strife. They managed to exclude the “Arians” (although this went back and forth in the ensuing fight, and councils multiplied and emperors changed) but no one was looking back on the council and saying, “I’m glad we finally clarified that!” However, a coalition eventually did rally around the new term, and then insisted on it as a shibboleth. This, as interpreted by the “Cappadocians,” was enshrined in the catholic tradition in 381, and shortly thereafter enforced by the might of the empire. The era of open Christian theologizing was over as of 380.
- 3:30 Basic story of the Nicea council, according to Mr. Kimberly. Problem was that this Arius said “Jesus wasn’t God.” Council says: yes he is. Council declares the three to be one God.
Sorry, gentlemen, but this is not accurate. That wasn’t the debate – it was essentially one brand of unitarian subordinationism vs. another (though they wouldn’t have described it that way). This was not a new thing, in the grand scheme. And the council did not declare a triune, tri-personal deity, contrary to much catholic lore, up to the present day.
What it did, was assert the new and unclear claim that the Father and Son were “same substance” (homoousios) And even though the creed starts off professing belief in “one God, the Father,” this mysterious substance-sharing makes the Son “true God from true God.”
What? To many of us this sounds like two Gods. And many trinitarians now take it as equivalent to one God containing (at least) two equally divine persons. But at the time, it was a variant on the old speculation that Jesus was divine because he exists because of God, making him also addressable as “God” or “a god.” This was at the time an old theme with a new twist; the “same substance” and “true God” phrases seemed to imply a higher degree of qualitative similarity between the two than was traditional to assert. It was not understood, at the time, to assert, imply, or hint that they somehow “were” or were parts of or were contained in the one God.
And the council roundly damned Christians holding to theories which had been current since the mid 100s, to the effect that the Son (that is, the pre-existent Logos) was somehow emanated out of God a long time ago. Infidels! Scum! They must instead confess that the Son was “eternally begotten.” In perspective, this is a lot like Calvinists one one stripe disfellowshiping Calvinists of a different stripe – which is to say, it is apallingly contentious and mean. Of course, people put stock in rhetoric to the effect that everything hinged on this new lingo. The other guys were robbing, assaulting, or insulting, etc. Christ.
I assume that in the longer presentation they advertise at the end (4:45f), they assure you that there’s no decent analogy or model for “the Trinity” at all, so that you just must believe formulas you really don’t know the meaning of.
On the one hand, it’s not clear that one can do that. But if one can, does it sound like a good idea?
Here’s a more accurate source: Australian pastor Steve Katsaras goes through the plain, unvarnished biblical teaching about Jesus and God, and then in the second half accurately summarizes how the trinitarian creedal formulas arose from a series of catholic councils in the fourth and fifth centuries. Put it on your mp3 player and learn.
If you want to really dig into the history, the next steps would be this, then this.
Again, Christian apologetics is important, and I wish Credo all the best. I would not draw any general conclusions about their work based on these errors. Still, it is important when doing apologetics to be accurate to the historical facts. In defense of Credo, evangelical theologians and apologists have dropped the ball on all of this, so they’re just passing on common errors. But the facts are publicly available, and pretty clear, however theologically inconvenient they may be.
I am writing a book that is called, “Call on Me, and I Will Answer”. It is a book about God, man, and Jesus Christ. Yes I agree their is no mention of the Trinity in the bible, but there does mention Godhead three times in the New Testament. This Greek terminology meant the divine nature of God in their 3 parts of God being ONE GOD, of Christ, Holy Spirit the divine nature of God, and the Father being God. Saying Godhead being three parts sounds like God had three heads but truly it is meaning HIS nature, soul or mind of all three coming from ONE GOD. Christ being full God in Mind (Soul) begotten of God, and contrary to Australian Pastor Steve Katsaras he claims Jesus had a beginning as man on earth, but the Word of God meaning the Son of God was with God in the Beginning, and the Word of God comes in the man Jesus in the flesh. Jesus is the Son of God, God in bodily form as a human. Read Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Col 2:9 and John 1. How God works the Godhead out in three parts being ONE GOD I do not know but I know that Jesus was God in the flesh, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the person of God that comes and lives in us through faith in Jesus, and the Father is God Almighty, and how he works all three Godheads out is a mystery he can only solve when we meet him face to face! This was very interesting. Thank you
Vicki,
One of the passages you cite in your comment is Colossians 2:9. This text is referring to “the church” being “the bodily fullness of God.” It cannot be referring to the nature of Jesus Christ. Please consider the evidence in the context:
First, the following verse indicates that the “in him” refers to the Colossian believers who are “complete” in Christ (Colossians 2:10). This is the same “in him” in Colossians 2:9. It is not referring to Jesus himself.
Second, the following verse also indicates that Jesus is “the head” of those who are “in him.” Jesus cannot be the head of his own physical body (or nature). Paul has already established that Jesus is the “head” of the church “body” (Colossians 1:18).
Third, later in the context, Paul further describes how being “complete” in Christ (Colossians 2:10) is referring to the relationship of believers over whom Jesus is the “head” (Colossians 2:19). This shows that “bodily” in Colossians 2:9 is a metaphor referring to the church.
Fourth, the parallel passage in Ephesians 1:22-23 explicitly says that Jesus is “the head” over “the body” which is “the fullness of God.”
Hi Vicki: About Col. 2:9, I have a question for you:
If God can dwell in a mountain or in a temple yet the mountain and temple aren’t God, then why can’t he dwell in a man yet the man not be God?
~Sean
So if I get you right, the “homoousios” teaching is a false extrabiblical doctrine?
Helez,
To answer your question as to whether Dale is too generous in ascribing pure motive to these folks’ errors on the history of the Trinity, or whether they’re doing it deliberately; here’s some direction to the answer: I posted a link on that page, referencing Steve Katsaras’ sermon on the issue. The link was to the christianmonotheism website…it awaited moderation…then it mysteriously disappeared…
…you’ve got your answer…
@ Helez [March 22, 2013 at 7:24 am]
[a] So, when you read all in one breath, the “Trinitarian Baptismal Formula” being imparted “in the name of the Father” (an individual person) and “[in the name] of the Son” (an individual person), then, for some peculiar reason, “[in the name] of the Holy Spirit” would make an exception, and would NOT refer to an individual person.
Odd.
Then, again, neither the JW nor, apparently, Dale, have any problem with this curious twist …
[b] I have absolutely no problem with Jesus Christ being distinct from God, the Father Almighty and subordinate to Him. Not until he is raised by the Father, and taken up to Heaven, and glorified by being invited to sit “at the right of the Power”, anyway. OTOH, what is your problem with Jesus Christ, being, in his divine nature, “of the same substance”? Surely you have no problem with a human son being “of the same substance” as his human father. A human son certainly does NOT “personally pre-exist” to his own conception, I hope you will agree. So, where’s the problem?
[c] I have already replied to your comment #16 of March 15, 2013 at 10:30 am at thread “Subordinationism”, with my comment #17 of March 15, 2013 at 5:14 pm, with no further comments on your part …
… once again, the “personal pre-existence of Christ” is un-scriptural because it is NOT in the Scripture, other than as a mere projection on the scriptural text.
MdS
Thanks.
“well-educated people who deliberately teach such inaccuracies”
I don’t suppose that.
This is an occupational hazard of doing apologetics – coming up with replies and rebuttals to objections is important, but while you’re doing that, you not re-examining your own beliefs, but only pre-supposing that they are correct. But there are so many objections, from so many different directions, and so many competing religious views out there. So in addressing it all, one relies too much on secondary sources, and just doesn’t have the time and energy to dig deep. There is a constant danger, then, of relying on stock answers, answers that will only convince one’s own camp.
I just say, there but for the grace of God go I.
If there is fault, more of it goes to evangelical scholars who specialize in patristic studies, who don’t keep up with the scholarship, and so promulgate a simple, evangelical-friendly version of events.
“[b] What is “vague” about the “standard formulation” of the doctrine of the “trinity”?”
The central, novel term! Smart Christian philosophers are still parsing creative ways to understand it in a consistent and plausible way. And they always have – e.g. John Philoponus, Augustine, Aquinas, Abelard. See my “Trinity” entry in the SEP on all this.
[c] This is the “Baptismal formula… amusing that you, Dale, together with the (literalist inerrantist) JW don’t find it problematic, whereas, obviously the above Trinitarian Baptismal Formula (TBF), with that reference to the “name” (=authority) clearly suggests that NOT ONLY the Son, BUT ALSO the Holy Spirit would be persons.
It may “suggest” a lot of things, but it does not imply that the three are one God, or that they have the same ontological category. Imagine a western movie scene: “I deputize you in the name of the president, freedom, and sherrif Jones.”
” disaster …”
Eh… maybe you should spend less time reading and commenting here; terribly confused stuff isn’t worth your time, right?
MdS,
MdS: “It is rather amusing that you, Dale, together with the (literalist inerrantist) JW don’t find it problematic, whereas, obviously the above Trinitarian Baptismal Formula (TBF), with that reference to the “name” (=authority) clearly suggests that NOT ONLY the Son, BUT ALSO the Holy Spirit would be persons.”
The text doesn’t suggest a personal HS, let alone “obviously” or “clearly”. If today, things are done “in the name of the government,” does that obviously and clearly imply personhood of the government as well? Obviously and clearly not.
MdS: “Jesus Christ IS of the “same substance” as the Word, that was incarnated in/as Jesus (John 1:14), and, in turn, the Word IS of the “same substance” as God, the Father Almighty […]”
Scripture clearly depicts Jesus Christ as someone distinct from God Almighty himself and (both ontologically and functionally) subordinate to Him. (e.g., Joh 20:17, 1Co 11:3, 1Pe 1:3) If this is so, how can they possibly be of the same substance or kind of substance? That seems contradictory and nonsensical.
MdS: “[…] the un-scriptural “personal pre-existence” of the Word/Son […]”
As the affirmation of Jesus personal prehuman existence harmonizes with the most natural reading of the Scriptural text (see: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4468/comment-page-1#comment-97947) it’s just a little too bold to call the personal pre-existence of Christ unscriptural even if you personally prefer a different interpretation of the text.
Peace to you.
Dale,
It’s certainly good to be nice and friendly. Still, is it your contention that these “good-hearted and hard working Christians” are simply misinformed and credulous about what they’ve been told themselves, and as such ignorantly pass on common errors? Or are these well-educated people who deliberately teach such inaccuracies (falsehoods sounds less nice) in their attempt to promote their doctrines and condition the minds of layman Christians that look up to them?
Obviously, I can’t read hearts either, but they do make me wonder sometimes if it’s really the truth they are after…
[a] It is perfectly clear what “the folks at Credo House Ministries” mean by “invented”, viz. something like “created by humans, without scriptural basis, after Scriptural Revelation was completed”. Suppose, instead, that the doctrine of the “trinity”, more or less as it is affirmed by the Cappadocian scoundrels, was contained in the Canonical Scripture (OT + NT). Would you still call it “invented”? Let me doubt it, even if you said, YES …
[b] What is “vague” about the “standard formulation” of the doctrine of the “trinity”?
[c] This is the “Baptismal formula at the end of Matthew”:
“… baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, …” (Matt 28:19)
It is rather amusing that you, Dale, together with the (literalist inerrantist) JW don’t find it problematic, whereas, obviously the above Trinitarian Baptismal Formula (TBF), with that reference to the “name” (=authority) clearly suggests that NOT ONLY the Son, BUT ALSO the Holy Spirit would be persons.
BTW, although ALL extant NT mss include the TBF, I believe (with the commentators of the Bible de Jérusalem) that it was an insertion in the text of Matthew’s Gospel (rather early, as the parallel in the Didache suggests).
[d] Your quick historical-dogmatic account on “From Nicea to Constantinople” confirms (if there was any need) how critical and ineliminable the term homoousios proved to be, once introduced, at the bidding of Emperor Constantine, and whatever the motivations of the Council Fathers were in (reluctantly) accepting it.
Once the homoousios was introduced there were ONLY two possible outcomes (as I have already argued elsewhere at trinities.org) of the incorporation of the homoousios (in a neutral, philosophical sense, NOT in a heathen Egyptian Hermetic sense …) in the Christian Doctrine of the Godhead:
1. Full-fledged “trinitarianism” (“co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal”), without a spec of scriptural support;
2. The way of Irenaeus, viz. the Word and the Spirit as God’s two “hands” (or “arms”), co-essential with Him, BUT NOT personal, amply supported by the Scripture (see ahead).
Tragically, in spite of all the earnest efforts of Marcellus of Ancyra, way no.1 was eventually settled for, for the obvious reason that it was the only one that allowed for a “political” compromise between the neo-Nicenes and the semi-Arians.
[e] What would be “unclear” (again, from a philosophical POV, NOT in a heathen-Egyptian-Hermetic sense, that the Council Fathers had no reason to suspect) about the claim that Father and Son were of the “same substance” (homoousios)?
Jesus Christ IS of the “same substance” as the Word, that was incarnated in/as Jesus (John 1:14), and, in turn, the Word IS of the “same substance” as God, the Father Almighty because it (it …) is, with God’s Holy Spirit, one of his two “eternal arms” (or “hands”), as Deut 33:27 and Psalm 33:6 clearly indicate, and as Irenaeus rightly perceived (see my Journal post at Beliefnet, Word and Spirit: the “Everlasting Arms” of God)
But of course, you, Dale, artificially chalk everything that isn’t full-fledged (Cappadocian) “trinitarianism” up to your (artificially expanded) “unitarianism”, as though the un-scriptural “personal pre-existence” of the Word/Son and of the Holy Spirit could be easily glossed over and/or swept under the carpet …
A historical, dogmatic, theological, philosophical disaster …
MdS
Comments are closed.