With this new topic I would like to discuss my tentative opinion that the trinity as most christians hold it today represents only the ‘Athanasius wing’ of the historical council in Nicea.
Eusebius, part of the Council which also provides most of the text of the statement used in the council, understood the trinity differently than Athanasius.
I know a lot of valuable discussions have been made concerning the doctrine of the trinity. However this topic should be centered less about biblical evidence of the trinity or not trinity, but more a discussion to see which views were represented in the councils that were eventually part of the trinity.
I think it might be worthwhile exploring this and possibly coming to the conclusion that those who are today being ‘anathematized’ by mainstream christianity are part of the trinitarian church - maybe just belonging to the other ‘wing’ of the council - Eusebius.
Even though I tried to read material about this topic I am not an expert in this field and I hope some of you can contribute to this so that we might gain a bette runderstanding.
The most important text I am referring to is Eusebius’ letter to his own diocese after attending the council. Eusebius from Caesarea and also Eusebius from Nikodemia have been friends with Arius and shared some of the same ideas. Athanasius on the other side was friends with some groups that held sabbellian views. Both, Arianism and Sabellianism has been anathematized by the church.
Therefore it is not difficult to imagine that Eusebius and Anasthasius had severe conflicts with each other. Yet, and this is the proposal I am putting forward, both contributed to and eventually signed and supported the creed of the 1st Nicean council.
The important document as I see it is the letter Eusebius wrote to his diocese. He is explaining why he agreed to the council’s words without compomising his belief and the belief that was historically held by his diocese. the most curcial point of discussion and argument in the council was the phrase ‘one in essence’. And here is Eusebius interpretation:
‘On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “of the essence of the Father,” and “one in essence with the Father.” Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term “One in essence,” peace being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox view.’
The full letter can be viewed here.
Eusebius here portrays his interpretation of the phrase in question as Jesus being from the father, yet not part of the Father’s essence. And he also affirms that this is in harmony with the orthodox view of the council. I find this very interesting since this would mean that christians that hold the view that Christ and the Father are onthologicially different, yet don’t regard CHrist as God’s creation could be part of orthodox trinity. Is it possible that this has been overlooked in the church today and after the council? Why is it that only Athanasius view (‘one in essence means onthological sameness) has triumphed the view of trinity?
Please help me explore this matter. Thank you!
Re: different views of the trinity
thanks, Andrew, for fixing the format of my post. Appreciate it! Actually: how do you refer to a website by underlining a word?
Re: different views of the trinity
I wonder if much of the debate can be solved by looking at the original language. In Christian theology today we talk about the three persons of the Trinity. It’s a misleading term which use to translate personae (I think). Regardless, what the original word refers to are the masks that actors may wear on stage (again, I think). In that way one actor could act as three different persons.
This is dangerously close to modalism which says that God becomes present in three different modes, but isn’t. Of course, the "I think"s can mean that I’m entirely wrong. I look it up to clarify.
Linking to websites
Re: different views of the trinity
Is your investigation here about “who gets to claim orthodoxy”? I have been reading a little about Tillich, Moltmann, and Philip Clayton, and investigating zimzum/tzimtzum and panenthiesm. I’m not sure if the old “substance metaphysics” makes sense anymore; I wonder if theological understanding has progressed beyond the constraints of 4th century philosophical understanding. However, these theologies try to make sense of the trinity based on different underlying metaphysics. From your point of view, can any of them claim orthodoxy in their understanding of the trinity, or are we thrust into liberalism simply by virtue of using modern philosophical understandings?
Re: different views of the trinity
‘I wonder if theological understanding has progressed beyond the constraints of 4th century philosophical understanding’
Richard - as much I might agree with you in the point you want to make - you can’t deny the overwhelming majority of christians that are ‘concilarian’ in nature. The orthodox church as a leading example. The councils of the church are the pillows of the church. Though a bit less than this the catholic church also thinks like that. And also, which is a bit more surprising, the evangelicals as well. The latter have the problem that they don’t really know which councils are included in their list and which are not. But the nicean creed is definitely. I am actually an example of that in that I am not a church member because it wasn’t (and still isn’t completely) where I stand in terms of the trinitarian question. Two pastors ago the pastor even wasn’t sure whether I was a christian because of that. Ao it actually does effect people today.
But back to my original question: whether you think this is relevant or not: do you consider christians, that do not think of Jesus and the father as a ontological unity (like Eusebius), but being ‘one in essence’ meaning ‘from the father’ and not created as being orthodox in nature because of the nicean creed and the diversity that was represented and, if we take Eusebius letter seriousely, was accepted. This is my primarily question; my secondary is if this could contribute to the unity of all christians (contribute meaning one small step towards it). Thank you for your comments.
Different views of the trinity
Paulchen wrote: The councils of the church are the pillows of the church.
A delightful malapropism, Paul! Are you suggesting the councils were soporific?
Re: Different views of the trinity
ooops…. I didn’t mean to put the church to sleep nor propose a new kind of theology of the emerging church…. sorry. I ment pillars.
Re: different views of the trinity
My understanding of things is that Athanasius was almost a lone voice against Arianism, and that in eventually swinging the argument back to God as trinity, he prevented Christianity from becoming a powerless sect doomed to extinction. (That’s just my reading of it!)
However, the trinitarian formulation he came up with may have established a ‘static’ or ‘frozen’ concept of the inner relationships of the godhead: useful for maintaining stability in a state-sponsored imperial form of the faith, but tending to foreclose creativity through its shutdown on the unpredictibilty of a relational view of God, in his being.
There is new interest therefore in alternative, relational understandings of God, such as those held by the Cappadocian church fathers, and the desert fathers. Today, such views are being explored by theologians such as Clark H. Pinnock - ‘Flame of Love’ etc. I would personally be interested to hear if anybody has knows more about this.
Re: different views of the trinity
Peter, I don’t know more about it, but I can give you some references.
From what I can see, Moltmann is the main man for a relational understanding of God. Pinnock says that along with Pannenburg, Moltmann was his major influence . Here is a sermon on the trinity by Moltmann.
It is the dynamic relational nature at the heart of modern Trinitarianism that I believe undercuts the “staic or frozen” “substance metaphysics” that Athanasius saddled Christianity with. Throw panentheism into the mix and you get an internally dynamic relational God intimately relational with creation. The idea of identifying the “substances” of each member of this complex relationship is transformed into absurdity and can not begin to describe the patterned, relational nature of all existance as it is understood today.
From this perspective, can any important modern theologian lay claim to orthodoxy, or do we put orthodoxy to rest now that it has served its purpose and search for a new language to talk about our new understandings of God and how we relate to them.
Re: different views of the trinity
I’m not quite sure this was what paulchen was driving at, but I rather like the idea of treating the doctrine of the ‘trinity’ not as a theoretical account of the being or behaviour of God but as a certain matter of debate between theologians. I have to say, I still find the whole theological discussion unsatisfactory.
I struggle to see how it has any real ‘missional’ or apologetic value. I certainly agree that a relational model of the trinity is more congenial to postmodern sensibilities than the old ontological models, but it bothers me that the need to come up with these explanations at all arises not from the life of the church or from missional encounter but from intramural theological debate. I’m not saying that trinitarian debate couldn’t be motivated experientially or missionally - it’s just that it tends not to be. Perhaps we should talk about the trinity not in abstract terms but in relation to the experience of worship or dialogue with Islam.
I’m not convinced that the relational model is any easier to account for biblically than the ontological. Biblical theology comes to us, in the first place, in narrative categories, and I think an emerging theology still needs to come to terms with that. The interrelation between Father, Son and Spirit, I would argue, is far too complex to reduce to the dimensions of a coherent relational model of the nature of God without seriously bending something else out of shape. Could we then, perhaps, think in terms of a narrative model of the relation between these three ‘persons’ that encompasses the shifts in experience and perception that make our understanding of God in effect the emergent (or epiphenomenal) product of our conversations - including those between Athanasius and Arius?
Re: different views of the trinity
My response to Andrew’s appeal would be that a missional gospel may not be a theological explanation of the trinity, but a trinitarian framework (you don’t have to use that word - it’s only shorthand) is an essentrial underpinning to the gospel proclamation in which faith is created, an experience of God is generated, and we are initiated into the community of God’s people.
The reason for this is that the gospels are not simply narrative accounts - they are theological through and through - and trinitarian to the core. You don’t have to go searching for the trinity in the gospels - but you will keep tripping up over it if you don’t. (Eg Jesus’s baptism: a trinitarian event attended by Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Likewise the OT narratives are thoroughly theological - and need theological explanation to make sense.
A trinitarian understanding distinguishes the significance of the cross from all other explanations. Without God the Son suffering in partnership with God the Father, raised from the dead by the life-giving Spirit, attendant on a divine release and outpouring of this Spirit by a Son reigning in life over sin and death, we have God the monster exacting retributive punishment on an innocent victim (who couldn’t really have been innocent anyway) - letting the real culprits get away.
A trinitarian explanation summarises in shorthand the entire scope of creation and redemption: the first planned by the Father, commanded by the Son, executed by the Spirit; the latter planned by the Father, introduced and accomplished by the Son, effected in our lives by the Spirit.
The objection that trinitarian categories are alien to the narrative thrust of the gospels and are inherently non-missionary and incomprehensible is contradicted by the fact that they are written into gospels and epistles at every stage, they make sense of Christian experience and are vital components of the proclamation at the heart of the gospel.
I struggle to understand what we are left with if the only element admissible for missional use is narrative without theology. It seems to me to lead to a weak invitation to be part of a group of people who define themselves by a story. I would rather be part of a group of people who define themselves by the life-giving Spirit, on the basis of the actions of Jesus, relating to a God who is himself a community of these persons. Actually, I would rather be both (part of a narrative as well as experiencing the life of the Spirit given by the Son providing communion with the Father) - I don’t see how you can leave out either - but I certainly don’t see how you can leave out the latter, without the story failing to make any sense, or have any power to challenge, convince and transform.
Re: different views of the trinity
I don’t see who’s arguing for a narrative without theology. Rather, I see a preference for a theology that grows from narrative rather than a more abstract theology. Christian theology is more narrative-based, whereas natural theology is more abstract. Furthermore, we can and do communicate theology (and philosophy) through narrative. Consider these two brief narratives:
(1) God created the world. First he created space and matter, then light, then…
(2) A long time ago, a bunch of matter was compressed so much by gravity that it exploded in a huge bang, throwing out galaxies of stars, nebulae, etc. Purely by chance, some chemicals began to…
Both of these narratives (a) presuppose some philosophy/theology, and (b) communicate that philosophy/theology. By contrast, consider the following:
(3) Everything was created by God.
(4) There is no God. We exist by pure chance.
These example are more abstract and less narrative.
Re: different views of the trinity
Well done - I was waiting for someone to pick me up on the misleading statement that narrative explanations exclude theology.
Now what about the broader point - that trinitarian thinking is not only evident throughout the NT - gospels and epistles - but that it essentially informs missional proclamation and understanding as well.
Re: different views of the trinity
Just the term "trinitarian thinking" is more evocative of the abstract theology of the 4th century than the narrative theology of scripture. So your point implies that we can happily accept the abstract theology, since it is backed up by the narrative—while some of us are in fact happy with the latter but not the former.
I do, however, agree your point—if it is that even aside from later abstract theologizing, we would tend to arrive at similar positions anyway based on the original narrative (in regards to the nature of God and the mission of the church).
Re: different views of the trinity
Thanks for your comment Chris. Just a few points:
1. In my original comment, I did qualify the use of phrases such as ‘trinitarian framework’ etc as ‘shorthand’ for perhaps less technical but lengthier and more inconvenient circumlocutions. I’m assuming that in talking about issues like this, we are able to cope with such terminology as a valid way of expressing ideas that we may in one way or another want to question.
2. There is a world of difference between applying the essential thought behind a word such as ‘trinity’ to the presentation of God in the N.T., and the technical arguments on the subject in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries. The former emerges naturally from the text. In fact it emerges naturally from a historical-narrative perspective.
3. The bias against considering an ontological in favour of a narrative approach to God, as it is being represented on this site, is a false dichotomy. The kind of theology you end up with comes from the kind of God you believe in. So in that sense, it is always relevant to reflect on God’s being, and to ask questions about the images of God that we carry in our minds. This would fall into the category of what you call ‘abstract’ theology. But for instance, a unitary God is very different from a trinity - and this has practical repercussions for the kind of people we become as believers in one or the other.
4. I do feel that the phrase ‘abstract theology’ (as set against ‘narrative’) is in itself a kind of value judgement, and tends to suggest a false distinction. Really, there is plenty that is ‘abstract’ in one sense or another in, for instance, the gospel narratives. There is no simple way in which biblical narrative creates its own theology - without drawing on concepts which are ‘abtsract’ from a simple story line.
Also, it must have become clear over many exchanges of comments that I simply do not think, in the more restricted field in which the subject has been discussed on this site, that the two types of approach lead to the same conclusion (in the sense that you suggest it). There are different types of narrative- based approach and understanding, and as a way of developing theology, I totally accept the validity of the method and the arguments. I am focusing on the way in which a particular narrative approach has been developed. If you think this is a mistaken viewpoint, please clarify things for me. I have in mind in especially the key debate about which events to do with the history of Jesus are central, what they mean, and the question of Jesus’s person, in a ‘narrative’ presentation which would be of missional relevance.
I do realise that I am prone to mis-hearing what people are saying when I get something lodged in my head, and I hope that I am able to disagree without being disagreeable. That is what seems to me to be the great strength of the ethos of this site.
Re: different views of the trinity
I didn’t mean that a narrative approach would inevitably lead one to a Nicene position, but rather that it would likely lead one to a position caught in some kind of tension between a One and Three. Or perhaps it would be just as confusing as trying to make sense of the fourth century language. =)
Re: different views of the trinity
Paulchen - I agree that being in concert with the rest of the church is a major consideration when doing theology. I have been searching for a reason to believe in the trinity for the last 3 years, and the only reasons I can find are aesthetic (you can do some reallty beautiful theology with it) and communitarian (most of the church chooses Paul’s theology as interpreted by the councils over the ‘theology’ I see in the synoptics). I can accept that Jesus probably did think of himself as Messianiah, indwelt by God, and God’s representative in the world, but on the balance of evidence I haven’t found that Jesus even thought of himself as the Son of God, let alone equivalent to God. However, because of aesthetic and communitarian considerations I am still trying to find a way to believe in some sort of trinitarianism while remaining reasonably intellectually honest with myself.
In response to your original question, Elain Pagels discusses this in Beyond Belief : The Secret Gospel of Thomas in the context of the battle to create a Trinitarian orthodoxy. From her perspective, the clauses mentioned in the letter were specifically added to exclude Arianism, which to my eyes looks fairly similar to Eusebius’ theology. Arius obviously thought so and was exiled when the updated document became imperially mandated belief for Christians. I see two possibilities for explaining the letter, both entirely speculative:
1. That the concessions of interpretation were privately given to Eusebius in the full knowledge that it would never be interpreted in that way by the people that mattered. Eusebuis would have known this, but with the only other option being exile, I don’t blame him for caving after being given this way out.
2. That the letter simply reports Eusebuis own rationalisations in the knowledge that he had sold out but also knowing he would have to explain himself when he got home.
I do not think that the outcome of coucil was representative of the diversity of opinions at the council. Declaring a normative creed that allowed for Arianism would have been easy - according to the letter the Emporer had already agreed to it! Instead Athanasius turned the council into a hatchet job, adding clauses specifically to define Arius and his followers as heretics. In the end, Eusebuis had the option of agreeing or being declared an illegal with all that entailed.
As to whether this allows followers of Arian style theology a claim to orthodoxy today based on the council and a not well know letter, that is entirely ruled out. When it comes to orthodoxy, a document can not be seperated from its contemporary interprative framework, and the orthodox interpretation of these documents plainly disallowed Eusbius’ interpretation. The victors get to write the history books and define orthodoxy.
As to whether Arianism would be considered orthodox based on a council that truly represented the diversity that existed at the time … (I’m now reimagining 2000 years of history, internal Christian politics, external relationships with Judaism and Islam …) I would really like to hear Athanasius explain himself in hindsite!
To argue whether established orthodoxy is in fact true orthodoxy, as happened during the Reformation, requires a paradigm shift. When this happens, I wonder how many of the heretics of the last 2000 years will be relabled as martyrs. As mentioned earlier I’m not sure whether that part of the creed will be carried over without major alterations allowing for modern scholarship which seems to have established its own orthodoxy within its own frames of reference.
Re: different views of the trinity
Peter - you said:
I am very interested in this, as this surely is a key measure of how good a theology is. In your view, is the most important difference between monotheism vs. tritheism or between monism vs. pluralism or something else (ie. implications in atonement theory :-) ). I would be interested in examples of the applied ethical ramifications that you have in mind.
You also said:
I am also very interested in this. I am still working out narrative theology, but have some ideas. Would you like to start a new topic/post about this and present something as a model? - or is there a post already discussing this?