(Maximum 2500 words)<\/p>\r\nJurgen Hofmann\r\n
Word count: 2740<\/p>\r\n
\r\n29th<\/sup> May 2012\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\nThe widespread doctrine of the Trinity is a\r\nwell supported doctrine within the Christian faith. This was not\r\nalways the case. The Trinity doctrine knows a turbulent history if it\r\ncomes to establishment. The intention of this paper is to exert a\r\ncloser look into the development of the Trinity doctrine.<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nThe Trinity doctrine is rooted in a number of\r\nmeaningful sources which go back to the Old Testament (OT) and New\r\nTestament (NT) Scriptures, as well to early liturgies, short credal\r\nstatements, and worship practises. All these sources, and the\r\novershadowing rule of faith within the early Church, handed the\r\nchurch fathers the necessary tools to contemplate the reality of God,\r\nwho must exist as both a unity and a trinity (Hall and Olson\r\n2002:15).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nAs the development of this doctrine will be\r\ndiscussed, the emphasis will be on a part of the patristic era\r\n(c.100-381AD).\r\nWithin this exploration, comments and critical analyses will be given\r\non different viewpoints on the matter.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nDifferent groups—mostly\r\nanti-trinitarian groups, such as the Mormons—argue\r\nthat the main source of this doctrine can be found at the Nicene\r\ncouncil in AD 325, with Emperor Constantine as its main patron.\r\nHopkins, who advocates the Mormon’s viewpoint on the Trinity, points\r\nout that the Trinity doctrine has its roots in a pagan tradition as\r\nthat was very tempting in an overarching Greek thinking society.\r\nFurthermore, he states that the Romans threatened to destroy the\r\nChristians if they did not explain their theology in Greek terms\r\n(Hopkins 2006:81). This is a faulty representation of the facts, as\r\nwill become apparent through the next paragraphs. \r\n<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nTrinitarian thinking was already latent in the\r\nearly Church—attempts\r\nwere made to link Christ’s relation to the Father. Throughout the\r\nScriptures one can discover several indications of the plurality of\r\nGod (e.g. Genesis 1:1-2, 1:26-27, Isaiah 6:8). At the same time God\r\nis referred to as ‘Father’ twenty times in the OT. As the early\r\nChristians tried to understand this concept, they had to consider\r\nthat it was God who said that he was one (e.g. Exodus 20:2-3).<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nAccording\r\nto Wright (2001:75), Theophilus (c.120-190AD)\r\nwas the first recorded Christian writer who used the word ‘trias<\/I>‘\r\n(trinity) in reference to the deity. Wright states that \r\n<\/p>\r\n \r\n“This account had undoubted apologetic value.\r\nNot only was the eternity of God’s Reason-Word vindicated, but also\r\nno change or division in God was implied in his mind’s being\r\nexpressed or uttered as word in engagement with the cosmos.”<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nHowever—although\r\nWright is correctly assuming that Theophilus was the first (recorded)\r\nwriter who used the word ‘trinity’—Theophilus\r\ndid not use this word in the same way modern theology would\r\nunderstand it. Theophilus contributed this word to God, his Word\r\n(Logos<\/I>),\r\nand his Wisdom (Sophia<\/I>)—Word\r\nand Wisdom represented God’s hands during creation. He did not write\r\nof plurality within the Godhead, rather it was an attempt to explain\r\n(to his atheist friend, Autolycus)\r\nthe role of the three (the Father, Christ, and the Spirit) through a\r\nmetaphor taken from the creation account (cf. Theophilus 2012, Rogers\r\n2000:71-80). Nevertheless, Theophilus’ writings do show that the word\r\n‘trias<\/I>‘\r\nwas already in use.<\/p>\r\n \r\nRather\r\nthan using the word ‘trinity’, early Christian writers tried to\r\nexplain the rationale behind this rule of faith. Christians baptised\r\nconverts in the name\r\nof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19,\r\ncf. Didache 7:3). Not only this phrase but many others hints, which\r\nare to be found in the Gospels and letters (e.g. John 1:1-14, Hebrews\r\n1:2-3), forced the Christians to formulate\r\ntheir beliefs. Many of these attempts came through letters, the\r\nauthor of 2 Clement (c.100AD) for example, writes in 1:1;<\/p>\r\n \r\n“Brethren,\r\nit is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God…”\r\n(2 Clement 2012).<\/p>\r\n \r\nAnother example can be found in the epistle of Barnabas\r\n(c.100-150AD), who implies in 5:5 that Jesus is pre-existent:<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\n“…unto whom [Jesus] God said from the\r\nfoundation of the world, Let us make man after our image and\r\nlikeness…” (Barnabas 2012).<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nLogos\r\ntheologians<\/U><\/I><\/p>\r\n A\r\nwidespread teaching was that of the early Gentile Christian\r\ntheologians. This group expounded on the concept of Christ as the\r\nLogos<\/I>.\r\nAlthough completely legitimate to see Christ as the Logos<\/I>\r\n(John 1:1-18), the proponents of this theory treated Christ as\r\ninferior (Subordinationism) to God. They saw Christ as an\r\nintermediary between God and creation. McGrath\r\nstates that early Christians wanted to annotate the richness and\r\nprofundity of their impressions and experiences of Christ. This could\r\nnot be done in one simple term and thus the Christians might have\r\nused ideas from paganism. McGrath illustrates a situation, where\r\nChristians had to address to the Greek philosophy and ideas, in order\r\nto get the message across. He notes that the concept of ‘Messiah’ and\r\n‘the Son of God’ already existed among the Jews—this made it easier\r\nto evangelise them. In the case of the Gentiles, the Christians just\r\nsimply used the Gentiles’ terminology to make the message more\r\ncomprehensible (McGrath 1997:57-58).<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nThis\r\nsounds a feasible assumption, but the question arises why this\r\nterminology was not used by the Jewish Christians. The concept of\r\nChrist as inferior to God was merely a misinterpretation in the Greek\r\norientated minds of many Gentile Christians. The Greek philosophers\r\nbasically stated that an intellectual system (logos<\/I>) could\r\nexplain how a transcendent supreme principle could relate to the\r\nmaterial cosmos. Taken this in account, it was not solely an\r\nevangelistic tactic but a deeply rooted philosophy which came forth\r\nout of the Stoics as well as Platonists philosophers (cf. Freeman\r\n2004:576-578).<\/p>\r\n\r\nMarcion<\/U><\/I>\r\n \r\nAnother\r\ndoctrine was that of Marcion (c.110-160AD), the son of a bishop from\r\nPontus. Marcion argued that the Gods of the OT and the NT were\r\ndistinct—the\r\nGod of the NT was superior to the God of the OT. He came to this\r\nconclusion because the God of the OT seemed to be more violent than\r\nthe God that Jesus preached. Furthermore, Marcion argued that the God\r\nof the OT was particularily committed to only one people, and in the\r\nNT, Jesus annotates a more approachable God. Marcion advocated a\r\nbreak between Judaism and Christianity. He did not only reject the\r\nlaw but he rejected the Hebrew Bible along with any connection\r\nbetween Judaism and Christianity.<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nIt\r\nwas Irenaeus (115-202AD) who strongly argued against Marcion, and in\r\nthis Irenaeus did not stand alone:\r\nJustin Martyr, Tertullian,\r\nClement of Alexandra, and Origen, among others, wrote\r\nagainst Marcion and his followers. Marcion was excommunicated\r\nin 144 AD, but his ideas continued to be very influential (cf. Barton\r\n2007:67-81).<\/p>\r\n\r\nDynamic\r\nand Modalistic Monarchianism<\/U><\/I>\r\n \r\nIn\r\nhis work ‘Against Praxeas’, Tertullian (c.213AD) asserted the\r\n‘threeness’ aspect of God, being the first\r\nto use the word ‘Trinity’. However, he did not have a full and\r\naccurate understanding of the Trinity, his views being tinged with\r\nSubordinationism. Nonetheless, he was the first to develop the\r\nformula of ‘one\r\nsubstance in three persons’ (treis\r\nHypostases, Homoousios<\/I>).\r\nTertullian was battling Monarchians who\r\nopted for the unity of God and denied Trinitarianism. Monarchianism\r\nexisted in two forms, namely Dynamic Monarchianism (Adoptionism) and\r\nModalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism). \r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\nThe\r\nfirst theory, developed by Paul of Samosata, viewed Jesus as a man\r\nwho was given special power by the Holy Spirit at his baptism. Paul\r\nof Samosata used the word ‘homoousios<\/I>‘\r\ndifferent than Tertullian did. Paul of Samosata used the word in the\r\nsense of \r\n\r\n \r\n“a common substance out of which both Father\r\nand Son proceeded, or which it divided between them…” (Catholic\r\nEncyclopediaa<\/SUP> 2009).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nThe church fathers condemned Paul of Samosata\r\nat the synods of Antioch in 264 and 268 AD for this heresy (Eusebius\r\n1989:402).<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nThe\r\nsecond theory was more influential—attempting\r\nnot only to maintain the unity of God, but also the full deity of\r\nChrist by asserting that the Father became incarnated in the Son. In\r\nthis attempt however, Modallists interpreted the biblical\r\npresentation of a multi-personal God completely as what they thought\r\nmonotheism was—God as an undifferentiated uni-personal Being.\r\nSabellius\r\nwas a strong defender of Modalism. Schaff (1998:262) annotates that\r\nSabellius taught successive\r\nor developmental Modalism, which teaches that God can manifest His\r\n‘modes’ simultaneously. \r\n<\/p>\r\n \r\nIf\r\none takes this theory to its logical end, it is not comprehensible\r\nwith the Bible. To who did Christ address his cry on the cross for\r\nexample, or how could Jesus be ‘forsaken’ if he was the Father—did\r\nthe Father suffer nothing because he left the physical body?\r\n(Tertullian 1998:30).<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nEmperor\r\nConstantine tried to persuade Arius and Alexander to stop their\r\nstrife, and to come to a compromise. He asked his advisor on\r\necclesiastical concerns, Hosius, the Bishop of Cordoba to end the\r\nbattle. Hosius supervised a council in Antioch (324AD). It was this\r\ncouncil that condemned Arius and his doctrines again. However, the\r\noutcome did not settle the question between Alexander and Arius.\r\nConstantine decided to call a council of all the bishops in his\r\nempire. The purpose of this council was to debate and to establish a\r\nuniversal statement of faith and thus restore the unity of the Church\r\n(Wand 1994:151-152). \r\n<\/p>\r\n \r\nThe\r\ncouncil of Nicea was attended by about 300 bishops. Throughout this\r\ncouncil it was Athanasius, the deacon and personal secretary of\r\nAlexander of Alexandria, who contributed greatly in stating and\r\ndefending the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. It\r\nwas Eusebius of Nicomedia who set forth an Arian statement of faith.\r\nThis was rejected by the majority of the council. Eusebius of\r\nCaecarea came forth with his own creed, which was quiet about the\r\nactual point of debate. His statements were very superficial, and\r\nthus unacceptable for the attending bishops.\r\nTo\r\nexclude Arianistic ideas, the bishops combined the definition of the\r\nSon with the phrases ‘of the substance of the Father’ and ‘of one\r\nsubstance of the Father’ (homoousios<\/I>).\r\nCarter (2006:140) notes that it has been said that Constantine\r\nintervened on behalf of this term. Carter illustrates that if he did,\r\nit could not have been out of a firm theological understanding about\r\nthe implication of this word. It was more likely that Constantine was\r\nmore interested in unity and politics. The council concluded the\r\ncreed with a warning of condemnation for Arianistic teachers. After\r\nthis all bishops had to sign the creed. This was a new phenomenon and\r\nillustrates the importance of this debate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nArians\r\nargued that the word ‘homoousios<\/I>‘\r\ncan not be found in the Scriptures. This line of arguing still\r\nprevails:<\/p>\r\n \r\n“If the\r\nLord meant to convey the Nicene concept of God, He would certainly\r\nhave used the word homo-ousios<\/I>\r\nhere [John 10:30]… He [Jesus] did not teach that He was homo-ousios<\/I>\r\n(or co-substantial) with the Father” (Hopkins 2006:97, cf. Cave\r\n1996:17-19).<\/p>\r\n \r\nThis\r\ncritic can be regarded as irrelevant because the word was never meant\r\nto be Scriptural—it was an attempt to expound the term, which was\r\nregarded as the best way to express the biblical description of the\r\nFather-Son relationship. The second problem Arians had was the fact\r\nthat Paul\r\nof Samosata, and his usage of the word, got condemned in the council\r\nof Antioch. Although the Arians had a seemingly\r\nstrong point with this objection, it did not hold. The word\r\n‘homoousios<\/I>‘\r\nwas not interpreted the same way as Paul of Samosata’s definition,\r\nwhich\r\nderived from Aristotle’s interpretation.\r\nBlaising annotates that it was<\/p>\r\n \r\n“clear\r\nthat the fathers at Nicea did not think of homoousios<\/I>\r\nfrom the standpoint of Aristotle’s category of primary ousia<\/I>,\r\nin which ousia<\/I>\r\nis condidered simply as an individual thing” (Blaisinga<\/SUP>\r\n2001:574).<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe\r\nbattle continued, and at the end of summer 328AD, Athanasius, who was\r\nnow Bishop of Alexandria, ventured on an ecclesiastical battle. The\r\nBithynian synod (328AD) did an appeal on Athanasius for Arius’\r\nrestoration. Athanasius refused, even after several warnings by\r\nEmperor Constantine and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was in high favour\r\nwith the Emperor. After a slander campaign, organised by Eusebius,\r\nConstantine banished Athanasius to Gaul. On 22 May, 337 Constantine\r\ndied, after having been baptised by Eusebius. Athanasius could come\r\nback from exile. The new emperor, Constantius, was strongly influenced\r\nby Eusebius, and as result spent much of his time in persecuting\r\nAthanasius (Catholic Encyclopediab<\/SUP>\r\n2009).<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nThe Council\r\nof Nicea had not clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the third\r\nperson of the Trinity. After 360AD this became a topic of debate.\r\nAgain it was Athanasius who maintained the deity of the Spirit in his\r\nletters which were sent to correct the heresy of Tropici, who taught\r\nthat God created the Spirit out of nothing. This teaching appeared\r\nin the so-called ‘Homoiousion<\/I>‘ Party (c.373AD). This group\r\ntried to compromise between Arianism and Nicene orthodoxy.\r\nHomoiousion<\/I> means ‘like the Father’, but not in the sense of\r\n‘the same essence’. The Cappadocians opposed this teaching and taught\r\nthe full deity and homoousia<\/I> of the Spirit, who is not\r\nbegotten but proceeds from the Father.<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThis\r\nCouncil marked the end of more than fifty years of the political and\r\ntheological supremacy of\r\nArianism. The developed pneumatology of Athanasius and the\r\nCappadocians became, together with the reaffirmation of the Nicene\r\northodoxy, imperative to the Council of Constantinople. With this the\r\nChurch completed the trinitarian doctrine (Blaisingb<\/SUP>\r\n2001:191-192). Although Arianism was weakened, its influence is still\r\nvisible in several modern groups like Mormonism and the Jehovah\r\nwitnesses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nDifferent\r\nideas developed which denied the deity of Christ. The Church did not\r\ntolerate this in whatever form, and universally condemned these\r\ndoctrines (Dalcour 2005:149-150). These\r\ndifferent viewpoints forced the church fathers to formulate their\r\nbeliefs in sound credal statements. \r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nEmperor\r\nConstantine, mostly concerned about unity within his empire, summoned\r\nthe first ecumenical Council in Nicea. It was this Council which came\r\nto a universal creed on the Trinity. Through politics and slander,\r\nthe Arianistic party maintained their domination for many years,\r\nwhich came to an end during the second ecumenical Council at\r\nConstantinople, where the trinitarian\r\ndoctrine was completed.<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nOpponents\r\nof trinitarian thinking regularly argue that this doctrine\r\noriginated, strongly influenced by emperor Constantine, at the\r\nCouncil of Nicea. A more honest evaluation is to say that the early\r\nchurch fathers did their utmost best to protect the integrity of the\r\nGospel (Morris 2011:47). The Church developed the basics of this\r\ndoctrine long before Constantine, who, as it turns out, was in strong\r\nfavour of Arianism.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nAll biblical references are taken from The Holy\r\nBible: King James Version (1611).<\/p>\r\n \r\n2\r\nClement (2012) The Second Epistle of\r\nClement<\/I>. Donaldson and Roberts (trans.). [Internet] Kirby. P.,\r\nEarly Christian Writings. Available\r\nfrom:\r\n<http:\/\/www.earlychristianwritings.com\/text\/2clement-roberts.html>\r\n[Accessed 27 April 2012].<\/p>\r\n\r\n \r\nBarnabas (2012) The Epistle of Barnabas<\/I>.\r\nLightfoot, J. B. (trans.). [Internet] Kirby. P., Early Christian\r\nWritings. Available from:\r\n<http:\/\/www.earlychristianwritings.com\/text\/barnabas-lightfoot.html>\r\n[Accessed 27 April 2012].<\/p>\r\n \r\nBarton,\r\nJ. (2007) The\r\nOld Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology : Collected Essays of\r\nJohn Barton<\/I>.\r\nAldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited.<\/p>\r\n \r\nBlaising,\r\nC.a<\/SUP>\r\n(2001) homoousios.\r\nIn: Elwell, W. A. (ed.) Evangelical\r\nDictionary of Theology<\/I>.\r\n2nd<\/SUP>\r\ned. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House Company.<\/p>\r\n \r\nBlaising,\r\nC.b<\/SUP>\r\n(2001) Constantinople,\r\nFirst Council of (381).\r\nIn: Elwell, W. A. (ed.) Evangelical\r\nDictionary of Theology<\/I>.\r\n2nd<\/SUP>\r\ned. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House Company.<\/p>\r\n \r\nCarter,\r\nC. A. (2006) Rethinking\r\nChrist And Culture: A Post-christendom Perspective<\/I>.\r\nGrand Rapids, Brazos Press.<\/p>\r\n \r\nCatholic\r\nEncyclopediaa<\/SUP>\r\n(2009)\r\nPaul\r\nof Samosata<\/I>.\r\n[Internet] Knight, K., New Advent. Available from:\r\n<http:\/\/www.newadvent.org\/cathen\/11589a.htm> [Accessed 10 May\r\n2012].<\/p>\r\n \r\nCatholic\r\nEncyclopediab<\/SUP>\r\n(2009)\r\nEusebius\r\nof Nicomedia<\/I>.\r\n[Internet] Knight, K., New Advent. Available from:\r\n<http:\/\/www.newadvent.org\/cathen\/05623b.htm> [Accessed 24 May\r\n2012].<\/p>\r\n \r\nCave,\r\nM. A. C. (1996) Is the Trinity\r\nDoctrine Divinely Inspired?<\/I> [Internet] WAMY Publishing. Available\r\nfrom:\r\n<http:\/\/islamicstudies.islammessage.com\/panel\/media\/file\/Is%20the%20Trinity%20Doctrine%20Divinely%20Inspired.pdf>\r\n[Accessed\r\n22 May 2012].<\/p>\r\n \r\nDalcour,\r\nE. L. (2005) A\r\nDefinitive Look At Oneness Theology: Defending The Tri-unity Of God<\/I>.\r\nMaryland,\r\nUniversity Press of America, Inc.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nDidache\r\n(2012) The Didache or\r\nTeaching of the Apostles<\/I>.\r\nDonaldson and Roberts (trans.). [Internet] Kirby. P., Early Christian\r\nWritings. Available from:\r\n<http:\/\/www.earlychristianwritings.com\/didache.html> [Accessed\r\n4 May 2012].<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nEusebius\r\n(1989) The History of\r\nthe Church (Penguin Classics)<\/I>.\r\nWilliamson, G. A. (trans.), Louth, A. (ed.). London, Penguin Group.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nFreeman,\r\nC. (2004) Egypt,\r\nGreece, and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean<\/I>.\r\n2nd<\/SUP>\r\ned. New York, Oxford University Press Inc.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nHall, C. A. and Olson, R. E. (2002) The\r\nTrinity<\/I>. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nHopkins, R. R. (2006) Biblical Mormonism:\r\nResponding to Evangelical Criticism of Lds Theology<\/I>. Springville,\r\nCFI.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nMcGrath,\r\nA. E. (1997) Studies in Doctrine:\r\nUnderstanding Doctrine, Understanding the Trinity, Understanding\r\nJesus, Justification by Faith<\/I>. Grand Rapids, Zondervan.<\/p>\r\n\r\nMorris,\r\nJ. W. (2011) The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian\r\nHistory<\/I>. Bloomington, Authorhouse Publishing.\r\n \r\n\r\nRogers,\r\nR. (2000) Theophilus\r\nof Antioch: The Life and Thought of a Second-Century Bishop<\/I>.\r\nMaryland, Lexington Books.<\/p>\r\n \r\nSchaff,\r\nP. (1998)\r\nHistory\r\nof the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D\r\n100-<\/I>325<\/I>.\r\nOak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.<\/p>\r\n \r\nTertullian\r\n(1998) Against Praxeas<\/I>.\r\nHolmes,\r\nP. (trans.). [Internet] Roger, P., The Tertullian Project. Available\r\nfrom: <http:\/\/www.tertullian.org\/anf\/anf03\/anf03-43.htm>\r\n[Accessed 10 May 2012].<\/p>\r\n \r\nTheophilus\r\n(2012) Theophilus to\r\nAutolycus<\/I>. [Internet]\r\nKirby. P., Early Christian Writings. Available from:\r\n<http:\/\/www.earlychristianwritings.com\/text\/theophilus-book2.html>\r\n[Accessed 30 April 2012].<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nWand,\r\nJ. W. C. (1994) A\r\nHistory Of The Early Church To A.D. 500<\/I>.\r\nLondon, Routledge.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Williams,\r\nR. (2001) Arius: Heresy and Tradition<\/I>. London, SCM\r\nPress.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nWright, D.\r\nF. (2001) The Formation of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early\r\nChurch. A Quarterly\r\nJournal for Church Leadership<\/I>,\r\n10 (3) Summer, pp. 68-93.<\/p>\r\n Critical Essay Outline and comment on the development of the Trinity to the end of the Patristic era. (Maximum 2500 words) Jurgen Hofmann Word count: 2740 29th May 2012 Introduction The widespread doctrine of the Trinity is a well supported doctrine within the Christian faith. This was not always the case. The Trinity doctrine knows […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7467,"parent":1147,"menu_order":11,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"spay_email":""},"categories":[225,307],"tags":[227,304],"folder":[102],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1187"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1187\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1147"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7467"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1187"},{"taxonomy":"folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/folder?post=1187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Introduction<\/h4>\r\n
Modern\r\nopposition<\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n
Root\r\nof trinitarian thinking<\/h4>\r\n\r\n
Different\r\nunderstandings<\/h4>\r\n\r\nThe\r\nnecessity of a coherent doctrine became more apparent during the\r\nthird century. Because of a non-coherent doctrine, different ideas\r\nstarted to develop and spread among Christians. \r\n\r\n
Nicea\r\ncouncil<\/h4>\r\n\r\nAround 318AD, Arius defended what he believed\r\nwas the absolute unity and oneness of God. He separated the Son\r\ncompletely from the Father by stating that the Son was an exalted\r\ncreature—raised\r\nabove all that was created, but still a creature. This teaching led\r\nto a major controversy because it was contrary to the central\r\nteaching of Christian faith as received from the apostles. Alexander\r\nof Alexandria organised a council, which condemned Arius in 320AD.\r\nArius fled to Palestine where he continued his teaching. He became\r\nfriends with Eusebius of Nicomedia, who rejected the condemnation by\r\nAlexander’s council, during a council in the east—as\r\na result both sides sought collaborators,\r\nwhich led to even more strife (Morris 2011:53). \r\n\r\n\r\n
The\r\nConflict of 340-380<\/h4>\r\n\r\nArius and his followers had been exiled by the\r\ncouncil of Nicea and the matter seemed to be solved. However, Emperor\r\nConstantine later recalled this exile and gave Arius the chance to\r\nclear himself. Williams notes that Arius’ party annotated that their\r\nfaith was not different from that of the other bishops. In their\r\nstatement, about the word ‘homoousios<\/I>‘,\r\nthey declared that they have examined the implications and were\r\ncommitted to preserve the peace of the Church and avoid heresy. In\r\nfact, with this statement, they cleverly avoided to answer the\r\nquestion on acceptance of the word (Williams 2001:73). \r\n
Constantinople\r\ncouncil 381AD<\/h4>\r\n\r\nTheodosius\r\nbecame emperor in 379AD. Theodosius was, in contrast with his\r\npredecessor, in favour of Nicene Christianity. Theodosius expelled\r\nBishop Demophilus of Constantinople, and commissioned Meletius Bishop\r\nof Antioch, and Gregory of Nazianzu Bishop of Constantinople. In May\r\n381, Theodosius summoned an ecumenical council at Constantinople to\r\nrepair the schism between East and West.\r\n
Conclusion<\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAlthough\r\nthe word ‘trinity’ (trias<\/I>)\r\ncan be found in early writings, the early church fathers (100-160AD)\r\ndid not formulate any clear statements concerning the trinitarian\r\ntheology as it is now. \r\nThere\r\nwere many writers who tried to expound on the rationale behind the\r\npraxis of worship within the Christian community, but the conclusions\r\nwere still not homogeneous.\r\n\r\n
Word count: 2740<\/h4>\r\n\r\n
Bibliography:<\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n