After what has been said in the foregoing pages, we are prepared to re-assert, in conclusion, that the modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the church of the first three centuries. Letters, art, usage, theology, worship, creed, hymn, chant, doxology, ascription, commemorative rite, and festive observances, so far as any remains, or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early time, are, as regards this doctrine, an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the Father, the only true God, and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a co-equal Trinity… no undivided Three, – co-equal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception at which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin. (Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries: Or, Notices of the Lives and Opinions of Some of the Early Fathers, With Special Reference to The Doctrine of the Trinity; Illustrating Its Late Origin and Gradual Formation, pp. 466-7, emphases added)
These posts may clarify Lamson’s point. In short, those early Christians did believe in the Father, Son, and in the spirit of God (variously understood). In that sense, they “believed in the Trinity.” By the end of the 2nd century, they could use terms like trinitas and trias to refer to the plurality of those three. What they did not believe in, was the one God as the Trinity – that is, in a triune God containing / existing in / being composed of three equally divine persons, sharing the divine nature.
That is, they were not trinitarians. They did – most of them – believe the one true God to be one and the same as the Father (and not also one and the same as the Son and Spirit). They were unitarians.
See Lamson’s book for many of the very interesting historical details. I believe the linked edition is the latest and best, although it has intrusive footnotes by the editors which were done after Lamson’s death.
I have just a few pages left to read of this book. Like Clarke’s book, I treasure this work very much. It is full of great information and direct quotes from over 20 Christian bishops, presbyters and historians from ancient times ranging from the early 2nd until the end of the 4th century. My entire view of the Arian controversy, indeed Arius himself, has changed immensely. This is not what I was taught…are modern historical theologians dishonest in representing these things to their seminary students and church members? Or simply biased? Laypeople are not hearing this information from what I can tell.
“I have attempted 3 times now”
Sorry – spam filter apparently became over-zealous. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the comment, David.
Hmmm…It’s a pity but I understand. Such a great mind but such a mischievous temperament… When Superego and Id just never seem to work together very well…
Hi Dale,
I have attempted 3 times now, over the last 2 days, to post a response in the Hurtado thread, and none of the 3 have shown up. Is the thread closed to comments?
Grace and peace,
David
Hey Jaco,
Sadly, Mario is not able to reply. He’s gone the way of Drake, having been banned, unable to countenance someone not approving all his long-winded and agressive comments. I did not want to do it, but I’m guessing all the other readers are relieved.
Mario,
Re. your statement above,
You are probably aware of Philonic influences on the Fourth Gospel and even Hebrews. Or would you say that these books were not really influenced by Philo’s writings? And why do you ascribe the opposing power to strict monotheism, to Philo? I see a more Hellenistic push toward quasi-polytheism than Philo’s Hellenistic-Jewish push toward it in the post-biblical patristics.
It is also interesting that you refer to First-century Judaism as strictly monotheistic. I get that notion more from later Judaism. James McGrath much rather prefers monolatrous as a description for First-century Judaism than “strictly monotheistic.” What is your reasons for this particular description?
Thanks,
“some people keep failing to understand”
Actually, in my experience, no scholar who has looked into it much, be they trinitarian or unitarian, has failed to understand that. The latter view it as a legitimate process, the latter as illegitimate.
I’ve explained many times my descriptive usage of “unitarian.”
Thanks for that link – I think it’s the same edition I recommended, or a closely related one. Of course, most people will need a hard copy to really use the book.
Here is a link to an original copy of The church of the first three centuries : or, notices of the lives and opinions of some of the early Fathers, with special reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, illustrating its late origin and gradual formation (1875), by Alvan Lamson, @ archive.org.
What some people keep failing to understand is that the “trinity” (the full-fledged, co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal tri-unity of the end of the 4th century) is the result of a process (as even the title of the cited book clearly indicates, a process of “gradual formation”), NOT some bizarre doctrine that popped out of the blue. What Anthony Buzzard (rightly) calls “Christianity’s self-inflicted wound” is the (nearly) inevitable result of circa 300 years of attempts to put together (“dialectically”, so to speak) two utterly different, nay, incompatible strains: the Strict Monotheism inherited by Christianity from Judaism and the spurious deuteros theos that mongrel Platonic-Jewish philosophers-theologians like Philo tried to make compatible with Strict Monotheism; and that, at least since Justin Martyr (AD 100–ca.165), infected Christianity as its “original sin”.
Oh, BTW, talking about anachronism, if to speak of “the church of the first three centuries” as “trinitarian” is (to some extent) anachronistic, it certainly is anachronistic to rifer to it as “unitarian” …
Unitarianism is, historically, a reaction to trinitarianism …
MdS
Comments are closed.