Most conservative (and even, many not-too conservative) Christians belong to churches and/or denominations which affirm traditional language about the Trinity. In this series, I’m going to just put all this on the table, as the fact is, many Christians, especially those from less “confessional” traditions, aren’t very familiar with these traditional formulas. I’m not going to go too much into the history for now.
The council of Nicea (325 CE) was the first major step on the way to traditional trinitarianism. Here’s some of the document that council produced: (I’ve added the bold highlighting and removed some of the formatting.)
We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.
And those who say “there once was when he was not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”, and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia], affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
THE LETTER OF THE SYNOD IN NICAEA TO THE EGYPTIANS
First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor Constantine. It was unanimously agreed that anathemas should be pronounced against his impious opinion and his blasphemous terms and expressions which he has blasphemously applied to the Son of God, saying “he is from things that are not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”, and “there once was when he was not”, saying too that by his own power the Son of God is capable of evil and goodness, and calling him a creature and a work.
Against all this the holy synod pronounced anathemas, and did not allow this impious and abandoned opinion and these blasphemous words even to be heard.
Of that man and the fate which befell him, you have doubtless heard or will hear, lest we should seem to trample upon one who has already received a fitting reward because of his own sin.”
This council was occasioned by the Arian controversy. The history of this council, and especially its aftermath, is really interesting, and rather more ambiguous and down and dirty than common Catholic and Protestant apologetic accounts suggest. Major works on this are
- Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God.
- Lewis Ayres’ Nicea and Its Legacy.
- For non-pros, When Jesus Became God is a pretty good and easily readable overview of it all.
- About Arius himself, the best book is Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition.
- For the most official English translations of this and all the Catholic council documents, you need this two-volume set.
Inquirers should beware that anti-trinitarian literature often subscribes to simplistic, almost conspiracy theory accounts of the council, viewing as controlled by the ambiguously Christian emperor Constantine (who it must be admitted, had a lot more to do with the council than many of us would be comfortable with, were it up to us). But one should also beware of pro-Nicene spin on the events before, during, and after the 325 council from many writers, including Ayres and to a lesser extent Hanson. Truly, the passions aroused by the “Arian” controversy are still with us.
The central formula, that Son and Father are “consubstantial”, is very ambiguous. What is the sense of “substance” here? Same individual (i.e. God)? That would seem to be be Father and Son modalism, or else the incoherent claim that two beings are one being. Is it a universal nature or essence? That would seem to be di-theism, belief in two divinities. Is it that they’re “made of” or just “have” the same matter or stuff, or something analogous to matter or stuff? Or is a substance a particular but abstract thing, an individual property? Or… what? The formulas don’t tell you. There are more and less popular, and more or less plausible interpretations of how this document should be read, but it is less clear that there is one on which all reasonable Christians should agree.
It was quickly recognized that the above formula could be read (and spun, and “pushed”) in incompatible ways. Indeed – the words were chosen precisely for their ambiguity – it was a way to get the disagreeing parties to come together (each reading the words somewhat differently) and say something that the “Arians” could not accept. Post-council, some from the “Arian” and “neo-Arian” (really, subordinationist) camps accused the council of affirming Sabellianism. And a vicious, long theological fight ensued over how these words were to be understood, replete with dueling councils and council-documents, much heated polemical literature, occasional violence, lots of excommunications, and kissing up to the current emperor, trying to get him to smash one’s theological opponents.
I wonder how many Christians today agree with this part?
. . . affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
One final note: this isn’t, when you look closely at it, quite a trinitarian document. The issue at hand was the metaphysical nature of the Son. The Holy Spirit is barely mentioned, and the concept of a three-personed God just isn’t there. It was really all a christological dispute that occasioned the council. Echoing Paul and John (etc.) they still use “God” as a name for the Father, not for the whole Trinity (and also echoing the NT, they used “God” as a name or title for the Son as well).
For more information, there are podcast episodes on the controversy leading to the council, and the council statement itself, and how modern historical work is starting to replace partisan propaganda.
Pingback: trinities - Linkage: The Importance of Nicea (Dale)
Jeff,
“unitarianism is self-defeating” – Better tell the Jews – since this was the single most important creed they believed in (Deut 6:4). AND JESUS BELIEVED IT TOO (Mark 12:29)
And I am not a JW either. Jesus did not pre-exist in any fashion (other than in the thoughts of God – much like children exist in the minds of their parents as they plan to have them), nor was Jesus ever an angel.
It is actually “Downs”, but that is Ok, I’m the one that spelled it wrong.
I understand your reject these things and therefore reject God’s word. Christ was clearly more than a “normal man” or a mere man, even before his birth, since it is was Christ the Lord who Mary gave birth, and for some “stange” reason, John leaped in his mothers womb when the two mothers met.
I won’t call you a name (referencing one of your latest post), I’ll just state that I’m in agreement some of them, since you reject the clear teaching of scripture.
Jeff Dowsn,
All Christian denominations are united in teaching that Jesus was more than a normal man, born in the normal fashion. I reject all such teachings as unscriptural, including those of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Since you can draw the conclusion (from what I don’t know) that Vynette is right, I can do the same, but the with opposite conclusion.
Frankly, I have not been reading through Dale’s post, I just knew JWs would end up on this blog.
Might want to stay tuned, I will be posted an article on my site title “The Centrality of Trinitarianism,” in which R.K. McGregor Wright begins to article why the Trinity is central to the Bible and how unitarianism is self-defeating.
Well Jeff – Dale is doing our work for us. Showing us the inconsistencies in your own creeds. Furthermore any answers to these problems don’t seem to be plausible – and even less scripturally supported. The burden of proof is on you.
No, Vynette is not right! 🙂
Vynette is right, although I do ascribe the virgin birth – don’t know if she wouldn’t agree with that from her statement.
May I just step in and restate what I’ve said here before?
The doctrine of the trinity, whatever its essence, nature, substance or person(s), is unscriptural. Jesus was a normal man, born in the normal fashion, anointed by YHVH for a specific purpose.
Short sentances, with simple words. Is it really that hard to understand?
Wow John, I’ll leave you with that great wisdom you just imparted up us. I am baffled. Press on.
“Substance” does not make one a class of being. Designation does. “God” isn’t a person – even though we commonly use the term in that manner. YHWH is a person. YHWH is a God. YHWH is the God. Therefore we can say YHWH is God. But not that God is YHWH. God is a designation of being. I am a man by substance. YHWH is a spirit by substance. Angels are spirits by substance. I would imagine that angels and YHWH are made of the same ‘spirit-stuff’. The difference is YHWH’s designation – his classification of existence – as the ultimate being – who we call God.
My substance as a man doesn’t make me you, nor you me. Therefore even though we have the same substance (humanity) we are different people. We cannot say there is one man (in our case), but rather two men. There are two persons, and two men.
Bingo, substance refers to that which makes God, God.
Where is the disagreement on this?
Jeff, as I stated, I’m not sure I could give a detailed precise definition. I can give you the definition by which their statements reflect:
substance (n.) – the matter or energy which constitutes a being.
Or if you want to use the straight greek word transliterated, that is fine too. I object because they themselves cannot agree – neither historically nor now.
Kenny – Dale did post it, and I’ve read it previously, and now just re-read it. His post actually points out how none of these claims are consistent. Which underscores what I’m saying
John – at least we’re agreed on what we’re arguing about! Dale has already posted quite a bit on ways of rendering these claims consistent, and I’m sure there is more to come. See especially https://trinities.org/blog/archives/8
If you can’t not give us an understanding of the term substance, why would you be critical of Trinitarians use?
Regarding the use of philosophical terms – is it wrong to use non-biblical words to get a point across?
I can’t explicitly… I’m not sure they can either. But the closest thing I can come up with is ‘homeoousis’ – a non-Biblical, Greek philosophical word. In any case, the burden of proof is on trinitarians, it is their claim. My claim is quite simple. YHWH is God. He is the Father. He is one person, identified with singular pronouns thousands upon thousands of times. He says of himself there are no other true Gods, and Jesus calls him the only true God.
John O stated “In the Bible God is never identifed as a substance.”
John, can you tell us what Trinitarians mean by the word substance?
Thanks.
Kenny – I’m saying your definition is contradictory, and self-defeating. Which is where all the problems that your must deal with throughout church history have come from.
You claim Jesus (J) is God (G) and the Father (F) is God (G) and the holy spirit (H) is God (G). J=G, F=G, H=G, yet J!=F and so on. I know you’ve heard it before. To say that Jesus is fully God means that J is not a subset of G. J encompases all that G is. And so must F and H. Therefore if J!=F, J contains more than G, therefore G is not God. Because God is defined as the utmost being – there is none “more” than God.
Also Jesus, being identified as fully God, died. God, as stated by the Bible is immortal (1Tim). God cannot die. Yet this person who was fully God, died.
The entire argument has more contradictions than words. It is not biblically founded in the least.
JohnO – this is an argument that trinitarianism is incoherent and/or unbiblical (and an argument that trinitarians must deal with – and have tried to deal with countless times throughout church history), it is not an argument that trinitarianism is tritheism. As I said before, trinitarianism is by definition not tritheism, because trinitarianism explicitly affirms that “there is one God, the Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:6). That’s all I’m saying (right now).
Kenny,
In the Bible God is never identifed as a substance. I don’t care what the creeds say. God is always always a Person. So to say that three different Persons are God – you have three Gods.
To be a “God” is a classification of a being. Not a description of a being. Therefore monotheism states that only one person has the classification of “God”. That one person is YHWH.
Hi Mike,
No, I haven’t read that book.
Is Zizioulas saying that God is in the ontological category of a relationship? (If so, that looks like a problem…) Or is he saying that God is a substance, but he essence includes inter-trinitarian personal relationships? I’m sorry, I just don’t have a take on this. At first glance, he seems far from modalism, but in reality I have no idea – I’d have to dig through the book more. If you’d like, feel free to supply more of what you take to be crucial quotes.
Dale,
I wonder if you’ve read John Zizioulas’ Being As Communion? For a non-philosopher, it’s pretty tough sledding…but here goes.
You’ve raised the question in this topic, “What is the sense of ‘substance’ here?” I recall elsewhere in your blog objecting to your wife relating to your “easygoingness”: I believe you asserted your wife had to relate to you, the person. I’ll trust you’ll correct my memory here if I’ve got it wrong…but, your easygoingness is not a substance. Correct?
Zizioulas would- possibly- argue, sure, easygoingness is not a substance, but the relationship itself, more specifically: communion, is an ontological category as we discuss or describe the Trinity. “The Holy Trinity is a primordial ontological concept and not a notion which is added to the divine substance or rather which follows it, as is the case in the dogmatic manuals of the West and, alas, in those of the East in modern times. The substance of God, “God,†has no ontological content, no true being, apart from communion.†(p.17)
At first glance, this reads to me as a type 4 or type 6 FSH modalism…but, that Zizioulas takes a relationship, “communion,†as an ontological category to determine substance has me confused. I’m not sure if he’s being vague like Nicea, or if he’s dodging clarity, or if he’s on to something here.
Your take? Thanks.
Mike
John – what it means to be trinitarian is precisley that: to assert that there are three divine Persons while still claiming that there is only one God (i.e. still claiming to be a monotheist). It is one thing to argue that the trinitarian position is logically inconsistent (and this has, of course, been done quite often), but it is by definition a monotheistic position.
Dale – I assume we will next deal with the expanded version from Constantinople 1, and the difference between “begetting” and “proceeding”? I think we do probably have a properly trinitarian formulation by that point, since we begin by affirming “I believe in one God” and then go on to identify three distinct divine Persons. However, things are still a little mucky, as the Father seems to be more closely related to deity than the others in the text of the Creed, and the Holy Spirit is not explicitly called God, but only “Lord and Giver of Life,” but the deity of the Holy Spirit must be implicitly recognized here, because it says that the Holy Spirit “has spoken through the Prophets” and the prophets claimed to be giving direct quotations from God.
Looking forward to further discussion on these fascinating issues!
Dale,
So then, can you claim to be a trinitarian (Jesus is fully God and fully man)? All the wile maintaining you are a monotheist?
Hi John,
About John 10 – I agree. It blows me away how often this exchange is warped by an agenda. Here’s a paraphrase:
Pharisees: You, a man, claim to be God!
Jesus: What’s the big deal? In the Book, men to whom God’s word is addressed are called “gods”. So its hardly blasphemy for me to claim to be the *Son* of God.
So part of Jesus’ point is that someone can be called “theos” and be other than the one true God, even a man, no less.
Typical application (by apologetics guys, conservative theologians): [repeating the Pharisees] “See, Jesus claimed to be God.” People are reading their agenda into the texts big time.
Jesus’ point (end of the passage) is rather to emphasize that people should trust him because God is clearly with him, empowering and working through him. He draws attention not to his essential nature, but to his relation to the Father – being sent by him, doing his work – being “in” the Father (and the Father being “in” him). As to Jesus’ metaphysical status, this whole exchange is arguably neutral, although v. 36 may be taken to support Jesus’ pre-existence.
I also agree that the NT both assumes and asserts that Jesus and YHWH are not numerically identical. That just follows from some things being true of one that aren’t true of the other. The passages you cite also presuppose the difference. Many sophisticated trinitarians, though, grant that, and argue that Jesus and YHWH are “the same” in a different sense…
Re: ditheism, I think the Nicene creed is ambiguous. Probably some people read it in a way suggested by later Latin trinitarianism, which tilts towards modalism, and some read it more along the lines of begetting and procession, where the Father is the “font of divinity” – leaning towards tritheism or ditheism.
As to being “betrayed” by my post, you should know that I’ve given an extended argument in print (Rel Stud 40, 2004, 274ff) that the NT asserts the numerical identity of YHWH and the Father of Jesus.
Jesus says that the judges of Israel can be called Gods in John 10:34-35 (and this applies to the very pharisees to whom he is speaking).
So why is there a problem when Jesus – the Messiah – a worthy judge of Israel is also called God in the same manner in Heb 1 and John 20? There shouldn’t be.
Furthermore, as the poster states the Father is often identified as God – meaning YHWH – the creator of Heavens and Earth. And the NT makes this distinction plain. Jesus says that his Father is the only true God (John 17:3). And Paul says that the Father is the only God (1Cor8:6). This would preclude Jesus from being the all-powerful ever-present, immortal God YHWH.
Dale, your own post betrays you:
“It presents two persons who are each ‘true God'”
Yet you say:
“but it doesn’t,… that God is multi-personal.”
If there are two seperate distinct Persons who are God – this is not MONOtheism – and therefore void.
Hi JohnO,
I’m not even sure I’d call it binitarian. It presents two persons who are each “true God”, and so worship worthy, but it doesn’t, as far as I can see, present the claim that there are two or three persons “in God”, or that God is multi-personal.
I’m not sure I get your point about the context of the use of ‘god’. Can you say a little more?
Quite it isn’t a trinitarian document at all. It is binitarian. Furthermore, the NT use of ‘god’ for Jesus (Heb 1, John 20) are in the same context as Jesus’ use of ‘god’ towards the pharisees (John 10) – quite a different context as the NT’s use of ‘God’ for the Father – there is “one God, the Father”, 1Cor8:6, and “the only true God” John 17:3.
Comments are closed.