Dealing with Controversy Surrounding Nicea (Anti-Trinitarian remarks)

[Nikti]

Hey everyone,

A few days ago I was on another thread called 'One God or Three Persons' about a Unitarian asking questions about the Trinity.

A poster contributed this (quoted)

There is no single term in the Bible that denotes this doctrine. It is purely a matter of formal belief and politics. Considering this, the doctrine states to the effect that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each without a beginning, have existed for an eternity, uncreated, and equal. In other words, each is neither greater nor lesser than the other. Compare John 14:28; Colossi ans 1:15-two scriptures of numerous ones.

Furthermore, its origin is entirely pagan. In ancient Babylon, the worship of pagan Gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. This spread to Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. This doctrine, as accepted throughout most of Christianity today, was partially given birth at the Council of Nicaea in 425 CE. Presiding, the Roman Emperor Constantine whose sole concern was maintaining control of his empire because religious divisions were undermining his reign, decided that the relationship between God and Jesus were the same. Only a fraction of the bishops were present and most of them did not agree. However, they succumbed to intimidation and signed the decree. Constantine was not a Christian, had little understanding of the scripture, and lesser understand of the questions promulgated by Greek theology. Furthermore, the role of the “holy spirit” was not adopted until the Council of Constantinople in 381 C. E. This “spirit” is not a person even though it may have been personified in the bible.

I have heard this or similar arguments from JW, muslims, etc to explain that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented by the church.

Personally, I can't come to any other conclusion that God is Triune just from scriptures, and always thought the articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed was just that... articulating something that was assumed.. but I could be wrong...

My Questions:
1) How do we deal with such arguments?

2) What were the historical circumstances of Nicea in relation to the Trinity? (I know it was to address Arianism),

3) did this 'greek/pagan' thought influence the articulation of the doctrine?

4) What was St Constantine's role in the councils?

5) What historical evidence from the council and the Fathers is there to rebut this kind of accusation?

Thankyou all in advance.

Nicole

 

[Dialogist]

The author seems to be borrowing from a Newsweek article that appeared at the end of last year, entitled, "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin"


The author of the OP (i.e. Mark51) is actually arguing four different things:

(a) The doctrine of the Trinity, as regards the relationship between the Father and the Son, is not supported by Scripture

(b) The doctrine of the Trinity, as regards the relationship between the Father and the Son, was politically motivated

(c) The origin of the doctrine of the Trinity is “entirely pagan”

(d) The Holy Spirit does not exist as a person​

Argument A: The doctrine of the Trinity is not supported by Scripture


The author argues:

(a1) The doctrine of the Trinity “states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each without beginning, have existed for an eternity, uncreated and equal”.

(a2) John 14:28 states My Father is greater than I.

(a3) Implied: Therefore (by a2), the Father is not equal to the Son

(a4) Colossians 1:15 states that Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

(a5) Implied: Therefore (by a4) Christ was created

Therefore, by (a1), (a3) and (a5), the doctrine of the Trinity is not supported by Scripture


First, the argument that because the Lord said My Father is greater than I implies that the Father is not the equal to the Son is invalid, in that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, unless one denies the humanity of Christ. St. Basil explains:

And again, My Father is greater than I. This passage is also employed by the ungrateful creatures, the brood of the evil one. I believe that even from this passage the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is set forth. For I know that comparisons may properly be made between things which are of the same nature. We speak of angel as greater than angel, of man as juster than man, of bird as fleeter than bird. If then comparisons are made between things of the same species, and the Father by comparison is said to be greater than the Son, then the Son is of the same substance as the Father. But there is another sense underlying the expression. In what is it extraordinary that He who is the Word and was made flesh [John 1:14] confesses His Father to be greater than Himself, when He was seen in glory inferior to the angels, and in form to men? For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [Psalm 8:5] and again “Who was made a little lower than the angels [Hebrews 2:9] and we saw Him and He had neither form nor comeliness, his form was deficient beyond all men [Isaiah 53:2, 3 LXX]. All this He endured on account of His abundant loving kindness towards His work, that He might save the lost sheep and bring it home when He had saved it, and bring back safe and sound to his own land the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and so fell among thieves [Luke 10:30]. Will the heretic cast in His teeth the manger out of which he in his unreasonableness was fed by the Word of reason? Will he, because the carpenter’s son had no bed to lie on, complain of His being poor? This is why the Son is less than the Father; for your sakes He was made dead to free you from death and make you sharer in heavenly life. It is just as though any one were to find fault with the physician for stooping to sickness, and breathing its foul breath, that he may heal the sick (Letter VIII, to the Caesareans).​

Second, the argument that because Paul wrote that Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature means that He was created is also invalid. St. Athanasius, for example, explains that He was not called firstborn because He was from the Father, but rather “because in Him the creation came to be” (Discourses against the Arians). St. Basil expresses a similar interpretation in his letter to his brother Gregory (Letter 38).

Finally, the argument that because here is no single term in the bible that denotes the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine is false is also not a valid argument, since it presumes that the only valid hermeneutic is one which requires all doctrine to be expressible in a single term in Scripture. Furthermore, there are many references to the Trinity in Scripture, both in the Old and New Testament. The references to the Trinity in the Old Testament are, as Paul wrote, veiled (2 Corinthians 3:15-16), but they are there nonetheless, and they certainly are in the New Testament

In the beginning God [Hebrew Elohim – a plural] created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1)

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
(Genesis 1:26)

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us
(Genesis 3:22)

And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant
(Genesis 18:1–3)

By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth.
(Psalm 32:6 LXX)

And now the Lord God, and His Spirit, hath sent me.
(Isaiah 48:16)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
(Matthew 28:19)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
(2 Corinthians 13:14)

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of Me:
(John 15:26)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(1 John 5:7)​

Argument B: The doctrine of the Trinity is politically motivated

Here, the author is basing his conclusion on the following argument:

(b1) Religious divisions were undermining the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine

(b2) Constantine’s “sole concern was maintaining control of his empire”

(b3) Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea in 425 CE

(b4) The Council of Nicaea in 425 CE partially gave birth to the doctrine of the Trinity

(b5) Only a fraction of the bishops were present at the Council of Nicaea in 425

(b6) Constantine formulated the doctrine that “the relationship between God and Jesus were the same” at the Council of Nicaea in 425

(b7) Most bishops present at the Council of Nicaea in 425 “did not agree”

(b8) Constantine compelled all bishops present at the Council of Nicaea in 425 to accept the doctrine he had formulated

(b9) Therefore, by all of the above, the doctrine of the Trinity was politically motivated.


This argument is unsound because there is no record of any Council of Nicaea taking place in 425, so at least six of the eight premises cannot possibly be true.


Argument C: The doctrine of the Trinity is entirely pagan

Here, the author argues:

(c1) “In ancient Babylon, the worship of pagan Gods [sic] grouped in threes, or triads, was common.”

(c2) The worship of pagan gods grouped in threes “spread to Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ”

(c3) Therefore, the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity is “entirely pagan”.

This argument is invalid. It is not necessarily the case that the doctrine of the Trinity is “entirely pagan” just because neighboring pagans worshipped triads of gods. The body of Scriptures cited above, for example, illustrate that teachings about the Trinity can be found in the Scriptures, entirely without regard to prevailing pagan practices.


Argument D: The Holy Spirit does not exist as a person

Here the author argued:

(d1) “The role of the ‘holy spirit’ was not adopted until the Council of Constantinople in 381”

(d2) Therefore, the holy spirit “is not a person”

This is also an invalid argument, in that it maintains that (d2) is necessarily true if (d1) is true.

Regardless of what was actually discussed at the Council of Constantinople, whether or not the Holy Spirit is or is not a person does not depend on the decision of any Council. Something is true or false independently of whether someone affirms it to be true or false.

Furthermore, the argument is unsound, in that premise (d1) is false. The doctrine of the Trinity, including the role of the Holy Spirit, was affirmed at the Council of Nicaea in 325.

 

[ArmyMatt]

1) How do we deal with such arguments?

read the Fathers in centuries one and two. it is pretty clear that Christ is God. Sts Ignatius and Justin Martyr are two that come to mind.

2) What were the historical circumstances of Nicea in relation to the Trinity? (I know it was to address Arianism),

a clarification, not an innovation, using Greek philosophic terms with Christian understanding and meaning.

3) did this 'greek/pagan' thought influence the articulation of the doctrine?

the thinking did not, although the terminology was used.

4) What was St Constantine's role in the councils?

he presided and kept order. the bishops were the ones that did the theological side.

5) What historical evidence from the council and the Fathers is there to rebut this kind of accusation?

google Church Fathers and see what they have to say. there is a ton that shows that it is clear that the Trinity and Christ's Divinity are evident from the beginning. the poster should get his history from actual historic texts than Dan Brown novels

 

[buzuxi02]

The Nicene council of 325Ad (not 425) was called to condemn Arianism.

Arianism was invented in approximately 295 AD. by a handful of students and alumni who attended the Antiochan theological school of Lucias. This is why the original Arians would refer to themselves as 'synlucianostoi' (co-Lucianists).
Τhey basically adopted a teaching of Tertullian who once wrote in one of his writings that before the incarnation there was a time the Son was not, (He only existed as Logos ). The Arians adopted an extreme view of this and they were identified as promoting the heretical phrase, "There was a time the Son was not".
Interestingly there has not come down to us any smoking gun evidence that they taught Christ was a created being.

Most of the 318 Fathers that attended Nicea did indeed condemn Arius. In the aftermath of Nicea, arianism died out and only objections over Nicene terminology was questioned, this centered around the word homoousios (of one essence).
After 325ad the term arianism is the label which refers to an umbrella group of factions who were all "semi-arian". Meaning they all rejected Arius (and his motto that there was a time the Son was not) but wanted a substitute word for homoousios in the creed. By 370 ad or so they died out never achieving amongst themselves a substitute creed for the nicene creed.

As Matt says just read what the preceding generations taught. As Theophilus of Antioch wrote in 180 ad:
"The three days which were before the luminaries are types of the trinity of God and His Word (Son) and His Wisdom(Spirit)."

 

[buzuxi02]

1) How do we deal with such arguments?

Quite simply ask them to produce their worship services of antiquity so we can see how God was worshiped. Before any need arose to dogmatically define the Trinity, the early christians experienced the Trinity in their worship. Not only can we Orthodox provide liturgical services of great antiquity such as the Liturgy of St James, we can even point to the ancient pre-Nicene Assyrian Liturgy of the East; that all have worshipped God using similiar doxologies in His triune magnificence.
We can easily see this in scripture as well. The gospel of Matthew has Christ saying to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in other words it is an invocation for use in a christian ritual service.

In 2 Corinthians 13.14, Paul closes his epistle with the following benediction common usage in liturgical worship:
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

In Jude 20, a liturgical exhortation is given:
"20 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life."

There are even poems and hymns given in scripture widely known and utilized by the christians in their worship service. The most famous is the pre-pauline hymn/poem found in Phillipians:
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 (yes this is a poem widely known among the christians and easily understood as such in the original koine greek)

There are ancient Creeds found in scripture:
16By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: God was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

Original greek:
16Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

As you can see the Trinity was already present in HOW the early christians worshipped, it was incorporated into the liturgy that has been passed down to us. Now what ancient liturgies and prayers and benedictions and doxologies and creeds can the heretics provide????

 

[buzuxi02]

3) did this 'greek/pagan' thought influence the articulation of the doctrine?

Did the greek/pagan thought influence the belief in the Virgin Birth? The hebrew original of Isaiah never said a virgin but a young woman will give birth to a male child. Its only in the greek alexandrian text that says a virgin will give birth. How do JW and oneness pentecostals argue the legitimacy of the Virgin birth then????

We know that pagan culture held a belief that great kings were possibly able to be born of virgins. In fact they also believed that great kings are deified as well. So do the Jw and pentecostals sects reject the gospels of Matthew and Luke for employing a pagan concept not found in the original hebrew?

The Orthodox Church believes that these concepts and beliefs are required to have existed as paving the way for coming of Christ, since they cannot arise out of a cultural vacuum. That Christ was a king born of a virgin can only lead to the conclusion that Christ was divine to the ancient person. Its called precedence, a principle already established in the cultural setting from time imemorable which gives the conclusion for the future case. A Virgin birth would be nonsensical in a cultural vacuum, no one would have understood the significance. But a virgin birth+ kingship+divinitywent together- Cause and effect.

 

[buzuxi02]

4) What was St Constantine's role in the councils?

He called for the council to resolve the Arian controversy and to set a uniform date for the celebration of Pascha. He did not take part in the proceedings and even changed his mind in upholding Nicene theology later in life.

But lets say for the sake of argument he did take part in theological debate. Would he have been any worse than any modern day preacher or scholar? Constantine had St. Hosius of Cordoba as his advisor and mentor. Hosios of Cordoba was a great hero of the faith, not a lightweight in any stretch of the imagination. Constantine also used Lactantius an eminent latin Church Father as an advisor. Those who guided him were light years ahead of todays scholars and bible thumpers.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

One could also ask the question, was there the concept of the Trinity within Judaism even before its revelation within Christianity? I would say yes. The Father (YHVH) is the same. Moshiach had to come before the 2nd Temple was destroyed (Daniel 9:24-27), and the Holy Spirit was called Shekinah or Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit)...God's "presence" that filled the Temple. I could get into Kaballah here but I won't Also the Shema..."Shema Israel, Adonai Elohanu, Adonai Echad" ("Hear O Israel, The Lord our God, The Lord is One")...Echad is a plural term. For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two "shall become one (echad) flesh." In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Yachid (singular one) could have been used if that was the implication, but Deuteronomy 6:4 uses "Echad". And then there is Proverbs 30:4...I could go on, but I think I made my point.