God: Triune or Unipersonal?

[mccar1969]

I own and have been reading the Church Fathers (I recommend them highly), so I think I can help you a little bit with a few quotes.

Justin Martyr was Platonic philosopher who converted to Christianity. He and a number of companions were martyred for the faith in the 160s. He wrote the following items in the 150s.

This is from Justin Martyr’s First Apology:
Chapter XXXII: And what is spoken of as "the blood of the grape," signifies that He who should appear would have blood, though not of the seed of man, but of the power of God. And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man.

In Chapters 37,38 and 39 Justine speaks of the “person” of the Father (37) in 38 he speaks of the “person” of the son and in 39 Justine speaks of the Spirit as “He” and differentiated from Father and Son.

In Chapter LXI on the subject of baptism we read, “For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.”

In chapter LXIII of his first Apology Justin Martyr said this about modalistic teachings “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.”

This is from Justin Martyr’s Second Apology:
Chapter VI: But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him…

Now let’s look at Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. In this book Justine is speaking to Trypho and his companions, all of who are Jews. Main thrust of the book is to show them that Jesus is the Christ and He is truly God. There is much in the book that is clearly Trinitarian in its thrust. I would especially point to Chapter CXXIX. In this Chapter Justin is pointing out that the Old Testament Scriptures show that there is a plurality of being in the one true God.

Athenagoras wrote A Plea for the Christians to Emperor Marcus Aurelius around 177 AD.

Here or some items from this work.
Chapter III: But, since our doctrine acknowledges one God, the Maker of this universe, who is Himself uncreated (for that which is does not come to be, but that which is not) but has made all things by the Logos which is from Him, we are treated unreasonably in both respects, in that we are both defamed and persecuted.

Chapter X is a great example of an early attempt to explain the plurality and unity of the true God of the Christians. Athenagoras says “That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God.” And then he says, “The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?”

I am about out of time, but I can add more when I have a few more minutes to spare.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

very interesting i am waiting for more ......

 

[Carey]

God must be beside himself if their are'nt seperate entities between the 3 because Jesus said after he ascended he would be seated at the right hand of his Father.
And he said the Holy spirit could not be with us while he was here. that is why he ascended and went back to heaven

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

english is (obviously) a very poor revealer of the truth of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scripture.
the apostle Paul said "wolves are already among us, and they will tear the flock apart after I leave", and they did, just as it is written.
so don't read nor trust the c.f. (leads to very much error).
stick with Scripture - read it, read it again and again, devour it!

just read Scripture, not to prove anything, but to Learn from Abba!! . without man's error introduced, you won't find t.

 

[PolycarpII]

I would like to say that I am searching for information, truth, and the history of the early church. I am here to find out, and hopefully gain responses from people who know more about the early church than I. Now, we cannot find out as to whether or not the Apostles believed in a Trinity or a unipersonal God, let alone, modalistic in nature. Please keep in mind that while Sabellianism and Modalism were condemned, some people hold to this thought to this day. What is the earliest writings that we can find that speak of God as Trinity or unipersonal? I ask this question, because if anything, the early church believed that Christ was God, and they were monotheistic in their beliefs.

I suppose we could find hints of binitarianism, but there was no council or synod at the time that established the doctrine of the Trinity. Some even had their own thoughts. For example, the church condemned subordinationism. This is to say that they condemned the belief that Jesus was inferior to the Father. However, Origen had this thought in mind (as well as other heretical teachings, such as universalism). Who is right to say that there is a Trinity as both Catholic and Protestant would say? Or who is to say that God is not unipersonal, as the Pentecostals would say? I am very much in search for this truth. I had read an article that concerned the Trinity, and how the early church did not believe in it, but rather, a "oneness" of God. Of course, there were no names mentioned of this, and the names that did believe in a "oneness," such as Aristides, he was said to have moved away from the "oneness" and ready to see the Father and Son as two different persons.

Could this really be seen as proof for a "oneness," especially if, as far as I know, there is no written text of such thought? Right now, I am in a situation between wondering if there is a triune or unipersonal God. Until then, I will have to say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He is God, for "whatever is begotten of God is God" (Irenaeus of Lyons). But, right now, while I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that Christianity is monotheistic, I will have to hold only to these beliefs and not think of anything else. In other words, while I'll commit to myself to both monotheism and the Deity of Christ, I will make no effort yet, to reconcile the two.

I implore anyone and everyone who knows of the Patristic Era better than I, that I may find the truth and believe in it, and believe in it in "truth and in spirit" (John 4:24). Thank you for your time.

While it is that you are probably referring to the Doctrine of the Trinity and the earliest records that actually spell this Doctrine out. It must not be forgotten that this doctrine arose from the NT and finds its origins in Scripture and Tradition.

Here is a link on the holy Trinity from the online Catholic Encyclopedia new Advent:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#II

 

[thereselittleflower]

english is (obviously) a very poor revealer of the truth of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scripture.
the apostle Paul said "wolves are already among us, and they will tear the flock apart after I leave", and they did, just as it is written.
so don't read nor trust the c.f. (leads to very much error).
stick with Scripture - read it, read it again and again, devour it!

just read Scripture, not to prove anything, but to Learn from Abba!! . without man's error introduced, you won't find t.

Does that mean there is a problem with the Nicene Creed?


Peace

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Nope. I recite the Nicene Creed regularly as part of my personal prayer time. Good creed

 

[LionandLambMinistry]

I would like to say that I am searching for information, truth, and the history of the early church. I am here to find out, and hopefully gain responses from people who know more about the early church than I. Now, we cannot find out as to whether or not the Apostles believed in a Trinity or a unipersonal God, let alone, modalistic in nature. Please keep in mind that while Sabellianism and Modalism were condemned, some people hold to this thought to this day. What is the earliest writings that we can find that speak of God as Trinity or unipersonal? I ask this question, because if anything, the early church believed that Christ was God, and they were monotheistic in their beliefs.

I suppose we could find hints of binitarianism, but there was no council or synod at the time that established the doctrine of the Trinity. Some even had their own thoughts. For example, the church condemned subordinationism. This is to say that they condemned the belief that Jesus was inferior to the Father. However, Origen had this thought in mind (as well as other heretical teachings, such as universalism). Who is right to say that there is a Trinity as both Catholic and Protestant would say? Or who is to say that God is not unipersonal, as the Pentecostals would say? I am very much in search for this truth. I had read an article that concerned the Trinity, and how the early church did not believe in it, but rather, a "oneness" of God. Of course, there were no names mentioned of this, and the names that did believe in a "oneness," such as Aristides, he was said to have moved away from the "oneness" and ready to see the Father and Son as two different persons.

Could this really be seen as proof for a "oneness," especially if, as far as I know, there is no written text of such thought? Right now, I am in a situation between wondering if there is a triune or unipersonal God. Until then, I will have to say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He is God, for "whatever is begotten of God is God" (Irenaeus of Lyons). But, right now, while I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that Christianity is monotheistic, I will have to hold only to these beliefs and not think of anything else. In other words, while I'll commit to myself to both monotheism and the Deity of Christ, I will make no effort yet, to reconcile the two.

I implore anyone and everyone who knows of the Patristic Era better than I, that I may find the truth and believe in it, and believe in it in "truth and in spirit" (John 4:24). Thank you for your time.

Have you checked out the meaning of the owrd "Son" as it applies to the "Son of God". It is a different term that what is normally known as son. The word used in "Son of God" is the word used for "heir' .

and let's not forget, there is no way that at this stage we will know all of these things about the Lord. that is why we must have faith in order to please Him.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

simple