I noticed something really unusual in my last blog – I started a discussion about the Trinity, and I didn't bother to define it. Shame on me! Even though I really won't get to discussing it this time around, I really should start by defining what it is so that we all understand what the term really means, from an Orthodox Christian perspective. So let's do that right now, shall we? I'll use as my working definition what James White used in his book, The Forgotten Trinity,
Within the One being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (from The Forgotten Trinity)
So, what exactly does this mean? Let's start with De 6:4:
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
Any definition of the Trinity starts with the fact that God is ONE being, not three beings. First and foremost, Trinitarians are Monotheistic (James 2:19; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Ti 2:5-6), they are not tri-theistic or polytheistic (three Gods), nor Modalistic (one God who manifests Himself in three modes of existence), nor do they accept Arianism (the Son being subordinated to the Father).
The second tenet of the Trinity is that there are three who are God. There are three distinct persons within the divine essence. All three persons exist at the same time. (Is 48:16; 61:1-2; Mt 3:16-17) This is where we're going to spend the bulk of our time. Because its where the real questions about the Trinity lie, and the real confusion exists.
The third tenet of the Trinity is that Scripture joins the three together in unity and equality (Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 8:6; 2 Cor 13:14; John 5:21-23; Mt 12:31, Rom 8:39). This can been seen in nearly every book of the NT, and I'll give plenty of examples along the way.
So, let me make clear what I am NOT saying. Unlike some people that think mankind can attain god-hood, or others that, once pressed, will admit that Jesus is a “lesser” god, Trinitarians believe that God is one being who exists as three persons. We do not believe that God changes into the Son some times, and into the Holy Spirit at other times. God the Father always exists and has always existed, the same is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father; He willingly subordinated Himself to the Father while on earth, which is something totally different altogether. Jesus was never an angel; angels are created beings and cannot change there state, nor elevate their nature. Each – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – have an eternal role, which was fulfilled and brought to consummation in the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ Jesus.
So with that, I want to start with a little history lesson. I admit that there are few things that can get me as riled up as unfaithful scholarship. Purposely misrepresenting facts - historical or otherwise - send me right over the edge. I admit it, it really does. That's why studying some cultic belief systems is a real challenge of my patience and self-control. This is especially true when you study things written by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS). To say that their form of scholarship gives every appearance of being disingenuous is an understatement. You could throw out a bunch of facts, or even misrepresented facts, about the history of the middle ages, and I'm a bit clueless, but I wouldn't try that with Ante-Nicene Fathers (100-325 AD). I've read quite a lot about them, not to the depth that I hope to some day, but I have a pretty good general understanding of the major players during this period and what they believed, so trying to “pull a fast one on me” would be pretty hard. And that is exactly what the WBTS pamphlet, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (SYBT) attempts to do to the uneducated general public – play fast and loose with the truth. Jesus said that the truth would set us free, and that is exactly what I will attempt to do, with respect to the historical truth about what some of the major players during the Ante-Nicene period believed. I'll deal with the theological issues in later blogs.
It is amazing to think that so much of the world's secular and religious history has actually survived through all of the burnings, the wars and conquests of ancient civilizations. Even through vast amounts of history has been lost forever there is still so much that it simply cannot be studied in a single lifetime. Some people give their entire lifetime reading and writing about these people, or even to a single individual. Imagine that, their entire lifetime devoted to a single historical individual. That's dedication. There is a 10 volume set of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that I have always lusted for. Yes, I said lusted for. You might think that reading a bunch of dead guys would be similar to watching grass grow, and for some, that is probably exactly the way it would be. But not for me. I have Phillip Schaff's 8 Volume Church History series that spans from 100 AD up to the Reformation, and I only read the first three volumes because its about the only era I study.
The names of Ignatius, Pappias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus may not mean anything to most Christians, but they are like friends of mine. I don't know them well enough, but I stand in awe of most of them. We live in the age of computers and Bible programs, but not these guys. These guys didn't always have a copy of all of the New Testament letters, since paper wasn't exactly available around the corner at the neighborhood OfficeMax or Office Depot. These guys had to work with scrolls, not books – book bindings weren't really invented until the age of the printing press. (that's what helps them last a generation or two) And they had to compensate for the language change from Greek to Latin, and then there were the copyist errors in some of the manuscripts. Good grief! I can't even get the spelling in my blog right, and I have a word processor with a spell checker!
If these problems weren't enough, there were the “false” gospels that Irenaeus and others had to deal with. Speaking of Irenaeus, you did see the quote at the top of my blog, didn't you? Of all the people of the history of the world, the one person I can't wait to meet in heaven, is Irenaeus. Did you know that up until 1947, the only thing we knew about Gnosticism was from Irenaeus' writings? Justin Martyr is called the first Christian apologist of the church, but I usually give that honor to Irenaeus. But my praise for him will have to wait for another time.
In making its case against the Trinity, and specifically the deity of Christ, the WBTS SYBT pamphlet attempts to utilize statements by the Ante-Nicene fathers to build their case against it. I would do the same thing, so I don't begrudge their desire to be complete. All scholarly writings would attempt that as well. What bothers me is that they give the impression that our church fathers didn't believe that Jesus Christ was God. Now, it would be a mistake on my part to insinuate that these guys had a fully developed doctrine of the Trinity; they didn't. But it would also be a mistake to say that they didn't consider Jesus Christ God; because they did. And I can prove it. You see, to prove that some one didn't believe something, you would have to read everything they wrote and collate and analyze what they wrote to determine what they believed just so you could make that statement. But to prove they believed something, all you have to do is find one quote that they wrote that proves your point. So, the WTBS has set themselves up for failure, if they didn't do their homework. I maintain that they were, at a minimum, incomplete in their research and zeal to disprove the Trinity (as opposed to it being a more serious issue of outright purposeful deception).
Let's look at some of their evidence. Quoting directly from their SYBT pamphlet (you can read along at the following WBTS link):
THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."
Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.
Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."
Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.
Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light."
There is something that you should notice right off about this quote; the WBTS do not provide a single reference for any of their quotes (maybe that helps keep the rank and file from checking up on their teachers). I would love to tell you that I found each of these quotes and that each of them is out of context, but I can't. Why? Because I can't find any of them – anywhere! And as I said above, to prove that some one didn't say something would require that I read everything that the person ever wrote to disprove them. Coincidence? I think not.
True scholarship provides a reference to a quote. That shows sincerity and honesty, and gives credit to the author(s) that did the research they were actually quoting from. If there are no references to identify where these quotes were taken, how on earth does one verify the quotes and their context? As we have seen in the previous blog, the WBTS is not always very good at providing quotes within their proper context.
If one is to believe the WBTS, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) never said anything to support the concepts of the Trinity, like, for instance, stating that they understood Jesus to be God. And the WBTS's quotes leave us right there, questioning our heritage and giving us no way to prove or disprove anything they say – we are left to just trust them. For the ignorant and uninformed, they've already been convinced.
But is their information true? I submit that it is not, and I'll provide quotes and references to my quotes so that you can validate what I'm writing. Unlike the WBTS, I don't mind if you check up on me.
Although I have not read everything for each of the church fathers mentioned above, I was unable to local any of the WBTS quotes, and checking them out isn't as hard as it might sound. Did you know that there is a complete (or mostly complete) library of everything each of these church fathers wrote (their surviving works anyway), on the Internet? Its called the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. And guess what? Its searchable! Can you image the power and the impact of the WBTS SYBT pamphlet if they had provided links to their cited quotes! But they don't. Your next question should be, “Why didn't they?” Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that.
So, let's just take a moment to analyze what the WBTS quotes actually say above. First, Justin Martyr supposedly believed that Jesus was an angel. Notice, there are no quotation marks around that statement. Its not a quote, and with no reference, its just some one's belief; a statement without context. Also, notice those elipses – what did they leave out? I can't find the quote so I have no idea. And what about Irenaeus? Look closely at what was quoted. Only a statement that Jesus was inferior to the Father. Again, some one's belief with no context. Next we have Clement of Alexandria. Notice how they paste a sentence together with partial quoted words to form an idea they have already predetermined the sentence to say. Pretty slick, huh? After him is Tertullian, and finally we have something that could be considered a “damning” quote, but once again, there is no context nor a reference. Is that what Tertullian really said? Maybe, maybe not – who knows. Next is Hippolytus, who appears to be talking about the Father, where nothing being said would disagree with the Orthodox beliefs of the Trinity. I really like the added touch of tacking on the words, “... such as the created prehuman Jesus.” This is nothing more than a WBTS presupposition. Its not what Hippolytus said since its not in quotations. And lastly, the heretical Origen, who help formulate the Arian position and controversy that would consumed the Nicene counsel in 325 AD.
Bottom line is: what was actually said by any of these church Fathers, excluding Origen? Anything that disagrees with the orthodox belief of the Trinity? What additional “information” did the WTBS supply to help you understand what these church fathers supposedly said? Didn't they add the information to the quotes that would cause you to doubt? This is why I call their scholarship into question. This pamphlet was first published in 1989 and is still basically unchanged from its original printing, even in the online version. Don't you think that 18 years is more than enough time to supply references for these supposed statements?
Now that we have seen what the WBTS maintains these church fathers said, let's see what else they said. The first one I'm going to mention is a guy by the name of Ignatius. If you will notice from above, Ignatius is not mentioned, and one ought to ask why. Of all of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (ANF), Ignatius had the most to say on the subject of who Jesus was. Ignatius lived roughly between 30-117 AD (by the way, please notice I use AD, not CE, which stands for the politically correct “Common Era”, just in case you were curious). Think about the implications of what I just said: 30 to 117 AD. I wonder if or maybe I should ask how many of the Apostles he had actually met? That would have made him a contemporary with the Apostle John. In his epistle to the Ephesians, he wrote the following (See also here):
Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, "whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches." (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians)
One of the things that you should see from this quote is that there is no equivocation in his statement whatsoever. Ignatius is boldly calling Jesus God; not “a god” but “the God”. Keep in mind that these guys believed Duet 6:4, which should make this statement all the more powerful.
You want another? I knew you would! This is from his 2nd Epistle to the Ephesians:
Ignatius, who is [also called] Theophorus, to the Church which is blessed in the greatness of God the Father, and perfected; to her who was selected from eternity, that she might be at all times for glory, which abideth, and is unchangeable, and is perfected and chosen in the purpose of truth by the will of the Father of Jesus Christ our God; to her who is worthy of happiness; to her who is at Ephesus, in Jesus Christ, in joy which is unblameable: [wishes] abundance of happiness. (The Second Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians)
Again, another powerful statement by Ignatius in regards to his belief that Jesus was God. But that's not the last one of his; here's one more from his Epistle to the Romans:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans)
I apologize for the length of the quote, but I had to get both references to Jesus as God into this quote, and keep them both in context. There can be no doubt that Ignatius believed that Jesus was God. And maybe, just maybe, that's why the WBTS forgot to mention him. It is also possible that the WBTS believed Ignatius to be an anomaly, and maybe that's why they didn't mention him. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. His statements, if the only ones, would make him an anomaly. And just like building an entire doctrine on one verse, we don't want to do that, state that Jesus is God and have only one source for that statement. And we don't have to! There are plenty to choose from in the New Testament, but let's put some of the burden of proof on the ANF, just for the heck of it. (by the way, if none of the ANF believed he was God, Scripture alone is more than enough proof. Remember, the reformation was built on that fact.)
So, let's move on. Are there any others? Why, yes, there are. How about Polycarp, he wasn't reference above either was he? He was a disciple of the Apostle John and lived between 65-155 AD. In his letter to the Philippians he wrote:
Now my the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and steadfastness and patient endurance and purity, and may he give to you a share and a place among his saints, ad us with you, ,and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and his Father who raised him from the dead. (The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians) (p. 129, J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, The Apostlic Fathers, 2nd Edition, © 1989: Baker Book House)
This is from a book on my bookshelf. In the very first sentence he calls Jesus the “eternal High priest”. And eternal means? That's right – no beginning and no end. But he eliminates any confusion, if their actually was any, by calling Jesus both Lord and God.
Now we can move to my favorite, Irenaeus. He lived between 120 – 202 AD and he wrote an extended series of books called Against Heresies, where we find the following in book 3, chapter 19:
For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.
Maybe you recognize that one? At the top of my blog? Once again, another ANF that was quite clear as to who Jesus was, and still is. Let me remind you of the dates of these people. So far, all have been before 200 AD. Pretty remarkable, huh? See, you've been told that it was decided by the Nicene Council of the Church in 325 AD, and that the evil Emperor Constantine forced belief of the Trinity upon the church. That is called, “historical revisionism” and it is quite popular in today's society. Unfortunately, we are very susceptible to its message because when some one repeats something long enough, and no one refutes that statement, we begin to accept it as fact, even when it was made up.
Here is yet another. His name was Athenagorus and he lived around c.a. 177 AD. Hum, he's not mentioned above either. Unfortunately I could not find the historical document online, and debated about using it as a source, but I've decided to add it because I have seen and read this quote in other places. The quote is referenced here and here.
likewise affirmed, "The Son of God is the Word of the Father…the Father and the Son being one.…The Son…is the First-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced — for from the beginning God had the Word in Himself..."
I know I might be seen as beating the proverbial dead horse here, but I want to leave you with the impression that the ANF believed that Jesus was God, and the only way to do that is to provide a lot of documentation. So here's another. This guy's name was Justin Martyr, who lived between 110-165 AD. He wrote the following (See CCEL):
Although the Jews were always of the opinion that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, it was in fact the Son of God...who spoke to him…They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God and is God." Moreover, Justin said, "What was said out of the bush to Moses, ‘I am He who is, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob and the God of your fathers,’ was an indication that they though dead still existed and were Christ’s own men.
For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures.
Last one I'll use is from Melito of Sardis who wrote this in c.a. 177-180 AD:
He gave us sure indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages.
You might have notice, and even if you didn't, I did not quote Origen, and that is because I couldn't locate anything for him, nor did I really try. Origen was declared a heretic for his unorthodox teachings. He started out orthodox, and then drifted away from the truth, although Origen's teachings were declared heretical after his death. Frankly, Origen created the some of the Trinity mess to begin with! So, even though I couldn't confirm the WTBS statements concerning him, I believe them, mostly anyway.
Now let's finish this blog talking about Tertullian. Did you know that Tertullian coined the term, Trinity? Well – you know that some one had to do this, right? Tertullian lived between 155 and 230 AD, and as Bowman points out in this book, Why You Should Believe in the Trinty, states that Tertullian wrote, “... even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had with Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word ...” (here's a reference to that quote) Many of the early fathers equated the references to "reason" in the OT to Jesus, and of course everyone knows who the Word is, right? This reference states that Jesus has been eternally with the Father. So, instead of the misleading and out of context statement of the WBTS, “... there is a time when the Son was not ...”, we have the very person that coined the term (see here - and here) and stated that the Son was equal to the Father.
So as you can see, once again, the WBTS hasn't really done their homework because its really not that hard to see that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did in fact believe that Jesus was God.
But it is true that, with the exception of Tertullian, none of them used the word Trinity to describe God, just as it is true that the word Trinity is not in the NT. But does that really matter? I want to confess a dirty little secret to you – the word omnipotent in not in the Bible either. Neither is omniscience, or omnipresent. So, are these clearly biblical beliefs to be questioned as well, simply because the words are not in the Bible? Absolutely not! This line of reasoning is only a red-herring, its a straw man, something to be used to make you think its important so that they can then tear it down and thus undermine your faith. But they are asking the wrong question. The correct question is: "Is the concept of the Trinity taught by Scripture?" The answer to that question is, emphatically Yes! In answering this question, hopefully I haven't bored you to tears.
Just in case you'd like to do a little light reading on the subject:
- http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/who-said.htm
- http://letusreason.org/Trin1.htm
- http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060518/7911_Writings_Show_Early_Christ...
- http://www.douknow.net/jw_faithoffathers.htm
- http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/notbejw.htm
- http://mysite.verizon.net/thetruth77/antenicenejw.html
Comments