Post by Josh on Feb 5, 2007 17:42:26 GMT -8
Originally posted 5/6/06:
A friend recently mailed me an article by a Jehovah's Witness which claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity was a third century invention. The article attempted to use quotes from early Church Fathers (2nd Century) to show that they didn't believe in a Trinity.
This was my response. Although the article is not posted, you may find this helpful in regard to the general topic:
In regard to your question, I’m going I’ll make some comments and some recommendations.
The first thing, which I gather full well you already know, is to be really cautious when a Jehovah’s Witness source is stating ‘facts’. Of course this always applies with anyone researching anyone’s arguments, but because of the precedent of JW ‘half-truths’, this is doubly so when critiquing JW works.
Of course, many Christians aren’t forthright in their ‘reporting of the facts’, either. A good argument (or article) presents both sides of the argument well. This article would have you believe that this is a simple, open-shut case, which is the biggest mistruth of all. By presenting little snippets here and there of 200+ years of writings and the development of theology, they hope to have the reader convinced. And yet they never admit how complicated the issue really is.
First off, the doctrine of the Trinity is subtle, complex, and lingering just beyond comprehension in the first place. This bothers uber-fundamentalists of all stripes (not the least of whom are our JWs). It is true that Jesus didn’t just spell it out in a simple formula. What the JWs fail to see is that it appears that Jesus preferred to leave us clues, hints, and tantalizing pieces of the puzzle, and to have the early Church (first and foremost in the writings of the New Testament) put the pieces together- like He was inviting the Church to solve a mystery—an extremely important one. (when I say ‘solve’ I don’t mean completely comprehend, but I mean figure out enough to apprehend the doctrine). Contrary to the author of this article, I think this fits very well in line with what God is like. Almost every key doctrine of Christianity developed slowly, in the shadows, before it say the clear light of day (think of the evolution of knowledge about the afterlife that we see in Scripture, or the knowledge of the law, or the grace of God, etc…) It’s not surprising to me that the Trinity is not spelled out easily.
That said, as you know, the NT is rife with overt and implied statements as to the deity of Christ. I won’t touch on this here because I suspect this is still an area of expertise for you. But I will say that if you haven’t refreshed your memory banks on this, then I would suggest you do that because I am still finding ‘Trinitarian’ verses and implication in the Bible that I had never seen before. One case in point: the word LORD in the NIV. It’s a somewhat unfortunate translation, because to us it’s just a title, but it’s actually the name of God (Yahweh) in the OT, and carries the same significant when used of Christ a hundred times in the NT.
Anyway, what you’re interested in is the Church fathers. What I’m going to do is make some comments on the butchering of history found in this article, and then sent you another article on this same subject (from the Christian Research Institute).
I was highly amused by the first page of the article that you sent me (page 7) in the sections “What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught”. First off, that’s a huge undertaking, yet the author apparently thinks he can sum up that enormous task in two columns of an article. The immense naivety… or worse, insidious, purposeful deception!
I want to note his strategy here. Note when he actually uses quotes for the Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, etc..) and when he is not. You will find that most of the parts that are actually quotes are in and of themselves either non-problematic, ambivalent, or just honest attempts to describe a difficult subject.
For instance, Justin Martyr did think Jesus was the Angel of Lord, but not in the way that JWs do. Justin himself pointed out how the Angel of the Lord was called God in the OT. (Don’t know what your stance on this is, but I also think the Angel of the Lord was Jesus, angel simply meaning messenger or presence).
As to Jesus “never doing anything except what the Creator.. willed him to do or say”—need I point out that Jesus himself said this too, and that this concept is no challenge to the doctrine of the Trinity, but is rather just attacking a straw man.
When discussing Irenaeus, he says- he showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other”. The quoted material here, no orthodox Christian would have a problem with—it’s the unqualified statement “he showed that Jesus is not equal” that is the problem. Why not quote Irenaeus free and clear on this, if that’s what he’s arguing? The reason is that JW’s misunderstand the orthodox explanation about how Jesus can be ‘equal’ to God is some aspects and not in others. (this is a common headache for JWs because they often can’t see how something is true in one context and not in another). For instance, Jesus is indeed subordinate to God is some ways and not in others (do you want some verses on this?). It doesn’t mean He’s not God.
This same misunderstanding can be seen is his comments on Clement and in the first part of his comments on Tertullian.
When we do find something in the Fathers that seems flat wrong, such as Tertullian’s second comment- ‘there was a time when the Son was not’, we have to first compare it with Scripture and also realize that in this complicated ‘piecing together of the puzzle’ there was bound to be some dead-ends. I have to confess, Dan, that I am a little more tolerant of those who don’t have all their ‘ducks in a row’ with the doctrine of the Trinity than I was before, because I recognize how complicated it all is. That certainly doesn’t mean it’s not important—it’s supremely important in the avoidance of heresy, but I see how easy it is to misunderstand parts of the doctrine.
Note in his Hippolytus quote that he can’t actually quote Hippolytus as saying that God created Jesus, he just implies it. The quote in and of itself doesn’t really spark any red flags.
And in regard to Origen, even thought the Church eventually decided on the “one is essence, two in substance’ formula as the most accurate, what we’re really seeing is Origen’s valid attempt to avoid the alterna-heresy stating that God and Jesus are just the same thing in all regards (aka modalism). And “compared with Father, the Son is a very small light” isn’t necessarily heresy (although pushing some bounds), depending on context. Jesus Himself at times says things along these lines. Again, it depends on in what sense is ‘light’ being intended.
As to his ‘summation’ on page 7, I’ll just refer you to the enclosed article for contra on that.
Further recommendations: Read the article, and if you want more on the Fathers, I’d suggest finding (at Pilgrim) A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, which is a giant compendium of early Church father quotes on a huge variety of topics- from infanticide to gifts of the spirit, you name it. It’s a great resource, albeit sometimes a little selective (ie, he didn’t include some Fathers he considered heretical). Also, I’d just recommend reading the Fathers in their original works.
As to the council of Nicea and Constantine’s role, etc.. I’m just plum out of time for the moment (that’s a huge topic). In order to send this out ASAP, I’ll have to wait on that. (perhaps we could get together?).
I hope this helps. One last summation comment:
Think of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as sort of a mystery novel: 200+ years of putting the pieces together: many dead ends, some new leaps forward, and always approaching an ever more precise explanation of the relevant Bible passages. The Platonic part of this discussion is not to be feared—its clear even John (Logos) thought that was a good well to draw from within bounds.
The funny thing is that JWs want you to assume that the doctrine of the Trinity only comes about by torturing the text (as opposed to it ‘leaping from a plain reading of the text’), whereas their view that Jesus is a subordinate angel is even less apparent from a plain reading of the text of the Bible. The fact is that neither view comes from the plain reading: the plain, unstudied reading of the bible text leaves us with the initial impression of a mystery or a paradox or conundrum which must be solved by study. IN other words, there is no ‘obvious and exhaustive’ doctrine of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in their relation to God in any one place in the NT, whether on the orthodox side or the JW side. There is a tantalizing mystery of strong and clear statements scattered here and there, compelling us to study further. The reason the Church Father wrestled with this for years wasn’t because they were desperately trying to make the text say something different that what it actually said, but because they were really trying to understand it in all its complexity and paradox.
Hope that helps for now.
A friend recently mailed me an article by a Jehovah's Witness which claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity was a third century invention. The article attempted to use quotes from early Church Fathers (2nd Century) to show that they didn't believe in a Trinity.
This was my response. Although the article is not posted, you may find this helpful in regard to the general topic:
In regard to your question, I’m going I’ll make some comments and some recommendations.
The first thing, which I gather full well you already know, is to be really cautious when a Jehovah’s Witness source is stating ‘facts’. Of course this always applies with anyone researching anyone’s arguments, but because of the precedent of JW ‘half-truths’, this is doubly so when critiquing JW works.
Of course, many Christians aren’t forthright in their ‘reporting of the facts’, either. A good argument (or article) presents both sides of the argument well. This article would have you believe that this is a simple, open-shut case, which is the biggest mistruth of all. By presenting little snippets here and there of 200+ years of writings and the development of theology, they hope to have the reader convinced. And yet they never admit how complicated the issue really is.
First off, the doctrine of the Trinity is subtle, complex, and lingering just beyond comprehension in the first place. This bothers uber-fundamentalists of all stripes (not the least of whom are our JWs). It is true that Jesus didn’t just spell it out in a simple formula. What the JWs fail to see is that it appears that Jesus preferred to leave us clues, hints, and tantalizing pieces of the puzzle, and to have the early Church (first and foremost in the writings of the New Testament) put the pieces together- like He was inviting the Church to solve a mystery—an extremely important one. (when I say ‘solve’ I don’t mean completely comprehend, but I mean figure out enough to apprehend the doctrine). Contrary to the author of this article, I think this fits very well in line with what God is like. Almost every key doctrine of Christianity developed slowly, in the shadows, before it say the clear light of day (think of the evolution of knowledge about the afterlife that we see in Scripture, or the knowledge of the law, or the grace of God, etc…) It’s not surprising to me that the Trinity is not spelled out easily.
That said, as you know, the NT is rife with overt and implied statements as to the deity of Christ. I won’t touch on this here because I suspect this is still an area of expertise for you. But I will say that if you haven’t refreshed your memory banks on this, then I would suggest you do that because I am still finding ‘Trinitarian’ verses and implication in the Bible that I had never seen before. One case in point: the word LORD in the NIV. It’s a somewhat unfortunate translation, because to us it’s just a title, but it’s actually the name of God (Yahweh) in the OT, and carries the same significant when used of Christ a hundred times in the NT.
Anyway, what you’re interested in is the Church fathers. What I’m going to do is make some comments on the butchering of history found in this article, and then sent you another article on this same subject (from the Christian Research Institute).
I was highly amused by the first page of the article that you sent me (page 7) in the sections “What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught”. First off, that’s a huge undertaking, yet the author apparently thinks he can sum up that enormous task in two columns of an article. The immense naivety… or worse, insidious, purposeful deception!
I want to note his strategy here. Note when he actually uses quotes for the Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, etc..) and when he is not. You will find that most of the parts that are actually quotes are in and of themselves either non-problematic, ambivalent, or just honest attempts to describe a difficult subject.
For instance, Justin Martyr did think Jesus was the Angel of Lord, but not in the way that JWs do. Justin himself pointed out how the Angel of the Lord was called God in the OT. (Don’t know what your stance on this is, but I also think the Angel of the Lord was Jesus, angel simply meaning messenger or presence).
As to Jesus “never doing anything except what the Creator.. willed him to do or say”—need I point out that Jesus himself said this too, and that this concept is no challenge to the doctrine of the Trinity, but is rather just attacking a straw man.
When discussing Irenaeus, he says- he showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other”. The quoted material here, no orthodox Christian would have a problem with—it’s the unqualified statement “he showed that Jesus is not equal” that is the problem. Why not quote Irenaeus free and clear on this, if that’s what he’s arguing? The reason is that JW’s misunderstand the orthodox explanation about how Jesus can be ‘equal’ to God is some aspects and not in others. (this is a common headache for JWs because they often can’t see how something is true in one context and not in another). For instance, Jesus is indeed subordinate to God is some ways and not in others (do you want some verses on this?). It doesn’t mean He’s not God.
This same misunderstanding can be seen is his comments on Clement and in the first part of his comments on Tertullian.
When we do find something in the Fathers that seems flat wrong, such as Tertullian’s second comment- ‘there was a time when the Son was not’, we have to first compare it with Scripture and also realize that in this complicated ‘piecing together of the puzzle’ there was bound to be some dead-ends. I have to confess, Dan, that I am a little more tolerant of those who don’t have all their ‘ducks in a row’ with the doctrine of the Trinity than I was before, because I recognize how complicated it all is. That certainly doesn’t mean it’s not important—it’s supremely important in the avoidance of heresy, but I see how easy it is to misunderstand parts of the doctrine.
Note in his Hippolytus quote that he can’t actually quote Hippolytus as saying that God created Jesus, he just implies it. The quote in and of itself doesn’t really spark any red flags.
And in regard to Origen, even thought the Church eventually decided on the “one is essence, two in substance’ formula as the most accurate, what we’re really seeing is Origen’s valid attempt to avoid the alterna-heresy stating that God and Jesus are just the same thing in all regards (aka modalism). And “compared with Father, the Son is a very small light” isn’t necessarily heresy (although pushing some bounds), depending on context. Jesus Himself at times says things along these lines. Again, it depends on in what sense is ‘light’ being intended.
As to his ‘summation’ on page 7, I’ll just refer you to the enclosed article for contra on that.
Further recommendations: Read the article, and if you want more on the Fathers, I’d suggest finding (at Pilgrim) A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, which is a giant compendium of early Church father quotes on a huge variety of topics- from infanticide to gifts of the spirit, you name it. It’s a great resource, albeit sometimes a little selective (ie, he didn’t include some Fathers he considered heretical). Also, I’d just recommend reading the Fathers in their original works.
As to the council of Nicea and Constantine’s role, etc.. I’m just plum out of time for the moment (that’s a huge topic). In order to send this out ASAP, I’ll have to wait on that. (perhaps we could get together?).
I hope this helps. One last summation comment:
Think of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as sort of a mystery novel: 200+ years of putting the pieces together: many dead ends, some new leaps forward, and always approaching an ever more precise explanation of the relevant Bible passages. The Platonic part of this discussion is not to be feared—its clear even John (Logos) thought that was a good well to draw from within bounds.
The funny thing is that JWs want you to assume that the doctrine of the Trinity only comes about by torturing the text (as opposed to it ‘leaping from a plain reading of the text’), whereas their view that Jesus is a subordinate angel is even less apparent from a plain reading of the text of the Bible. The fact is that neither view comes from the plain reading: the plain, unstudied reading of the bible text leaves us with the initial impression of a mystery or a paradox or conundrum which must be solved by study. IN other words, there is no ‘obvious and exhaustive’ doctrine of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in their relation to God in any one place in the NT, whether on the orthodox side or the JW side. There is a tantalizing mystery of strong and clear statements scattered here and there, compelling us to study further. The reason the Church Father wrestled with this for years wasn’t because they were desperately trying to make the text say something different that what it actually said, but because they were really trying to understand it in all its complexity and paradox.
Hope that helps for now.