|
|
|
Dedicated to Michael Servetus: 1511-53
APOLOGISTS
The next important group of writings on Christianity came later in the second century. These were the works of churchmen who are called apologists.
Justin Martyr. (110-165 AD) Dr. H. R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church: "Justin [Martyr] taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. . . . When God desired to create the world, . . . he begot another divine being to create the world for him. This divine being was called . . . Son because he was born; he was called Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. . . . Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists."
[[ Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an 'influence or mode of operation of the Deity']]
The Pre-Necine Aplogists in General. The Formation of Christian Dogma, Dr. Martin Werner: "That relationship was understood unequivocally as being one of 'subordination', i.e. in the sense of the subordination of Christ to God. Wherever in the New Testament the relationship of Jesus to God, the Father, is brought into consideration, . . . it is conceived of and represented categorically as subordination. And the most decisive Subordinationist of the New Testament, according to the Synoptic record, was Jesus himself . . . This original position, firm and manifest as it was, was able to maintain itself for a long time. 'All the great pre-Nicene theologians represented the subordination of the Logos to God.'"R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: "There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father."
Dr. Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers . . . That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate."
Gods and the One God (Robert M. Grant) "The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. . . . What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity . . . Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist."
The Formation of Christian Dogma: "In the Primitive Christian era there was no sign of any kind of Trinitarian problem or controversy, such as later produced violent conflicts in the Church. The reason for this undoubtedly lay in the fact that, for Primitive Christianity, Christ was . . . a being of the high celestial angel-world, who was created and chosen by God for the task of bringing in, at the end of the ages, . . . the Kingdom of God."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "In the earliest thinking of the Church the tendency when speaking of God the Father is to conceive of Him first, not as the Father of Jesus Christ, but as the source of all being. Hence God the Father is, as it were, God par excellence. To Him belong such descriptions as unoriginate, immortal, immutable, ineffable, invisible, and ingenerate. It is He who has made all things, including the very stuff of creation, out of nothing. . . . This might seem to suggest that the Father alone is properly God and the Son and Spirit are only secondarily so. Many early statements appear to support this."
Consider the words of famed Catholic theologian John Henry Cardinal Newman: "Let us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the Primitive Church . . . But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive [church authorities] in its favour . . . The Creeds of that early day make no mention . . . of the [Trinity] at all. They make mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them."
Dialogue With Trypho (discussing Pr 8.22-30): "The Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit."
First Apology: "The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God."
Dialogue With Trypho: "There is . . . another God and Lord [the prehuman Jesus] subject to the Maker of all things [Almighty God]; who [the Son] is also called an Angel, because He [the Son] announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them. . . .
[The Son] is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will."
First Apology, chapter 6: "Both Him [God], and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore."
Translating the above, Bernhard Lohse, writes: "As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit." (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
Lamson's Church of the First Three Centuries: "Justin regarded the Son as distinct from God, and inferior to him: distinct, not, in the modern sense, as forming one of three hypostases, or persons, . . . but distinct in essence and nature; having a real, substantial, individual subsistence, separate from God, from whom he derived all his powers and titles; being constituted under him, and subject in all things to his will. The Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father's will always prevailing with the Son."
The Church of the First Three Centuries: "We might quote numerous passages from Clement in which the inferiority of the Son is distinctly asserted. ...
We are astonished that any one can read Clement with ordinary attention, and imagine for a single moment that he regarded the Son as numerically identical-one-with the Father. His dependent and inferior nature, as it seems to us, is everywhere recognized. Clement believed God and the Son to be numerically distinct; in other words, two beings,-the one supreme, the other subordinate."
Tertullian (c. 160 to 230 C.E.). Henry Chadwick: (Tertullian) is the first to suggest God is "one substance consisting in three persons." Consider Against Hermogenes: "We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . . How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being."
Against Praxeas: "The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: 'My Father is greater than I.' . . . Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another."
Regarding Against Hermogenes, Cardinal Newman writes: "Tertullian must be considered heterodox [believing unorthodox doctrines] on the doctrine of our Lord's eternal generation." Also, Lamson observes: "This reason, or Logos, as it was called by the Greeks, was afterwards, as Tertullian believed, converted into the Word, or Son, that is, a real being, having existed from eternity only as an attribute of the Father. Tertullian assigned to him, however, a rank subordinate to the Father . . . Judged according to any received explanation of the Trinity at the present day, the attempt to save Tertullian from condemnation [as a heretic] would be hopeless. He could not stand the test a moment."
The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as any fact in the history of human opinions."
BOOK III
WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT
THE HOLY SPIRIT
III. What the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit
A. The Jewish view in the Hebrew Scriptures
B. The Christian view in the Greek Scriptures
Regarding the masculine gender PARAKLETO(S, N) [Paraclete, Comforter, Helper] --- The dictionary defines "personify" as, "to think or speak of a thing has having life or personality ... as, we personify a ship by referring to it as ‘she’." This personification of abstractions or powers is shown from Genesis 4.7 The New English Bible (NE) says: "Sin is a demon crouching at the door." Proverbs chs 1 and 8 compare Wisdom (SOPHIA) to a woman. Jesus says: "Wisdom is vindicated by all her children." (Lk 7.35 RSV) Paul has "sin" and "death" as kings who "rule" and possess "desires." (Ro 5.14, 21; 6.12) He has the "higher powers" as "she." (Ro 13.3, 4)
Unlike English many languages have verbs with gender. Though PARAKLETOS is masculine, PNEUMA (Spirit) is not, it is neuter, or "it." This is seen in Romans 8.16 where the United Bible Societies’ interlinear renders: "Itself (AUTO) the spirit witnesses with the spirit of us," or, "the spirit itself bears witness." The Catholic New American Bible admits this regarding John 14.17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ '
it.'"Other abstractions are given personality. Note the Nazarene at John 3.8: "The wind [PNEUMA, neuter "spirit"] blows where
it chooses [wishes, wills, pleases]." Compare 1 John 5.6-8: "There are three that testify [Jn 15.26] the spirit, and the water and the blood."When Jesus speaks of the neuter PNEUMA as a masculine PARAKLETOS is he using a "metaphor" (RIEU), "similitude" (UBSint), "figure of speech" (NASB), "proverbs" (KJV), "parables" (KNX), or "comparisons" (NWT) and not literally? (Jn 16.25, 29)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person . . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. ... The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. ... On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power. ... Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person."
Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman: "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power. ... Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person." (The Triune God)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally."-Vol. XIV, p. 296.
REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT: Do you agree with the Nazarene? Is the Sender "greater" than the one sent? "
A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth greater than the one that sent him." (Jn 13.16) Is the Holy Spirit "sent" or not? (Jn 14.26)Paul quotes Isaiah 40.13 from the LXX at 1 Cor 2.16 using the exact phrasing: "’For who has come to know the mind [Grk = noun] of the Lord?’ But we have the mind [noun] of Christ." The Hebrew version uses not "mind" but "Spirit [ruwach]." (Compare KJV, NAS, NIV, etc) Would this not indicate, in harmony with Paul, that the Jews in rendering the Hebrew to Greek thought the Spirit to be "mind"? In Isaiah the context of Yahweh’s creative power (i.e. the Spirit) is explained (verse 26): "Who brings out their host by number? By greatness of His Might, for that He is strong in power [dynamic energy]." In Hebrew here the word "power" is from KOWACH meaning "force." (Strongs # 3581) Since this is unseen it is an "invisible force" like wind or breath emanating from the Mind of The God.
The words of church historian Neander --- of whom McClintock and Strong's Cyclopædia describes as, "Universally conceded to be by far the greatest of ecclesiastical historians" --- wrote: "In A.D. 380, great indistinctness prevailed among the different parties respecting this dogma so that a contemporary could say, 'Some of our theologians regard the holy spirit simply as a mode of divine operation; others as a creature of God; others as God himself; others again, say that they know not which of the opinions to accept from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon the subject.'"
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally."-Vol. XIV, p. 296.
REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE "FINGER OF (the) GOD" --- Mt 12.24-29; Lk 12.15-23)
THE DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY (Vol 3, pp.
689-701) -- "Spirit ... denotes dynamic movement of the air. ... ‘Holy Spirit’ denotes supernatural POWER. ... This is nowhere more clearly evident than in Acts where the Spirit is presented as an almost tangible FORCE, visible if not in itself, certainly in its affects. ... For the first Christians, the Spirit was most characteristically a divine POWER manifesting itself in inspired utterance. ... The Spirit was evidently experienced as a numinous POWER pervading the early community and giving its early leadership an aura of authority which could not be withstood. (Acts 5.1-10) ... It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine POWER.""The Holy Spirit is a DYNAMIS [power] and is expressly so called in Lk (24.49) ["Look, I am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. You, though, abide in the city until you beocme clothed with power from on high."] and DYNAMIS HYPSISTOU, Lk (1.35) ["Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will over shadow you."]. ... In some pass. the Holy Spirit is rhetorically represented as a Person." (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, page 522) (Compare Ac 1.11; 5.11, 55)
Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, Vol 2, page 836-7: "The basic idea of RUAH (Grk pneuma) is ‘air in motion.’ ... "’The RUAH spirit of God is in my nostrils.’ (Job 27.3) ... The ‘breath’ of God may be a strong wind. (Is 40.7) ... His ‘spirit’ may indicate no more than active power. (Is 40.13)"
Regarding the holy spirit speaking in Acts 13.1-4:
Note the context, for the first verse mentions "prophets and teachers" in the Antioch ecclesia. Then following this it states: "The holy spirit said: 'Separate to me Barnabas and Paul.'" Does it not seem that the one who really spoke would be one of the prophets? So "the God of our Lord" used His own power and influence (the holy spirit) to speak through such prophet? The work THE PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT WITH NOTES (B. W. Johnson), page 470, footnote #2: "The Holy Spirit said. By an inspiration given to some one of these prophets." This is consistent with examples in the OT where the NT says the spirit said something when it was the prophet. Note Jer 31.31-33 and Heb 10.15, 16: "Moreover the holy spirit also bears witness to us, for after it has said: 'This is the covenant ... '"Regarding the English word "spirit" --- THE ROOTS OF ENGLISH, page 229: "[Latin SPIRARE, to breathe." Thus it equals both the Hebrew (RUACH) and Greek (PNEUMA) for "breath." Thus, "spirit of God" is reasonably rendered "Breath of God" or "Wind of God." The word "spirit" has taken on a corporeal tone like the word "ghost." Likely, if the word PNEUMA had been rendered "breath" or "wind" in English the Holy Spirit would not have developed so strongly in English as a Person separate from God. Some translators actually do render RUACH as "wind" in Genesis 1.2. (NJB: a divine wind)
Note the parallels between spirit and breath (wind) in poetic verses. Psalm 18.10, "Yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind (RUACH/PNEUMA)." (KJV, ASV, JPS, NEB) Psalm 33.6: "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath (RUACH/PNEUMA) of his mouth." (KJV, NJB) Psalm 104.30: "Thou sendest forth thy spirit (RUACH/PNEUMA), they are created." [NJB: you give breath]
What "the spirit of God" is can be understood by comparing it to the "spirit of man." Many score times does the Bible speak of man’s inner attributes of mind which may be vented by his breath such as in anger. This "spirit" is not another person but part and parcel of the person himself. Thus, the "spirit of God" is also that inner attribute of the Divine Mind which the Creator can project from Himself to accomplish His will. The two cannot be separated. Thus, if a person sin against the spirit of God it is the same as sinning against God. (Nu 12.1-16; Ac 5.1-4) If one blaspheme the spirit of God it is the same as blaspheming God, but not necessarily the Son. (Mt 12.31, 32)
BOOK IV
THE ORIGINS OF TRIUNE GODS
INTRODUCTION.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."-(New York, 1965), p. 899.
"The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.
A. Babylonian
B. Egyptian
C. Greek
D. Contemporary
"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."-The Catholic Encyclopedia.
Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: "God is triune. . . . The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God."Monsignor Eugene Clark: "God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it." Cardinal John O'Connor: "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don't begin to understand." Pope John Paul II: "the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity."
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."
New Catholic Encyclopedia: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, 'But how does one preach the Trinity?' And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors."
What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: "Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn't properly understand anyway? ... The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship."
Catholic theologian Hans Küng (Christianity and the World Religions): "Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"
Theological Dictionary: "The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible."
BOOK V
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
OF THE TRINITY
V. The Historical development of the Trinity
CONSTANTINE.
Henry Chadwick (The Early Church): "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."
Encyclopædia Britannica: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."
"Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine.
THE ATHANASIAN CREED: "The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. . . . So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God."
BOOK VI
THE HISTORY OF TRINITARIANS
VI. The History of Trinitarians
BOOK VII
WHAT DO REFERENCES SAY
ABOUT THE TRINITY?
RESPECTED COMMENTARIES. Note the following statements regarding the absence of the Trinity in the Holy Scriptures.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."-(New York, 1965), p. 899.
The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Metzger and Coogan), pages 782-3: "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partnersin the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the [Bible] canon. ... It is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear."
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Colin Brown, editor), Volume 2, page 84: "The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. ‘The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself.. And the other express declarations is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of lthe Church doctrine of the Trinity.’ (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also lacks such terms as trinity (Lat. trinitas which was coined by Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3; 11; 12 etc.) and homoousias which feature in the Creed of Nicea (325) to denote Christ was the same substance as the Father."
"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."
The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."
The Encyclopedia of Religion: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."
Jesuit Fortman: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."
The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."
Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence' [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]."
Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."-Origin and Evolution of Religion.
Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.
"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.
"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-New Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Formation of Christian Dogma (An Hisjtorical Study of its Problems), by Martin Werner, professor ordinarious in the University of Bern: "The significance of the Angel-Christology for the Post-Apostolic period, from the point of view of doctrinal history, lies in the fact that it stood in the way of lthe developement of a homoousian doctrine of the Trinity in the later rthodox Nicene sense, owing to its fundamentally Subordinationist character. Angel-Christiology and the Trinitarian dogma of Nicaea were in this respect absolutely incompatiable. (137) Arianism [editor: unitarianism] was doomed. It had indeed, with its reference to Scriptures and the old tradition of the Church, good arguments as its disposal. ... Modalism had criticised the accepted Trinitarian doctrin of the Churchas a doctrine of three gods. (160)
"Every significant theologian of the Church in the pre-Nicene period, had actually represented aSubordinationist Christology. (234)
"Consequently one now began to talk of a divine ‘Trinity’. In the Nicene confession-formula of A.D. 325 this concept had been, significantly, lacking. ‘Tinitas’ = Trias did not signify a kind of ‘unity of three’, but simply ‘threeness.’ (252)
"By means of the union of the Logos with a complete human being, the three Persons of the Trinity were increased by a fourth, a human Person. From being a Trias it became a Tetras. ... It was seen from Phil. ii, 6 ff. that the Apostle Pul in no way taught in terms of a scheme which differentiated the Two Natures." (266)
"The course of the age-long dctrinal conflicts of the Early Church shows, for example, that the Trinitarian and Christological problems were by no means effectively settled by the doctrinal decrees of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (451)."
