A Brief introduction to God’s Three -in- Oneness: The Trinity And the Council of Nicaea, 325
                                                                                                                                                      -By Alex Pak

A Brief instroduction to God’s Three-in- Oneness: The Trinity And the Council of Nicaea, 325

FOREWORD

In this brief introduction to the doctrine of Trinity, I am going to have to let readers know that there is nothing new discoveries or approaches to the subject; this is a research work based on materials that were and are available to me at the time of writing. I felt to write on the subject for two reasons: one, as a believer of Jesus Christ, I have to know, with faith and inquiring mind, about the Savior and his relationship with the Father God and people whom he came to redeem; second, there are plenty of materials and writings available for believers as well as curios minds to sort through. And many of them are very technical and hard to organize in the mind of the reader, so I hope this short essay will help to navigate and rekindle the subject of Trinity. So if this aroused the reader’s curiosity, I will be content with a gratitude and honor. 

The doctrine of Trinity is everywhere in the lives and worship of the believers; we sing, read, mediate, pray, and worship and live in the faith of Trinitarian God. The doctrine is both simple and complex reality and facts. From the doctrinal point of view, there were countless debates and controversies that tore Christendom into many sects and traditions. It is impossible to extract what and how many different beliefs are out there and misinterpreted. Even modern understandings have not escaped the past tendencies of misguided and confusion if not all together ignorant about the subject. They simply will say that they are the followers of Christ and that is all they need to live by. I do believe that is true too, but it will not lead into a deeper faith or encounter them into intimate relationship with the Savior. In the practical purpose, not knowing the doctrine will not make the believers lose their sleep over it. It is not a matter of life or death issue.  Believers will simple replace the doctrine with a doctrine of love; love conquers all. But if the believers know enough about the subject the love will come out alive right front of their eyes and into their faith. So it is both necessary to go back and re-read the Scripture and start once again thinking about the subject of Trinity. 

God has come to His people through His promise to save the sinners by sending His Son Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of the world, and through the power and witness of the Holy Spirit. This is what theology called “Economy Trinity.” It is revealed in the Scripture both in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament. It is wonderful news to everyone; it had led the history and changed countless of lives to those who believe that message and gift. If one believes this truth, they have already become a Trinitarian believer in their faith and thinking. Because it will prepare a way for liberation and healing, and restore proper relationship that has been destroyed in the Garden of Eden.

Jesus said in Luke 16: 19, “I came to seek and to save what was lost.” (NIV) while we are still waiting for his second coming, let us remind of ourselves that we still have work to do in the world; seek the lost.

The present work will limit itself to prior and up to the Nicaean Council of 325. It will not go beyond, because there are so many materials to sort through and I am not an expert on dealing all succeeding councils. If the readers want to go beyond and want to know more about Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C. –A.D. 50), Titus Flavius Josephus  (A.D. 37-A.D. 100), St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Jerome (c. 347-420), St., Athanasius (c. 296-373), Cappadocian Fathers, (Basil of Caesarea, (330-379), Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 331-395)), Meletian Schism of 4th century, Peter of Alexandria (4th century), Marcellus of Ancyra (c. 280-374), Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180), Eustathius of Antioch (?- 337), Apollinaris of Laodicea (c. 315-392) and the Council of Constantinople, 381 and Pneumatomachians, I welcome and encourage and invite the readers to read more on the subjects. It will surely open up a new world in the mind and faith of the readers.

Alex Pak
Cerritos
March 2015


INTRODUCTION

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” says John in his gospel. (1: 1 NRSV) This causal introduction of the “Word “ and “God” to his readers was anything but the causal one. It brought countless and much heated debates and controversies and misunderstandings within and outside the walls of Christianity about a relationship of the Word (the Logos) with God. The term “Word” (the Logos) is referred to Christ or the Son and is especially found in Johannine theological writing (the Book of John). The Gospel of John is highly developed theologically than other three gospels, which is called the synoptic gospels.1 The Logos as “Wisdom of God” is well manifested in the Old Testament as well as in the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical books.  Proverbs 8: 22-25 talk about the Wisdom of God existed from the beginning and dwelt with God. And Wisdom is calling out to people (Prov 8: 1). In the book of Baruch 24: 1, “She is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever.”2 There are references in the New Testament that the Logos is depicted as “image” and “wisdom” (cf. Col. 1: 15; 2 Cor. 4: 4; Heb. 1: 3). 

The Word or the Logos drew much attention to Gnostics for they were highly speculative thinkers and were selective in their interpretation of the Scriptures.  So thus the beginning of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Logos or the Son of God that John introduced in his gospel had begun.  John Behr notes more explicitly, “If Arius had not had the Fourth Gospel to draw texts from, he would not have needed confuting.”3 

Here we have already some of the receipt for a debate on a doctrine of Trinity: God, the Word/Son/Logos and Gnostic misinterpretation. In order to approach the doctrine, we need to take a look at what our Church Fathers have already established as Orthodox teaching on Trinity. 

In a sense, already we are indebted to traditional teachings and doctrines of the past to guide and lead us to right understanding of who God the Father is and who God the Son is and who God the Holy Spirit is today. Grillmeier notes that, “Each generation of Christian history has contributed something towards the appropriation of the mysterium Christi which deserves the consideration of posterity... They teach us that we must show how a consideration of the past is relevant to the present.”4

The doctrine of Trinity5 is one of the most important Christian doctrines that deal with a theme of the Godhead, Who God is, how God works and how believers should approach to Him. It is also a mystery that whoever approaches it must exercise one’s faith as well.

It is through the Son of God, Jesus Christ, (or the Word/ Logos) with the help of the Holy Spirit one can fathom the reality of mysterious Trinity. It is a profound mystery, because no one can know for sure or understand the Father God unless one comes to the Son first with faith. John 14: 5, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”(NIV) What it means that no one can understand a doctrine of Trinity unless the Son (the Word/ Logos) reveals the truth or the mystery first.  As any mature Christians would confess that understanding Christianity fully is impossible and mere attempt to trying is foolish. Because Christianity has always been more diverse, complex and broader than one might thinks.  There are different traditions, schools, thoughts, denominations, churches, chapels, gatherings and groups, creeds, doctrines, worship styles, liturgies and cultures within Christianity and languages and speeches. While dealing with the subject of Trinity, we are already stirring things with Judaism. The topic of Trinity is also challenging to Judaism. For their faith affirms the monotheistic faith. Pelikan notes that “In this dogma the church vindicated the monotheism that had been at issue in its conflicts with Judaism, and it came to terms with the concept of the Logos, over which it had disputed with paganism.”6 In order to understand both Judaism and Christianity, one needs to fully engage in understanding of the concept of the Logos. It is a definitely a Hellenistic philosophical term. Thankfully a Jewish philosopher named Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st century) had already used and introduced the word to both religions. The Greek word, “Logos” means “word” or “reason” or rational that was familiar to the most people. It is a loaded word and gradually it came to be used more philosophically and theologically. We saw it in the book of John 1:1. Both Christian teachers and Apologists adopted the word and began to use and defended Christianity.

In Trinity, whether trying to understand and relate the Logos as God being identical or equal with the Father or the Spirit as God being identical or equal with the Son is hard to grasp for Judaism. For Judaism, God in multiplicity of divine person does not make sense to them. It is a blasphemy. However, Christian faith affirms both Three and One understanding of God. It is indeed a mystery. The subject must approach with humility and humbleness, for no one can fully comprehend mystery of God in unified and logical way.

Authority

Question of authority or source has been always a point of contentions.  What makes certain teachings or document authoritative? While others are not.  What separate certain documents from the Scripture different from others?  And what was their source of authority? How does one believe that certain interpretation correct one while other interpretations incorrect? Authority or Orthodox tradition of the teaching of Trinity is based on the Scripture. Early church already pondered these questions and it took them more than eight centuries to establish orthodox teachings and doctrine. Namely I am referring to the first seven ecumenical councils that began in 325 to 787, which both Eastern Orthodox Church and Protestant denomination uphold. In those councils, early church dealt issues such as the question of authority (canon of scripture); the question of the Trinity; the question of the incarnation; the question of Christ’s work; the question of humanity; the question of humanity; the question of church and humanity and the question of future.7 Bishops, pastors, theologians and laypeople worked together or against to bring about many creeds and confessions that we confess and practice in our Christian walk. So it is important to look to the Scripture and early Church Fathers’ teaching for guidance, if not our own faith will waver. Father Daly noted the importance of knowing Church Fathers, “ The fathers exhibited a tremendous zeal for God and the scripture. And, often like us, their zeal manifested itself in both their strengthen and weaknesses. They have much to teach us about reverence, awe, self-sacrifice, self-awareness and self-deception, worship, respect, prayer, study and meditation. Their theological contributions remain foundational for Christians in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and many Protestant communions…Most often they were their hearts and thoughts on their sleeves. At time they were impatient, short-tempered and narrow. Some had a very hard time listening to perspectives other than those they endorsed. Yet their hearts were set on fire by the gospel. They lived and breathed the Scriptures. And many willingly laid down their lives for the sake of Christ.”8

It is important to turn to the Church Fathers for their distinct and precise definition the interpretation of the Scripture and defense against heresies. They were true inspirers of the councils, synods. The creed and confession grew out of the teachings of the early church and Fathers. Most crucial creed is indeed the Nicene Creed.9

Debates about canon of scripture have been settled gradually and by A.D. 367, Athanasius’ Festal Epistle set especially the New Testament canon.10 For Scripture is the authoritative of God’s revealed Word.  Luke 24: 45-48, “Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. “(NRSV) Apostle Paul said to the Church of Ephesus, the church (household of God) is” built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.”(NRSV). And then there are the teachings of the 2nd century Apostolic Fathers,11 Apologists and 3-5th century Church Fathers or also called Patristics.12 Apostolic Fathers were such as Clement of Rome (1st Century), Ignatius of Antioch  (2nd century), Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 69-155) and Papias of Hierapolis (ca. A. D. 70-163), and then there are earlier teaching writings such as Didache or Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles and the Epistle of Barnabas, Letter to Diognetus and Shepherd of Hermas. The third and fourth century Church Fathers (Patristics) were such as Novatian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, the last three Fathers are also called Cappadocian Fathers, who would play very important roles in Christological controversy at the Council of Constantinople, 381 and Augustine of Hippo. There were also many brightest and best minds in the antiquities that tried to explain and show methods of teaching about Trinity. St. Patrick show the example of the shamrock leaves, and St. Augustine of Hippo took the human mind and its faculties of memory, understanding and love to tried to explain the concept. And Richard of St. Victor showed the example of interpersonal love to explain the threefold in divine personhood in God.13 And in the medieval period, St. Thomas Aquinas adopted Aristotelian philosophy to explain away Christian theology including the doctrine of Trinity. And there were many mystics who encountered God, and they too attempted to explain the doctrine. John of the Cross and Julian of Norwich were conscious of their statues before God and have explained more intensely and explicitly.14

Yet, it is known that the word Trinity does not appear in the scripture, but the word has been used since the second century. Tertullian of Carthage coined it and it is known that Theophius of Antioch first used the word Trinity.15Only clear explanation of the Trinitarian doctrine is found in Athanasian Creed: 

“The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three gods, but there is one God.”16

Proper understanding of the Trinity also helps Christians to know who Jesus Christ is and how to worship him, and to know who the Holy Spirit is and how he ministers and functions in Christian life.

It is also true that many Protestant Christians are not interested in knowing or understand about the Trinity other than hearing the triadic formulas benediction and reciting in the Apostles’ Creed in their confession. 

The term Trinity is taught in most Sunday schools in a Sabellianism (mode of being) fashion that includes a description or picturing of the trinity as liquid, steam and ice or example of skin, seed and part of an apple. Many of the Sunday school teachers do not know that they are invoking Sabellian’s Modalistic Moarchianism by explaining the term in a modalist way.

What is unsettling is that these kinds of teaching can be harmful to the future Christians’ being orthodox in their belief, knowing that many major heretics arose out from an un-orthodox understanding of the Trinity and Christology. 

It is a humble desire to present this writing to help better understanding of the doctrine of Trinity to brothers and sisters in Christ.

BIBLICAL REFERENCE TO THE TRINITY

Old Testament

It is known that in the earliest period of Christianity, the early church adopted the understanding of God as one. The belief in one God posed no problems for the believers and Judaism. From the Old Testament and the Judaism in the Intertestamental period (B.C. 400- A.D. 1st century), God being one has always been taught and preserved.17 It is revealed in the Hebrew Scripture and other non-canonical writings. According to Berkhof, the doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation. He noted that, “The doctrine of the Trinity is very decidedly a doctrine of revelation. It is true that human reason may suggest some thoughts to substantiate the doctrine, and that men have sometimes on purely philosophical grounds abandoned the idea of a bare unity in God, and introduced the idea of living movement and self-distinction.”18 In order to learn humbly about the doctrine, we must not think that we can go beyond the Scripture authority. 

In the Old Testament, we are taught that God is one. Israel’s “Shema” (שְׁמַע) represents the Oneness of God. It is found in the book of Deuteronomy 6:4, “ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”(NIV) It is the monotheistic confession (Exod. 20: 2-3, 33: 13-15; I Cor. 8: 46; I Tim. 2: 5; James 2: 19). And all other divinity claims are considered idolatry.  Yet we find plurality of God. The plural form of “Elohim” (God, אֱלֹהִים) is used to speak as singular God.19 And there are references that God speaks in plural. Genesis 3: 22, “And the LORD God said, ‘the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”(NIV) God also appears in differentiated bodily forms, such as the angel of the Lord (Gen. 16:7-13; 21: 17-18).  In Eastern Orthodox Church the three visitors who have appeared to Abraham are depicted as an adumbration of the Trinity.20 The scene became a genre of icon. So in the Old Testament we see both Oneness of God as well as plurality of divine presence. 

The Sprit of God ( רוח  “ruach” means “breath” or “wind” in Hebrew) is God. For he was in the beginning with God, the Father to participate in creation. The Spirit of God is also described as a personal. In Psalms 143: 10, “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good spirit lead me on level ground.”(NIV) Here we see the work of the Spirit as a Personal guide to God’s people.  The Wisdom of God (hokma) and the Word of God all indicate the divine reality. They all relate and work with God in creation. 

In the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit is understood as God. When Ananias and his wife Sapphira sold their land and kept part of money for themselves and put the rest as they gave it all. This was considered to lie to the Holy Spirit; Peter said they lied to God (Acts 5: 3-4).

New Testament

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is seen as a man. Jesus of Nazareth was a truly human person. He ate, slept and walked and felt pains and sufferings. In order to look for his divinity, we need to look more closely. In the New Testament, there are many references that point to his divinity, there are three references that talk about Jesus being God, John 1: 1; 20: 28 and Hebrew 1: 8-9. 

Jesus never claimed to call himself God, but he preferred to call himself, “the Son of Man” and “the Son of God.” He has many roles as well, the Judge at the judgment of the world (Matt. 25: 31-46); Forgiver of sins (Lk. 7: 48) and the Savior (Lk. 2: 11). Christ is God and he is worshiped as well. John 20: 28, “Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”(NIV) Doubting Thomas finally confessed Jesus to be the Lord and God.

And there are more references that point Jesus Christ as being God and possess power and authority. 

Apostle Paul also refers Trinitarian confession. We see that in his triadic activities.  For example in I Corinthians 12: 4-6, “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but he same Lord; and there are varieties of activates, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone.”(NIV) This is the Three-in –Oneness of God. God the Father, Lord the Son and Spirit the Holy Spirit are all present in the midst of church activates.  And there are Paul’s Trinitarian benediction in 2 Corinthians 13: 14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.” We can find many more places about Trinitarian understanding in the scripture (Matt. 28: 19; I Pet. 1: 2; Rev. 1: 4-5) 1 Corinthians 12: 4-6, “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone.”(NRSV) Putting of the “the Spirit”, and “the same Lord” and the “same God” side-by-side together point to a co-equal Trinity. In Paul’s mind, who has grown strictest observant Pharisee, there is no doubt that resurrected Christ is God and he wrote according to his Trinitarian way of thinking and belief. 

From Matthew to the book of Revelation, we can find many references on teachings of Trinity. Now we know that God’s plan to save humankind from their sin and eternal punishment, God sent His Son to do redemptive work, i.e. die on the cross for the sins of the world. And it was done in the power of the Holy Spirit. This is what we called God’s economy of Salvation.

PATRISTIC SOURCES

The Shepherd of Hermas (2nd Century)
The book of Shepherd of Hermas, the 2nd century Christian literature, is a beautiful writing about Christian love and duty. The book contains both ethical and practical advice to the believers. In defining Christian’s new law; there is a liberating sense of new life in the lives of believers. All this was possible because the “Son of Go
d” has brought the merits and built the church for newly redeemed saints. Shepherd of Hermas does not mention, “Jesus”, “Christ” or “Christians”, yet it is very clear to the readers about whom he was referring and writing to. He commands Christians to live a worthy of their callings and duties. In the book, Hermas introduces the “Son of God” as pre-existent and strictly divine. Here see we that Hermas understanding of the Holy Spirit as in the Son, who pre-existed. He noted that, “After I had written the commandments and parables of the shepherd, the angel of repentance, he cam e to me and said t me: ‘I wish to how you what the Holy Spirit which spoke with in the form of the Church showed you, for that Spirit is the Son of God.’ 2 For sine you were too weak in the flesh, it was not shown you by an angel. But when you were strengthened by the spirit, and made strong in your strength, so that you could also see an angel, then the building of the tower was shown to you by the Church.” (Shepherd of Hermas, Sim. IX. I.) In his Similitudes, we see the Son of God, the Holy Spirit and Church of God. Even though it consisted of a parable, church and saints and the Son of God is manifested and shown. Hemas was not aware full ramification of the doctrine of trinity, but he knew and believed that the Son of God was God, and the Holy Spirit was God also. He laid a solid foundation and clear direction toward the later generations to work out the doctrine more fully.

Clement of Rome (1st- 2nd Century)

Clement of Rome, contemporary of Shepherd of Hermas, handed down the apostolic teachings that were addressed to Corinth church. According to tradition, Clement was a disciple of apostle Paul and apostle Peter. He made his teaching based on their teachings. He may be the same person that is appeared in the Epistle of Philippians, 4: 3, “Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contend at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow worker, whose names are in the book of life.” (NIV) Or he could have been one of Imperial households that are connected with the distinguished Flavian family. Clement was an early Christian Roman fellow–workers who have worked for Paul and the kingdom of God. 

Clement bears clear teaching of the doctrines of the Trinity. In it he is well versed in the Old Testament and taught the God of creation.  He taught God’s redemptive plan. “With pregnant sentences he describes the nature of the ordering of salvation established by the Father in Christ and the Spirit, and entrusted to the apostles. His picture of Chris that probably been developed in particular ail in the lines of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews.”21 Clement addresses Christ as “the Lord” (kyrios; Κύριος), and God and Ruler to God, (the Father).  He noted that, “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostle from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God’s will.” (Clement, Letters to the Corinthians, XLII. CH. I.) We clearly see that the Lord Jesus Christ had come from the God the Father. We also see Christian’s law of humility and charity and love by the Holy Spirit. Clement’s letter shows heavy influence of apostle Paul and apostle Peter, especially on faith and humility and charity, which also can be found in the book of Hebrews. Sanctification is another virtue that we find in the Lord Jesus Christ.

In his letter to the Corinthians, he wrote to, “The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, CH. I.) He saw the God as the Creator and Ruler, Who sent the Son to be the redeemer of the world.  He continues, “The Creator and Father of all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and their beauty. Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts.”(Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, CH. XXX.V.) Clement taught that the Redeemer of the world descended to earth for the sinners, and took our sufferings upon himself. It was out of God’s love and Son’s obedience that made a salvation possible and reality. 

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 105)

Ignatius of Antioch was surnamed Theophros, which means ‘bearer of God’. According to tradition, he was made a second bishop after apostle Peter.22 Antioch church was a gentile church (Acts), and the mother church. Many great minds and teachers were gathered there and established Antiochene School, where Martyr Lucian the Antioch taught Arius, who was a responsible for the Trinitarian controversy. 

While en-route to his martyrdom, Ignatius wrote his famous seven letters to encourage believers firm in the Lord. Seven letters are Letters to Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp. The first four letters were written in Smyrna, Asia Minor, and other three were composed in Troas.  He already used a developed Trinitarian formula to greet the saints in Rome.  He noted that, “Ignatius, who is also called Theophros, to her who has obtained mercy n the greatness of the Most High Father, and of Jesus Christ his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened by the will of him who ahs willed all things which are according o the love of Jesus Christ, our God, which also has the presidency in the country of the land of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of its holiness, and preeminent in love, named after Christ, named after the Father, which also I greet in the name Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father; to those who are united in the flesh and spirit in every one of his commandments, filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain, abundant greeting in Jesus Christ, our God, in blameless.”(Ad Romans IV.)  In the epistle to Romans, Ignatius is heavily relying on its developed theology of Johannine doctrine of Incarnation of the Logos. 

Ignatius confessed the Lord Jesus Christ as God, “I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who has thus made you wise, for I observed that you are established in an immovable faith, as if nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, both in flesh and spirit, and firmly established in love by the blood of Christ, fully persuaded with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David according to the flesh, So of OG d with respect to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, truly nailed for us in the flesh under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch- fro the fruit of which are we, from his divinely blessed Passion- that he might raise a banner to the ages, through his Resurrection, for his saints and faithful, either among the Jews or the Gentiles, in the one body of his Church… But these I warn you, dearly beloved… For how does anyone benefit me if he praises me but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that h bore flesh? The one who refuses to say this denies him completely, as one who bears a corpse. But I see no point in recording their disbelieving names I do not even want to recall them, until they repent concerning the Passion, which is our resurrection.”(Ad Smyrna. I. 1-2; IV. 1; V. 2-3) He was accusing of anyone who does not affirm Christ’s humanity. And this is reminder from 1 John 4: 2, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is form God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not form God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already I the world.”(NRSV) Already there was the spirit of the antichrist spread in the churches and as well in the world. Here Ignatius gave a standard of true faith: “ Therefore, when any man speaks to you apart form Christ Jesus who was the race of David, who was the son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and those on earth. His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him- His Father, I say, will raise us- in Christ Jesus, apart form whom we have not true life. But if it were as certain persons who are godless, that is unbelievers, say, that He suffered only in resemblance, being themselves mere resemblance, why am I in bond? And why also do I desire to fight with wild beasts? So I die in vain. Truly when I lie against the Lord.” (Ad Trail. 9-10) He is warning against Docetism tendency heretics. The Docetists denied Christ’s physical presence and insisted that Christ seemed (appeared) to be a human. And they elevated Christ’s divinity only. They were 

Ignatius of Antioch presents a doctrine of Incarnation in the study of doctrine of trinity.

In it, Ignatius taught that Jesus Christ (the Logos) was both God and Man.

Justin Martyr (c. 100- 165)

In the second century, Christian apologist Justin Martyr who was a pagan philosopher late converted into Christianity, affirmed Christ’ divinity by saying that he should be worshiped as God to a Jewish rabbi called Trypho.23 

For Justin, the Son of God was divine. For he met fiver criteria for Deity: 1) He was given the Divine Name. “Moses states in Scripture that he who is termed ‘God’ and who appeared to the patriarch, is also called Angel and Lord, in order that by these expressions you may recognize him as the minister of the Father of all things…” (Dialogue with Trypho, LVIII.3; cf. LVIII. 9-10; LVI. 4; LIX. ), 2) He shares a Divine Substance, “The Son is begotten (gegenesthai) fro the Father…but not by abscission (apotome) as if the substance (ousia) of the Father ahs been divided…[And this’ enkindled fire is distinct from that [original fire], from which many can be kindled is by no means diminished (elassoo)” (Dial CXXVIII. 4)  3) He Participated as Creator, “Lest you distort the meaning of these words by repeating what you teacher say- either that God said to himself, Let us Make, just as we, when on the verge of doing something, say to ourselves, Let us make; or that God said ‘Let us make’ of the elements, that is, to the earth or other similar substances of which we think man was composed- I wish again to quote Moses to prove beyond all doubt that he spoke with one endowed with reason and numerically different from himself. These are the word: And God said: ‘Behold Adam has become as one of Us, knowing good and evil’ (Genesis 3: 22). Now, the words as one of Us clearly show that there were a number of persons together…(Dial. LXII. 2-3) 4) He received worship, “And the words of Isaiah, ‘He shall take the power of Damascus and the possessions of Samaria’ (Isaiah 8:4), meant that the power of the wicked demon that dwelt Damascus should be crushed by Christ at his birth. This s whom to have taken place. For the Magi, possessed for the commission of ever wicked deed through the power of that demon, by coming and worshipping Christ openly revolted against he power that had possessed them, which power the Scripture indicated by parable to be located in Damascus.” (Dial. LXXVIII. 9) 5) He will come as Judge Over All Creatures, “’The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool. He shall send for the scepter of over upon Jerusalem, and he shall rule in the midst of your enemies.’ (PS. 110: 1-2) But, although our Jesus has not yet returned in glory, he has sent forth into Jerusalem the scepter of power, namely the call to repentance to all the nations over which the demons used to rule.” (Dial. LXXXIII. 2, 4) Justin confessed the Lord Jesus Christ as God and worshiped accordingly. 

He also added that the Son was in the second place in a numeral sense. He even called the Logos as a “second God.”24 This claim however was contradictory of a belief in monotheism at that time. It put the Logos in a second kind of divinity. He also taught that the concept of the Logos Spermatikos (the Word seed) is placed in human beings and they all have fragmented pieces of the seed on them.25 Justin noted that, “We have been taught that Christ is the first born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonable are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them…” (The First Apology, XVI.)  Behr notes that Justin meant that Logos is implanted once it enters into the hearers. “For Justin, then, if human beings possess a ‘seed of the Word’, it is not as a natural property implanted in them. It is rather as he specifies, through encountering the words conveying the Logos spermatikos, Christ that some have received these seeds. Thus, in his scriptural demonstration that Christ is the Son of God, the Word Justin appeals to, the Word, which is often the subject of a verb, speaking to or through a prophet, implying an authorial responsibility for the words uttered thereby nevertheless refers concretely to a text. The Word is the ultimate author of that which is written as well as the meaning of that which is written when interpreted correctly.”26And this seed (the Logos) can be a source of a general revelation in the non-Christian settings, which can direct to Christ.  Christ came into the world through the incarnation in order to reveal and teach the truth. Justin also claimed that Christianity was superior to paganism because only Christians truly love and worship the Logos incarnated in Jesus Christ.27 Justin noted that, “Our doctrine, then, appears to be greater than all human teaching; because Christ, who appeared for our sakes, became the whole rational being, both body, and reason and soul…” (The First Apology X.) He continues, “And for next God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, sin also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our suffering, He might also bring us healing.”(The Second Apology, VII.)

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202).

Another 2nd century theologian/ teacher was Irenaeus of Lyon (Lugdunum). He is from a town called Smyrna in Turkey and later received his education in Rome. As a bicultural man of God, he is known to be a bridge between Western and Eastern thought, because he was from the east and ministered in Lyon, Gaul.28 Irenaeus is also known for his famous writing of the “Rule of Faith” (Regula Fidei).  He wrote three “Rule of Faith. They are appeared in Against Heresies (Book V. CH.X, and Book III. CH. IV, 1-2) and in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. As a pastor, he saw a need for the teaching-tradition of the churches. The rule of faith was needed to confute Gnosticism and appeal to Scripture. Gnosticism he was battling was Marcion of Sinope. On “Rule of Faith”, Irenaeus noted that, “For the Church, though disperse throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostle said their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and eh earth and the seas and all things that are in them; and in Christ Jesus, the son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the incarnate ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise up anew all flesh of the world human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Savior and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, an things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards all; that he may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and came into a state of rebellion together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into the everlasting fire; but may, as an act of Grace confer immortality on the righteous and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his live, some form the beginning, and others from their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.”(Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book I. CH. X, 1.) He continues, “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scripture, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (Against Heresies, Book III. CH. I. I) 

Here is another his “Rule of Faith,”  “To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.” (Book III. CH. IV. I-2.) Irenaeus stood firm in the authority of the Scripture and apostolic tradition for church’s authority. 

 Irenaeus acknowledged the Son as the Word of God that was made man. Irenaeus noted that, “For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word.” (Against Heresies, Book V. CH. I.)  He identified the Son of God as one that had been united to incorruptibility and immortality.29 So that humans can also partake of his immortality. He said, “Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His won incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,  -all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.” (Against Heresies, Book V. CH I.)  Irenaeus’ Trinitarian theology is based on God’s creation and divine transcendence and immanence. The former is addressed to God, Who is uncreated and ingenerated, the First Cause, the latter represented the Logos doctrine.30 In relating to immanence, and the Logos’ work or Christ work is a fulfillment of creation and God’s redemptive plan. He noted that, “Now this being is the Creator (Demiurgus) who is, in respect of His love, the Father; but in respect of His power, He is Lord; and in respect of His wisdom, our Maker and Fashioner; by transgressing whose commandment we became His enemies. And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become ‘the Mediator between God and men; propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinner, and cancelling (consolatus) our disobedience by His own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker For this reason also He has taught us to say in prayer, ‘And forgive us our debts;’ since indeed He is our Father, whose debtors we were, having transgressed His commandment. But who is this being? Is He some unknown one, and a Gathers who gives no commandment to anyone? Or is He the God who is proclaimed in the Scriptures; to whom we were debtors having transgressed His commandment?.” (Against Heresies, Book V.  CH XVII.) Irenaeus called this “recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασις;  anakephalaiosis), which means Christ, as the second Adam replaced the first Adam and fulfilled his role as the Savior.31 He explained, “He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Dam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, ‘And I will put enmity between three and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He shall be on the be on the watch for (observabit) thy head, and thou on the watch for His heel.” (Against Heresies, Book V.  CH XXI.) Irenaeus saw the clear role of the Son as the complete fulfillment of God’s promise and redemptive plan for humankind.

Tertullian of Carthage (160-220)

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (Latin form) of Carthage is considered as the father of Latin Theology as the title of ANF Volume IV indicated. He spoke and wrote both in Greek and Latin, which many of them are now lost. Many of the subjects were chosen while he was in the Montanistic period, which was a heretical movement in the 2nd century. He eventually converted back to catholic faith of orthodox. He wrote much books including apologetics and polemical in tones. He was not fond of Greek leaning of learning. His chief enemies or heretics were Valentiaian, Gnostics and Marcion the Sinope (c. 208) He wrote the Rule of Faith to defend orthodox Christianity from heretics. He noted that, “Now, as to this rule of faith-that we may from this point acknowledge what it is that we defend- it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that he is one other than the Creator of the world, who produced all thing out of nothing through his won Word, first of all sent forth, that this Word is called his Son, and, under the name of God, was seen in divers forms by the patriarchs, ever heard in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and being born of her, lived as Jesus Christ; thenceforth he preached a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles, was crucified, and rose again the third day: he was caught up into the heavens, and sat down at the right hand of the Father; he sent instead of himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; he will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no questions except those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.”(Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haaereticorum, or On Prescription Against Heretics,13)

He liked to distinguish between Jerusalem and Athens, the latter for him was pagan thoughts. Yet Hellenistic learning as well influenced him. In dealing with a Trinitarian doctrine, he used the term loosely. He clearly distinguished the relationship of the Son to the Father. For him God is the Creator and is one. Yet he distinguished the Father and the Son. In his Adversus Praxeam, he accused Praxeas as a patripassain-monarchian.  That is, the Father is the Son and when the Son suffered on the cross, it was the Father, who suffered actually. This idea later developed more fully by Sabellius as the Modalistic Monarchianism. Tertullian emphasized “the one trinity” as “three persons” and saw this one “person” as one “substance”. He taught that the Father, Son and Spirit are one in substance.32 Tertullian noted that, “We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believer that there is one only God, but also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and with whom nothing was made.” (Against Praxeas, II.) He used and helped to developed “person” in the Trinity. “Person” is not what we generally used to mean, but rather it is objective mode of being.  For him, “Only God in any other way than by saying that the father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As in this One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect, ye of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as he is one God, form whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the father and of the son, and of thee Holy Ghosts. How they are susceptible of number without division will be shown as our treatise proceeds.” (Against Praxeas, II.) So Tertullian distinguished the Person in the Father and the Son. He used a concept of “economy” to explain God’s salvific plan. The economy trinity means that God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirits relate to one in redemptive purpose and in providence. He noted that, “Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom and He to whom it is delivered up – and in like manner, He who subjected to all things, and he to whom they were subjected – must necessarily be two different Beings.” (Against Praxeas, CH. V.) 

Tertullian clearly distinguished the God the Father as the Sender, the Son as one being Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as Helper. And he called those who denied the Threefold of the Trinity as monarchians. Tertullian helped move beyond.  The 2nd century apologists’ attempt to show Oneness substance and Threeness of Persons.

In the East, there are much more strong Hellenistic tendencies toward explaining the doctrine of Trinity. Clement of Alexandra (c. 150-215) also helped to formulate vocabularies for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit within the Trinity.  Clement while relating to Plato’s remark on activities of gods, he noted that, “I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be mean; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.” (Clement, De Stromata, Book V.)

Origen of Alexandria  (182-254)

Origen of Alexandria was a prolific author with many books, a biblical scholar and theologian. He represents finest and influential sides in Alexandrian and Palestine (namely Caesarea) schools of thoughts. His legacy is rather complex and speculative one. Rebecca Lyman writes, “(Origen’s) Christian commitment was unquestionable, but his theological conclusion stimulated passionate apologetic or repudiation; he was too right to be wrong, or too attractively wrong to be ignored.”33  His exegete and apologetical works shaped and influenced not only fourth century. His Trinitarian teaching is very important. For him, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternal and intrinsic to God, and not merely on the relationship between God and creation.34 Origen emphasized both the unique status of the Father and the Son are distinct being yet they both are divine. His famous “Eternal Generation of the Son” is as orthodox as it can get on proper Christology at that time. He said, “ Wherefore we recognize that God was always the Father of his only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of him and draws his being form him, but is yet without any beginning, not only of that kind which can be distinguished by periods of time, but even of that other kind which the mind alone is wont to contemplate in itself and to perceive, if I may so say, with the bare intellect reason. Wisdom therefore, must be believed to have been begotten beyond the limits of any beginning that we can speak of or understand. (De Principiis or On Principles, I. 2. 2.) For Origen, God’s Wisdom (the Logos) and Power must have always been with the Father and yet there are correlative in their relationships. He built upon the used a Greek concept of “hypostasis”(In Latin, Substance) to the Three Persons. In his On the First Principles (De Principiis), “If then, it is once rightly understood that the only –begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing, I know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or entertain any suspicion that that (hypostasis) or substantia contains anything of a bodily nature, sine everything that is corporeal is distinguished either by form, or color, or magnitude. It needed more to develop.” (Origen, De Principiis, Book I. CHI. I.)  Origen clearly shows eternal existence of the Wisdom of God, namely Christ. Origen also taught that the Son was a second in ranking in the Trinity. Origen’s account of the Son as subordinate to the Father is shared by many of his contemporaries at that time.  Origen noted that, “But the God and Father of all things is not the only being that is great in our judgment; for He has imparted (a share) of Himself and His greatness to His Only- begotten and First- born of every creature in order that He, being the image of the invisible God. Might preserve, even in His greatness, the image of the Father.” (Origen, Against Celsus, Book VI. CH. LXIX. ) Here Origen depicts the Son as the First-created Son compared to God, the Father. He interpreted the Son as the subordination to the Father. He saw the Son as the eternal generation from the Father without beginning. There is a hierarchical understanding of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in Origen’s thinking. He refers the Son as one whom God honors as well, “He who honors the Son, who is the Word and Reason, acts in nowise contrary to reason and gains for himself great good; he who honors Him, who is the Truth, become better by honoring truth: and this we may say of honoring wisdom, righteousness, and all the other names by which the sacred Scriptures are wont to designates the Son of God.” (Against Celsus, Book VIII, CH. IX.) Through clear numerical understanding he could see each Person’s uniqueness as well as their characters.  Thus while the Father is superior to the Son, Origen tries to make the Son very intrinsic to the being of God. It is nonetheless the subordinationism in his view and understanding of the Son.  In on First Principles (De Principiis) he writes, “As regards the power of his works, then, the Son is in no way whatever separate or different from the Father, nor is his work anything other than the Father’s work, but there is one and the same movement, so to speak, in all they do.” (Origen, De Principiis or On Principles, Book I, CH. 2.)

We see Origen’s subordination of the Son in the writer of the Shepherd of Hermes. Origen’s teaching was later condemned in 553 at the second council of Constantinople. 

All these understanding helped coming Cappadocian fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Naziansus and Gregory of Nyssa) in the latter part of the fourth century in defining the subtle meanings and understanding of the Trinitarian doctrine in Orthodox way. 

BACKGROUND OF THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY:  Monarchianism

In order to understand the Trine God, it is necessary to deal with the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (the Logos).  The churches of tradition have all spoken about him and it was a time to develop into orthodox doctrine. Fathers of the church have debated and decided it at the several ecumenical councils. Because the doctrine of trinity has to fit with the Son in the bible in relations to the Father and the Holy Spirit.  Ever since Tertullian, “the Christian Trinity has always been depicted as belonging within the general concept of the divine substance: “una substantia”-“tres personae”. (One Essence and Three Persons).  The one, indivisible, homogeneous, divine substance is constituted as three individual, divine persons.”35 This was not always been this way. There were many who taught that there is one God with three modes of being or that Jesus was a mere human, denying his divinity.  They were called Monarchianists. (Mono- means, one). 

What is a Monarchianism and why is it unbiblical? The challenge to Christianity posed by Monarchianism was very subtle in nature. Greek language itself is very rich and full of nuances. Though despite this apparent subtlety, moarchianism would affect much great influence upon Christianity as well as the Roman Empire, especially to German Christians as in a teaching of Arianism. Later they converted into a Catholic faith. Impact of monarachianism was serious and affected a well being of genuine Christians. There are two main versions of Monarchianism:  Dynamic and Modalistic Monarchianism. Monarchianism or Dynamic and Sabellianism of Modalistic (that God exists only in one Person) are generally understood to have been responsible for the subsequent rise of Arianism.

Prestige refers yet another form of heresy namely “Emanationism.”36 It taught to safeguard the monotheistic (hence called ‘monarchy’) in unity. They did not concern of the Son derived from the Father as long as they stood firm on unity of God. Prestige noted that, “There was nothing ostensibly unscriptural in holding, as the Emanationist did, either that the divine Son derived His being fro the Father, or that the gospels represent Him as least during His life on earth, as occupying a position of subordination and dependence. Nevertheless, it is ominously significant that the sources of emanationist they were entire pagan.”37 Unlike the other monarchianism, Emanationists tended to be Gnostics or speculatively philosophical. And it was not a Christian doctrine at all.  

Gnosticism

Gnosticism was a complex Greek philosophy that stressed “knowledge” (gnosis).38 It spread into Christian teachings. Gnosticism can be also found in pagan religious teachings as well. The early Church Fathers emphasized the Gnosticism influence on Christianity, but it is from Hellenistic philosophy, and other religious thoughts.  Jonas noted that, “Modern scholars have advanced in turn Hellenic, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Iranian origins and every possible combination of these wit one another and with Jewish and Christian elements. Since in the material of its representation Gnosticism actually is a product of syncretism, each of these theories can be support from the sources and none of them is satisfactory.”39 Their teachings are pagan, Judaism and Christianity. Some of influence goes back to Platonism and Middle Platonism of the second century. Gnosticism is highly elusive concept and hard to pinned down exactly, because of its mosaic elements of different thoughts.  Plotinus of Neo-Platonist teachings explained about relation to the nature of the material world and it s effect on human. Ferguson noted that, “The Hermetica and Chaldaean Oracles suggest Gnostic schemes in a non-Christian form. On the other hand, it is remarkable how many Gnostic speculations can be explained as arising from reflections on the early chapters of Genesis. Personification of Wisdom, the angelology, later speculations in Jewish mysticism- these are some of the features that cause many to look to heterodox Judaism for the origins of Gnosticism.”40 Defining what is “knowledge” is harder than what is knowledge in general. Yet Gnosticism insists in using in special and eclectic way. It must not forget that it is highly developed concept and theory. Ferguson noted for its complexity, “The study of Gnosticism was long hampered by the circumstance that it was known almost entirely from the writings of its orthodox Christian opponents. Fully developed thought in the second century provided major doctrinal challenge to the church and prompted the polemical writings of Irenaeus, Hipplolytus, and later Epiphanius.”41 Discovery of Gnostic writings near Nag Hammadi in upper Egypt helped their thoughts and teachings better.  “Some of the Christian heretics who were influenced in Gnosticism were Valentius, Basilides and Marcion of Sinope.42 Cerinthus, a Christian heretic, wrote, “the world was made nit by the first God, but by a power which was far removed and separated rom the source of being and did not even know of the God who is exalted above all things: Christ was the first to preach the unknown Father in the world.”43 They have different approach about God and demiurge god. There is a mixing Christian God with pagan mythic religions. They taught that salvation comes through “special secret knowledge” and it was not for everyone. They also place their source from Apostle Paul. They claimed to gain access this special knowledge from being “spiritual” (pnenematikoi) rather than being “physical” (sarxikoi). “Spiritual” (pneumatikoi) are “set apart from the great mass of mankind. The immediate illumination not only makes the individual sovereign in the sphere of knowledge (hence the limitless variety of gnostic doctrines) but also determines the sphere of action. Generally speaking, the pneumatic morality is determined by hostility toward the world and contempt for all mundane ties.”44 They distinguished the body from the spirit. The former was evil while the latter is good.  They taught that Christians were between being “spiritual and body, and called them “psychic” (psuxikoi). Gnosticism also threatened core orthodox teaching of Christianity. 

Modalistic Monarchianism

In dealing with monarchianism in general, we must not forget heavy influence of Hellenistic philosophy and heretical doctrine of Christianity. We already find it on Paul’s debate on the Mar’s Hill so called Areopagus speech on the book of Acts 17: 19. “So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, ‘May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?’”(NRSV) There were Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with Paul. They thought that Paul was teaching another new teaching, which to them was a curious topic to debate on. Many of the monarchianism teachings contained some of Hellenistic thoughts and influences. 

Monarchianism was a teaching based on the doctrine of God that dealt with two different forms of “monarchy” (oneness).  It arose and prospered during in the third century, and later it became as a heretical teaching in forming of the orthodox doctrine of Trinity.

Modalistic Monarchianism is usually identified with Sabellius whom its name Sabellianism comes from. It claimed that the trinity was three modes, which pointed to different aspects of god. God, they taught that, would manifest himself as the father, the Son and as the Holy Spirit, whenever he deem to be it necessary. Prestige noted that, “the divine Persons as to make them appear either successively inferior reproductions of the primary divine model, or else fugitive names and trappings which concealed the same unchanging identity under transient modes of self-disclosure.”45 Sabellianism was at first sight the less damaging to the simple Gospel, until they began to insist upon a mode of being of God. It made its way to Roman Empire in the form of Sabellianism (due to Sabellius of Pentapolis in Cyrenaica) and for some period, it did not clash with traditional teaching and the papacy. By the time into the reign of pope Callistus (AD 217-222), the modalism Monarchianism lost attractions. Sabellius and his followers were excommunicated. However, the movement survived and even tried to set up its own church and bishop in Rome. After Sabellius' death in AD 257 modalistic Monarchianism continued to grow and reached to many, especially in the east in his homeland of Cyrenaica. There some bishops even became Sabellians. In assessing it, was a thoroughly a pagan thoughts.  Prestige continued, “It was a favorite device of heathen deities to parade on the stage of this mortal world, now condescending to reward the peasant hospitality of Philemon and Baucis with heavenly blessings, now bestowing on Danae or Europe favors of a grosser and less easily defensible prodigality. The Sabellianism was honest enough. Nobody found occasion to blacken their character with accusations of antinomian laxity.”46 Sabellianism reflected a current philosophical moods and myths in a disguised Christian form. It tried best to place the social modes of characters in the very being of God. There is no clear distinction among the modes of characters in Sabellianism. Now we turn to another form of monarchianism: Dynamic monarchianism. 

Dynamic Monarchianism

It began when a tanner named Theodotus, who began to teach that Jesus was a merely human. Evidently he was curious student, but he was excommunicated by Pope Victor (d. 199), but disciples of his would continue to teach for some time to come. His teaching was resurfaced by Artemon (or Artemos), who was a contemporary of Paul of Samosate.47 Dynamic Monarchianism stated that Jesus was an ordinary man, in who had been placed a divine power by god (dynamis is Greek for 'power'). Sometimes dynamic monarchianists are called adoptionists as they taught that the divine power came down upon Christ at his baptism and later again after his resurrection. Walker notes that, “Christ was a mere man, born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, on whom the divine dunamis (“power”) descended at his baptism and who was ‘adopted’ into the divine sphere by his resurrection. In this way, these “dynamic” or “adoptionist” monarchians were able to dispense with the Logos doctrine-though only at the cost of denying the identification or union of God and humanity in Christ.”48 This was to safeguard the God and teaching of monotheism.

Another name that is associated with this form of monarchianism is name of Paul of Samosata (bishop of Antioch 260-272). He was active in Syria. Paul complained the rise of the Logos theology at the expense of God’s divinity. He thought that God’s energy and power is one, and it was not undistinguishable but could be manifested in different mode of operation in Christ. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth was elevated into the Sonship of God.  Even after his death and ascension into heaven, his power was subjected God’s alone. He was empowered by God and ministered on earth.  He is responsible for using the term “Adoptionism.”  He meant it to preserve the strict monotheistic unity of God and asserted that God is only true divine. For him, Jesus was not divine, but somehow he was adopted by the Father to be the Son of God. 49 So it is now called “Adoptionism monarchianism,” meaning that Christ was adopted by God when he was empowered by the Holy Spirit. Gonzales thinks that calling Paul of Samosata strictly an adoption-oriented or adoptionist is not at all accurate. “Paul’s Christology cannot be called ‘adoptionist’ in the strict sense, for the conception by the Holy Spirit and the virgin birth- which he affirms- imply that Jesus, from the moment of his birth, was the Son of God.” But there is an adoptionist tendency in this doctrine inasmuch as the Sonship of Jesus Christ is not essential- it is not a matter of the eternal Son or Word being made flesh- but consists rather I a ‘purpose’ or ‘predestination’ of God.50 He was approached by many including Dionysius of Rome (259-258) and Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria for being subordinationism in his Logos theology. Even pope Callistus displayed his displeasure in his teaching.51 Later in history, Paul’s follower formed a group and named, “Paulianists,” as a form of protest of Trinitarian doctrine at Nicaea. 

Though just as Modalistic Monarchianism was being hunted down by the papacy; the modalistic form of Monarchianism renewed its assertions. In dealing with dynamic Monarchianism of Paul of Samosata (3rd c.), in 264 and 268, Councils of bishops were met in Antioch and he was condemned as a heretic. For the first time, the council appealed to civil authority of the emperor to help the settlement. Later the emperor Constantine also convened the Council of Nicea 325.Even though they were defeated by the orthodox church, Sabellianism continues to survived in many parts of the eastern empire. The dynamic monarchian type of teaching is largely seen as responsible for the next heresy controversy called Arianian controversy in the 4th century. The place of meeting was in Nicaea in present day Turkey. Hence it is called the Council of Nicaea, 325.

A Brief Introduction to the Council of Nicaea I, 325

Introduction

The Fourth century was a mixed blessing for Christianity. Church has been freed from persecutions and martyrdoms, and began to produce greatest Church Fathers and leasers, that would also caused many hermits to flocked into the Egyptian desert and other solitary places. It began to produce many Christian arts and liturgies and faith-based expressions to show their devotion to God.  Mass conversions and easy access to church brought more distractions and superficial religiosity. Political influence in church also had both positive and negative effects, as we shall see at the Nicaea and following councils.

The council of Nicaea was the first of seven ecumenical councils in the ancient church history. The calling of the council marked a triumphant church that survived many persecutions and repressions. However, as soon as the church was established its legitimacy in the empire, it found itself a new challenge; this time the challenge came not from outside, but it came from within the church.  It was a theological interpretation issue. Church had to sort out among many loosely interpreted sayings to church’s orthodox teaching on the nature of Christ the Son of God, or the Logos/Word controversy. The time has come for a church to deal and formulate the orthodox doctrine for the many generations to adhere to.  Soon after apostles wrote the gospels and letters, people began to interpret them and had various understandings. One of the issues was on what Christ said about himself and who he really was. And different churches and traditions had different beliefs, interpretations and understandings on the Bible and its interpretations. As a result, all the ancient seven councils dealt with the interpretation of nature and status of Christ and his pre-existent relationship with the Father, and the use of icons in the church. 

Background

The cause of the Arian controversy, which brought about the council of 325, stemmed on Arius’ teaching on nature and relationship of the Son and the Father. Walker noted that, “Stimulated by the teaching of Arius and the response of the Council of Nicaea, the Trinitarian controversy was focused in the first instance on the status of the divine Logos/Son- his relation to God and his role in God’s relation to the created order. 

Inevitably, however, this debate also raised questions about the person of Christ, for the first axiom of ancient Christology was the belief that Jesus the Christ is the divine Logos “’made flesh’-existing, that is, in a human way, or united to humanity. This axiom was not questioned by any of the parties tot the Arian controversy.”52

The problem that would confront the bishops of both sides had enough traditions of their predecessors. As the book of Acts has shown that even apostle Paul and Barnabas were found by Lycaonians attempt to offer sacrifice to them. (Acts 14: 8ff.)  Prestige noted that, “how within the monotheistic system which the Church inherited from the Jess, preserved in the Bible, and pertinaciously defended against the heathen, it was still possible to maintain the unity of God while insisting on the deity of one who was distinct from God the Father.”53 There were many ways to interpret and understood God and many struggled with a definite understanding of Christian God. As early as in the second century, Jewish heretical believers called, “Ebionites”(in Hebrews means ‘poor ones’אביונים) taught that Jesus was a man of the elect of God. They denied Jesus’s divinity and pre-existence. For them his primary purpose of mission was to replace and fulfill the Old Testament priesthood. Jesus was now offering the salvation in a new way without being God. Marcion of Sinope, who owned a shipping business, rejected the Old Testament all together and came up with his own gnostic ideas. For him, the Old Testament was a legalistic document that had to be rejected and preferred the New Testament’s selected writings of Luke and Paul. His action called for a canonicity of the scripture as well as refutation to Gnosticism. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies to combat the threat of Gnosticisms. Origen’s Platonist teaching of “Subordination” was in full force among the Christian leaders. For Origen’s adoption of Platonic understanding of multiplicity caused them to numerate them accordingly.  Davis noted that, “Origen and many Easterners after him would transcend the sensible but, adopting a form of Platonist, would conceive the Three s distinct subsistences, one subordinate to the other, yet one in harmony and concord of intellect and will. With Arius a new stage of development was reached. He ruled out anthropomorphic and metaphorical language, sees aside Origen’s Platonic categories and posed the question in Scriptural terms of Creator and creature, and argued logically that the Son was a creature. The Church’s reaction to this would bring about the Council of Nicaea.”54 As one can see the council was not as simple as it had to sort out many doctrines and teachings of the past thinkers and thoughts. 

The start of the Arian debate was probably occurred in the city of Baucalis, where he was a presiding priest in 318.55 In the debate and controversy, there arose two distinctive school developed: Alexandrian school, which developed into an Platonic theological cosmology approach and scriptural allegorization approach of doing theology, i.e. Origen’s method of allegorization and Antiochene school which emphasized a literal critical approach in theology.56 They were in constant tension in theologically, politically and ideologically. There are three more sees in the ancient patriarchal bishop seats: Jerusalem, and Rome, later Constantinople was added. 

Arius, who was influenced in Antiochene school of thought by martyr Lucian of Antioch, was trying to preserve a monotheistic understanding of the God in the Old Testament in light of the Anti-Arian’s view (Alexandrian school, represented by Alexander, bishop of the city) of the Son as being the co-equal and co-existence with the Father. Issue of the day was not whether the Father was God, but how is that the Son is God? This question has been asking by many long before the council of Nicaea, 325.  Paul of Samosata of Antioch taught that God adopted the Son, which is called adoptionism (dynamic moarchianism). He wanted to defend uniqueness of the God.  Philo of Alexandria, who was a famous Jewish exegete, influenced Arius. Origen also taught adoptionism of the Son, but unlike Arius Origen taught the Son had no beginning and was not created being.  For many early Christians, who were mainly from Judaism background, the question was a problem for the understanding of the monotheistic system of the Jewish religion and new belief in the Son of God.  Many wanted to safeguard the unique characteristics of the Father as the only God.  

Various Beliefs in the Empire

In the womb of Judaism, Christianity was birthed in and grew in Hellenistic cultured Roman imperium government. It began as a renewal movement of the Palestine Judaism. Jews were the God’s chosen people to show the world that God will save His people through them. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew and was well versed in the Judaism of the time. Jesus appointed twelve apostles to train and sent them into the world to preach about the new covenant and imminent coming of the kingdom of God. In Jesus’ time, many of Jews were familiar with Aramaic and Hebrew language. The former one was primary language for most of the Jews and the latter was reserved for a rabbi and scribes of the Judaism. And Jewish Christians were assimilated into Hellenistic environment, which was all around them. Frend noted that, “Meantime, the outlines of the earliest Christian mission were emerging. First, the adherence of some of the Hellenists provided the Christians with what proved to be all important urban base for mission and organization.”57 Christian mission met with other religious and adherents. Christians were making positive impacts on the Roman Empire in the early century.  Pliny the Younger wrote to Roman emperor Trajan (2nd century), Pliny noted Christians as, “IN several cities, notably Nicomedia and Nicaea, there are people who were sentenced to serve in the mines or the arena, or to other similar punishments, but are now performing the duties of public slaves and receiving an annual salary for their work. Sin this was told me I have long been debating what to do. I felt it was too hard on the men to send them back to work out their sentences after a lapse of many years, whom most of them are old by now, and by all accounts are quietly leasing honest lives, but I did not think it quite right to retain criminals in public served; though I realized there was nothing to be gained by supporting these men at public expense if they did not work, they might be a potential danger if they were left to starve. I was therefor obliged to leave the whole question in suspense until I could consult you.”58 It is very interesting fact to note that it was in the city of Nicaea that the first ecumenical council was held, which governor Pliny addressed the citizens as ones who led quite and hones lives. 

The term “Hellenism” represents “a qualifying adjective for the Greek language, tingle with Hebraisms, which was used by the Hellenized Jews – for example, those who, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, translated the Bible into the Septuagint as it is called…Hellenism designate the period in ancient history that stretches from the beginning of Alexander’s reign (336 BC) to the battle of Actium (31 BC) which established Octavian (the emperor Augustus) as master of the Roman world.”59Within the vast and diverse in Hellenistic world, emperor and city were prominent. And there were other challenges that also faced the early believers. It came from the pagan religions of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire already had an official state religion, it was directed to the emperor himself. Further, it had a tolerant policy toward other beliefs and religions as well. According to Davis, “religious belief within this far-flung ranged from a lofty but nebulous pantheism to primitive animism.”60 Roman’s pantheon is a good example. Pantheon means “every god”. 

The deities or gods were impregnated in the minds and hearts of many peoples in Greco-Roman empires. When one studies Greek religion in Hellenistic period, one will find it has many names and figures of their deities. They believed that gods could do things for them, and protect from all harms ways. The gods were also protectors of morality. They judged wicked and rewarded the righteous.  Injustice was offensive to the gods and called for punishments. We find that in Homer’s literature, Odyssey. Knowing one self was a maxim for Socrates (B.C. d. 399), whom Gnostics made him one of them. The Iliad opens with a reference to “souls” (psychai) hurled down to Hades. For Homer, the souls were become inactive but still alive once it perished. Ferguson noted, “Death meant passing into a mere shadow of existence in which the soul could do no more than engage in a kind of pale reflection if its earthy activities. Nearly all persons go to Hades- a dreary place where, although life continues, what makes worth living is gone. Three is no future reward or punishment… In the Odyssey (XI. 489-91) Achilles expresses the view that he would rather be a slave on earth than lord of the underworld. The fear of the unknown was strong.”61 

Greco-Roman empire tolerated as many religions and beliefs as long as they did not cause disturbances within the empire. Arius and his followers wanted to focus on theology of Paul of Samosata’s monarchial understanding of the Father God. They simply wanted to adhere to the teaching of God as uncreated while the Logos/the Son created being.

In the midst of various views of the Son’s nature and status, the time for defining the orthodox Christology was ready. This important issue was to deal by the newly crowned Constantine came to the throne. 

Constantine the Great (c. 274-337)

After Constantine became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire in 324, he wanted to rule peacefully.   But there was a disturbance brewing in the North African churches.  Constantine received an appeal to intervene in the affair of a schismatical movement called the Donatists controversy. After successful resolution, he was ready to tackle another more important theological controversy. This was called “The Council of Nicaea, I, 325.”
When the Arian controversy was broke out, Constantine wanted to get involve right away. Because it threatened the tranquility of the realm, which he was ruling. And also it caused a schism among the churches. Williams, “Arius mistake was to emphasize the numerical strength of his support, especially in Libya. Constantine assumed that Arius was threatening a schism, the one thing which all the imperial efforts were designed to avoid.” Calling him, “Ares”, a god of war.62

Evidently the emperor did not like his realm turned into another battleground. So he called a council to smooth things out while still there is a chance of reconciliation. 

In 325, Constantine the Great himself convened and presided the council at Nicaea near Bithynia. He wanted to settle growing Arian dispute, after failing of a settlement among the church leaders. This he tried by sending his advisor Hosius of Cordova in 324 in Antioch.  Constantine felt that he was obligated to see the controversy settled quickly and bring the unity both in church and society.

Council of 324 was a rehearsal for the Nicaea council. The Number of delegates was 318 and they were mostly from the East. The key figures were Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. Eastern Leaders of Anti-Arian side were Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra (Modern Turkish Ankara) and Macarius of Jerusalem.

Arian side was Eusebius of Palestinian Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon and Secundus the Libyan and Theognas the Libyans.

Arius (c. 256-336) 

Who was Arius? He was born in Libya about 256, and was educated under Lucian of Antioch, who was martyred in 312.  Later he became an elderly priest in Alexandria.  He was also influenced by Philo of Alexandria (c. died 50) and this may explain his insistence on monotheism.63

When the controversy had broke out, Arius was already an old man. According to Rowan Williams, “ If Epiphannius is to be relied on as regards Arius’ place of birth, is he also to be trusted when he describes Arius an ‘old man’ (geron) at the time of the outbreak of the controversy?”64 It fits his skilled rhetorical skills and vast knowledge of his subjects.  He also had many followers and devotees, including emperor’s ear. One of his closes friends was Eusebius of Nicomedia from Antioch.

He wrote a letter to his classmate Eusubius of Nicomedia. And he complained about his treatment by bishop Alexander of Alexandria.  It reads, “To a most longed-for lord, a faithful man of God, orthodox Eusebius; Arius, who is unjustly persecuted by Pope Alexander on account of the all-prevailing truth which you also protect, sends greetings in the Lord. Since my father Ammonius was coming into Nicomedia, it appeared to me reasonable and fitting to address you through him an din like manner to remind your innate love and disposition, which you have toward the brother s because go God and his Christ, what the bishop greatly pillages us and persecutes us, and invoking all things movers against us, so that he might drive us as godless men from the city. All this is because we do not agree with him when he sates in public, ‘Always God always Son,’ ‘at the same time Father, at the same time Son,’ ‘The Son ingenerably coexists with God, ‘Ever-begotten, ungenerated-created, neither in thought nor in some moment of time does God proceed the Son.’ ‘Always God always Son,’ ‘The Son is from God himself.’ And before he was begotten or created or defined or establishes, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we say, ‘The Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning. Because this we are persecuted because we say, ‘The Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning.’ But we speak thus inasmuch as he is neither part of God nor form any substratum. On account of this we are persecuted. You know the rest. I pray that you are strong in the Lord, recalling our afflictions, fellow pupil of Lucian, truly ‘Eusebius.’”65 

The key Issues of the controversy were nature and status of Christ in relationship with the Father.  Arius taught that Jesus was created being that given the special status “Son of God” by the Father. Williams notes, “Taken as a whole, these citations had apparently been used by Arius an his followers to establish three basic theological points: (i) The Son is a creature, that is, a product of God’s will; (ii) ‘Son’ is therefore a metaphor for the second hypostasis, and must be understood in the light of comparable, metaphorical usage in Scripture; (iii) The Son’s status, like his very existence, depends upon God’s will.”66 For Arius’ teaching was based on his desire to safeguard the Fatherhood as the only God.  So he had to formulate such that the Logos/Son is a creature. 

For Arius and his followers positioning Jesus be fully human was more important than him being divine. The Savior was better to be adopted than something other than creature. Gonzalez notes, “Jesus be truly human, and that his divinity be sated, not in terms of substance, but rather in terms of the will- that is, in terms that are capable of imitation. To Arius it was important that the Son be such by adoption, so that we might follow him and be similarly adopted. Thus central Arian model was that of a perfected creature whose nature remained always creaturely upon the Father’s will.”67 What Arius was attempted to do were making Jesus what he was: creature or human. But his interpretation of Jesus is too humanistic or critically literal. He is not any different than Dynamic monarachianism of Paul of Samosata’s interpretation.

Arius teachings were also one of the many loosely interpretations of Christ’s nature at that time. But what he brought to the church was a new teaching that Christ was a creature and had a beginning. Many of his thoughts and remaining writings were found in the Thalia, (or so called, banquet or Dinner party Songs) which is a loosely collected writings of Arius produced by his opponents. However, all of his works were neither destroyed nor lost.  

The Council 

Since the reign of emperor Nero (d. c. 68), Christians were weary of the Roman Empire. There was a famous fire in Rome, which was blamed by the Christians. And the persecutions ensued.  First, in the eyes of the Romans, Christianity was seen as a sect under the Judaism. Soon it became clear that the Christians were different and religious protection under Judaism has been lifted. Christianity arose out from a womb of Judaism. For Judaism, they were protected under Roman emperor religion along with others. After the ascension of emperor Constantine, Christianity became the state official religion (313). From that time on, Christianity has always been associated with state religion. In the third century, it was an era of relatively free from outright persecutions and a period of peace. Church became more absolved into Greco-Roman culture. By the time of the council came into scene, thoughts and theologies of Justin, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria and Origen have blossomed and widespread.  Christianity was well intermingled with the society. Peter Brown noted, “This was probably the most important aggiornamento in the history of the Church; it was certainly the most decisive single event in the culture of the third century. For the conversion of a Roman emperor to Christianity, of Constantine in 312, might not have happened – or, if it had, it would have taken on a totally different meaning- if it had not been preceded for two generations by the conversion of Christianity to the culture and ideals of the Roman world.”68

The council received an overture of Arian party. Davis notes, “It seems that Eusebius of Nicomedia was first off the mark and offered a creedal statement favorable to Arian views.” 69And the council rejected and excommunicated Arius. Walker notes, “The action of the council, as well as the texts of its creed and canons, are known only form unofficial, and sometimes much later, report. Soon after it opened, the assembly showed the direction it was going to take by rejecting a confession of faith present by the Arian.”70 After the council Arius felt that he was unsafe to stay in Palestine and moved to Dacia. 

Outline of the Council 

The Council dealt with the Christological issues that the Arius and his supporters brought before the council. Their thesis that the Logos is a creature, which they appealed to the Gospel. They insisted that Jesus is a person who hungers, thirsts, weeps, exhibits ignorance and suffers. They concluded that Jesus the Logos was an ordinary human being and was a creature.71 Athanasius, who succeeded Alexander, retorted that the Logos had to be true God in order to be the redeemer. “Athanasius eventually took them up on this argument because it touched a basic issue…Logos must be truly and fully God, on the ground that it is only through the gracious presence of one who is himself God that human nature can be divinized-elevated to fellowship with, and likeness to, its creator.”65 Both sided however did agree that the Logos is the real and ultimate of everything that Christ is. But issue was is the Logos divine? The issue that the council dealt with the Logos. And the Logos was applied to the Son.  How the Logos/Son was begotten? The Logos/Son was subordinate to God and had other common with the creatures that something the Father did not. This seems to look subordinate on the part of the Son’s status. But Greek philosophical tradition and understanding provide deeper insight. It was the understanding and interpretation of the Greek word  “gennetos; (γεννητός)”, which is translated “begotten.”  It can be interpreted as “came to be” “derivative” or “generated.” Early believers applied it to mean that only the Father is the sole “unregenrated” hence to express monotheistic status. Everything else that existed was “generated” including the Logs/Son.  Newman notes that, “The word  “ingenerate”; agenntos; (`αγέννητος) was the philosophical term to mean that existed from eternally. Now sine the Divine Word was according to Scripture “generate.”  He could not be called ‘ingenerate’ (or eternal), without a verbal contradiction. Even though it seemed contradictory, late distinction was made between “increate” (agenetos ; `αγένητος;) and “ingenerate” (agennetos ; `αγέννητος;). According as the letter “v” was or was not doubled, so that the Son might be said to be “agenetos gennetos ; `αγένητος γεννητός;” (increately generate).”73 The Logos was “Increated generate” from eternally.

And the council explained it fully. Something created does not mean “identity of status”, but it could also differentiated. The Logos/Son was generated like other creatures but it can also mean, “born from God” and thus in a secondary but real sense it is God or divine.74

Arians accepted the phrase “ begotten from the Father” and “only begotten” as to mean God the Father created from nothing. But they rejected a phrase “from the substance of the Father.” However, Arians insisted that the Logos was a creature; the council said the Logos was very God. 

The council added a phrase to safeguard the Son’s divine being by added “True God from true God.”75This phrase made the Son is God. The Son is true God in the notion that  “the Father was never other than Father; therefore Son and Father must have existed from all eternity, the Father eternally begetting the Son. 

Orthodox teaching of the Father God is primarily as the Cause of the Other Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις). God is the Primordial Being. He is not to be deduced nor reduce from any other principles or idea. He is distinct that of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet they are with him in one. Clendenin noted that, “Thus the monarch of the Father maintains the perfect equilibrium between the nature and the persons, without coming down too heavily on either side. There is neither an impersonal substance nor nonconsubstantial persons. The one nature and the three hypostases are presently simultaneously to our understanding, with neither prior to the other.”76 The understanding of the Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) will more fully developed in the nest council.

The word “of one substance” (homoousios; ὁμοούσιος) was applied with the Father in relationship to the Son. One substance (homoousios; ὁμοούσιος) saying that the Son shares the same being with the Father, and fully divine.77 

The term “homoousios” was meant to express the identity of Trinity by emphasizing the unity of the common nature against Arius’ insistence of the Logos subordination. Nicaea’s use of homoousios, (ὁμοούσιος) was to be a technical sense. Because it was adopted by Gnostics and philosophers.  Ironically Paul of Samosata of Antioch was one who used the homoousios to describe the Logos’ eternal power of the divine wisdom. Even though he used it to explain how Jesus became the Son of God by inhabited by the Word (Logos).78 Ayres notes that the usage of the term “homoousios, (ὁμοούσιος)” were crucial points in the council. He noted, “First, the description of the Son as ‘only-begotten’ is glossed with the immediately following phrase ‘that is, of the ‘ousia’ of the father’. Second, the Father and Son are subsequently described as homoousios. Third, those people are anathematized who understand the Son as being ‘of another hypostasis’ or ‘ousia’, (οὐσία). Of the three uses of ‘ousia’ language their term homoousios has generated the most discussion, in large part because of its later significance.”79 Church historian Sozomen remarked the outcome of the council and its usage of the word, “homoousios; (ὁμοούσιος)” as seen also in a semi-modalistic way: “…the bishops had another dispute among themselves, concerning the precise meaning of the term. Some thought this term could not be admitted without blasphemy; that is implied the non-existence of the So of God; and that it involved he error of Montanus and Sabellius…Eusebius [of Caesarea] and Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, took the lead in this dispute. They both confessed the Son of God to exist hypostatically, yet contended together as if they had misunderstood each other. Eustathius accused Eusebius of altering the doctrines ratified by the council of Nicaea, while the latter declared that he approved all the Nicaean doctrines, and reproached Eustathius for cleaving to the heresy of Sabellius.” It had much misconception among the different parties after the controversy. 

The council also produced a middle position. They were called “Homoiousianism”, (ὁμοιούσιος)because they were opposed to Arian party’s position, but they did not adhere to Nicene definition of the Son’s “homoousios” status. They were called, “Semi-Arian.” The Homoiousians saw themselves as traditionalist, among Origenian tradition.80 Their motives may have to with Athanasius of Alexandria’s (296-373) personally and not doctrine per se. Athanasius himself has been exiled as many as five times, 336, 345, 355, 362, and 365, during his forty-five years of bishopric at Alexandria. Homoiousius group (“similar substance) taught that the Son of God was not clearly divine as a sense of God, the Father. They were called “Anomoians” because they taught that the Father and the Son was “dissimilar” in substance.  They insisted upon difference rather than similar in relationship. So they proposed the term to distinguish their dissimilarity. Followers of Anti-Arians were Aectius of Antioch (c. 300-370) and Eunomius of Cyzicus (c. 325-395). However, they invited both hatred from both Nicene party and Arian party as the middle of the road. Williams noted that, “This view, (Homoiousios) propagated with greet energy and skill by the idiosyncratic Aectius and his pupil Eunomius (later bishop of Cyzicus), echoed Arius’ concern to emphasize the absolute uniqueness of the Father as sole God, but took a quite opposite line to his in respect of whether the nature of God could be known; Aectius and Eunomius popularized the belief that “(agennetos; `αγέννητος” was a comprehensive definition of the divine substance, so that, if you knew that definition, you knew the essence of God.” Anomoianism outspoken about the Nicene formula and placed a distance between God, the Father and the Son (the Logos). The council repudiated them and later generations had to pick up the issue and gather consensus again. 

The Fathers of the church formulated the doctrine of Trinity, because they believe a church faithful and careful studying of the Scripture. Careful reading and proper interpretations of the Scripture was a key to success of orthodoxy. Father developed a complex Trinitarian doctrine they are convinced such a paradigm reflect what Jesus and his disciples taught in the first place. The God they knew and encountered in Christ through the Holy Spirit has proven to be correct. The final conclusion of the matter was settled It was still a fourth century interpretation of the doctrine yet it would defend any opposing views to come. Defenders of the Nicene Creed such as Athanasius taught us that Scripture and the God’s salvation was hinged upon the correct interpretations and understanding of the doctrine. Among them was “Homoousios, (ὁμοούσιος)” phrase. 

Even though many were not satisfied with the terminology, it set settled the controversy and began to draft the Nicene Creed, which would not be completed till another ecumenical council called the Council of Constantinople, 381 with the help from the Cappadocian Fathers. 

“The Son of God was designated as the Logos of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the Only-Begotten Son, the First born of the whole creation, of the Father before all worlds, and the Instrument to creating them. The Three Persons were confessed to be in real hypostasis or subsistence (in opposition to Sabellianism), and to be truly Father, So and the Holy Spirit.”81 This is an Orthodox doctrine of the Church.

Conclusion

We began as the doctrine of Trinity. What became a simple understanding of a relationship of the Son/the Logos with the Father brought national crisis in the Roman Empire both politically and theologically. In the end, the council began to assess and formulate the Nicene Creed, which was an incomplete creed for it did not yet to define the status of the Holy Spirit in the relationship between the Father and the So. The Council of Constantinople of 381 completed the Trinitarian creed called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The council of Nicene declared, “The Son and the Father are coequal and coeternal and “that Christ is one being (homoousios, ὁμοούσιος) with the Father”.  The council’s others decisions were included an initial formulation of the Nicene Creed, adoption of twenty articles of church policies, the Melethian schism at Alexandria, and set the date of Easter be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. If Easter and the Passover were on the same day, Ester is move to the next Sunday. 

The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Christian church. (Ecumenical here does not mean that is used in the 20th century as a movement toward the unity among churches.)  And the council was the beginning of formation of the orthodox doctrine on the Trinity and Christology, which is implied in the Gospels and the writings of the fathers. The doctrine of Trinity is very important for every Christian believer. For if you do not accept it then you will not know who is the Savior, but if you try to explain it you might not fully understand. One has to accept and believe what the tradition has taught us and must take it with faith. 

This paper hopes that this teaching to be passed on many to years to come. 

NICENE CREED

 We believe in one God, the Father, almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light form light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, will come to judge the living and the dead;

And in the Holy Spirit,
But as for those who say, There was whom He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change- these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.82

Endnotes:

1. The Synoptic Gospels are the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is called the synoptic because they contain many similar narratives and wordings and concepts. They are set apart from the gospel of John. Because it is more developed and wrote in a later date the other three gospels.
2. The Book of Baruch is a deuterocanonical book. It is not in the Hebrew Bible but is found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. 
3. Behr, p. 70.
4. Grillmeier, Introduction.
5. Trinity is introduced by Tertullian and first used by Theophilus of Antioch. The coexistence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the unity of Godhead. While not a biblical term, ‘trinity’ represents the crystallization of NT teaching. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 711.
6. Pelikan, p. 173.
7. Hall, p. 18.
8. Hall, p. 20.
9. Clendenin, p. 123. 
10. Cross, “Canon of Scripture”, p. 232.
11. Apostolic Fathers are a title given to those who have known the apostles. There are eight known to this group: Clement of Rome, the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle to Diognetus. González, p. 61.
12. Church Fathers refer to the Christian bishops and teachers who lived right after the Apostles. They were either actual followers or students of the Apostles. They established the orthodoxy and traditions of Christian doctrines. The periods of the church fathers are from about A. D. 100 to 800. 
13. Hunt, p. vii-viii.
14. Hunt, p. viii.
15. ISBE “Trinity” C. Plantinga. 
16. Athanasian Creed or “Quicumque Vult”is a Christian doctrine of Trinity and Christological teaching. It is assumed that Athanasius of Alexandria wrote in the 4th century.
17. Rusch, p. 2.
18. Berkhof, p. 85.
19. Plantinga, p. 112.
20. Plantinga, p. 112.
21. Grillmeier, p. 86.
22. Schaff, p. 654. 
23. Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho” (128.4).
24. Walker, p. 84.
25. Rusch, P. 4.
26. Behr, pp. 108-109.
27. Plantinga, p. 366.
28. Rusch, p. 6.
29. Fairbairn, p. 33.
30. Rusch, p. 6.
31. Plantinga, p. 267.
32. Rusch, p. 10.
33. Jonas, p. 33.
34. Ayres, p. 21.
35. Plantinga, p. 432.
36. Moltmann, p. 16. 
37. Prestige, p. 80.
38. Prestige, p. 80.
39. Jonas, p. 33.
40. Ferguson, p. 245. 
41. Ferguson, p. 241. 
42. Cross, “Gnosticism”, p. 573.
43. Jonas, p. “Cerinthus” (Irenaeus I. 26. I.)
44. Jonas, p. 46
45. Prestige, p. 77.
46. Prestige, p. 78.
47. Behr, p. 137.
48. Walker, p. 85.
49. Plantinga, p. 427.
50. González, p. 251.
51. Walker, p. 86.
52. Walker, p. 162.
53. Davis, p. 33. Prestige.
54. Davis, p. 50.
55. Kelly, p. 231.
56. Walker, pp. 87-93.
57. Frend, p. 89.
58. Pliny the Younger, p. 270.
59. Chamoux, p. 1. 
60. Davis, p. 17.
61. Ferguson, p. 119.
62. Williams, p. 77
63. Davis, p. 51.
64. Williams, p. 31.
65. Arius’s Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Rusch, pp. 29-30.
66. Williams, p. 109
67. González, p. 263.
68. Davis, p. 25. Peter Brown
69. Davis, p.59
70. Walker, p.134.
71. Walker, p. 133.
72. Walker, p. 163.
73. Newman, pp. 181-2
74. Walker, p. 162.
75. Davis, p. 60. 
76. Clendenin, p. 173.
77. Davis, p. 61.
78. McGuckin, p. 255.
79. Ayres, p. 93.
80. McGuckin, p. 171.
81. Newman, p. 253.
82. Kelly, pp. 215-16.
Reference:

Hebrew Language:

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Textum Masoreiticum curavit H. P. Rüger. Masoram Elaboravit G. E. Well. Edited by W. Rudolf and H. P. Rüger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.

Hebrew-English New Testament. Published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. London: Cambridge University Press. 

Greek Version:

New Testament:

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.  27th Edition. Communiter ediderunt, Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

Septuagint. Id est Vetus Testamentum grace iuxta LXX interpretes edidit Alfred Rahlfs. Editor, Robert Hanhart. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Logcis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et partum adhibitis edidit.  Editor, Kurt Aland. Edition quindecima revisa. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005. 

Intertestamental Period Literatures:

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Volume one.  Editor, James H Charlesworth. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. Published by arrangement with Yale University Press.

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works.  Volume Two.  Editor, James H Charlesworth. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.  Published by arrangement with Yale University Press.

English Translation: 

NIV, New International Version, Copyright 1978 by New York International Bible Society. Published by Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing Company.

NRSV, New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized Edition, containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books, Copyright 1995 by National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Cambridge: CUP.

Primary Source:

Clement of Alexandria (De Stromata, or On Miscellanies)
Clement of Rome (Letter to Corinthians)
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History
Ignatius of Antioch (Letters to Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Polycarp)
Irenaeus (Against Heresies)
Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, The First Apology)
Origen (Against Celsus; De Principiis, or On Principles)
Pliny the Younger (The Letters of the Younger Pliny)
Shepherd of Hermas (Similitudes)
Tertullian (Against Praxeas;  De Praescriptione Haereticorum or On Prescription Against Heretics)

Secondary Textbooks:

Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325. The Apostolic Fathers: Justin Martyr - Irenaeus. 1987. Vol. I. Editors: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria (Entire). 1986. Vol. II. Editors: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ante-Nicene Father The Writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325.  Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, Three Parts: I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical. 1986. Vol. III. Editors: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325. Tertullian, Part IV; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, parts first and second.  Vol. IV. Editors: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

Ayres, Lewis. 2004. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: OUP.

Behr, John. 2001. The Way to Nicaea: Formation of Christian Theology. Vol. I. Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Berkhof, Louis. 1986. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

Brown, Peter. 1971. The World of Late Antiquity. A. D. 150-750. London. 

Chamoux, François.2003. Translated by Michel Roussel in cooperation with Margeret Roussel.  Hellenistic Civilization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Cross, F. L. (Editor). 1983. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: OUP.

Clendenin, Daniel B. 2003. Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

_______.  2003. Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 

Davis, Leo Donald. 1990. The First Seven Ecumenical Council (325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, Minnesota: A Michael Glazier Book.

Evans, G. R. (Ed.) 2004. The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Fairbairn, Donald. 2009. Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic.

Ferguson, Everett. 1987. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

Frend, W. H. C. 1984. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

González, Justo L. 1989. A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Volume I. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451). Vol. I. Transl. by John Bowden. Second Revised Edition.  Atlanta: John Knox Press. 1975.

Hall, Christopher 2002. A. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. 

Hunt, Anne. 2010. The Trinity: Insight From the Mystics. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, A Michael Glazier Book. 

“Journal of Theological Studies”, N.S., Vol. XXIX, Pt. 1, April 1978.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1988. “Trinity”. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. R-Z. 1984. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Jonas, Hans. 2001. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginning of Christianity. Third Edition. Boston: Beacon Press.

Kelly, J. N. D. 2006. Early Christian Creeds. Third Edition. New York: Continuum.

Loeb Classical Library. 1976. The Apostolic Fathers. I, II. Edited by G. P. Goodl. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McGuckin, John A. 2005. A-Z of Patristic Theology. London: SCM Press.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers.

Newman, John Henry. 2001.The Arians of the Fourth Century. Notre Dame.

Norris, Richard A.  1980. The Christological Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press

Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1971. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Vol. 1: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 

_______. 1987. The Excellent Empire: The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of the Church. San Francisco: Harper & Row, publishers. 

Peterson, Susan Lynn. 1999. Timeline Charts of the Western Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Pham, Peter C. 2011. The Cambridge Companion to The Trinity. Cambridge: CUP.

Plantinga, Richard J., Thomas R. Thompson, and Matthew D. Lundberg. 2010. An Introduction to Christian Theology. Cambridge: CUP. 

Prestige, G. L. 1975. Fathers and Heretics. London: S.P.C.K.

Radice, Betty. (transl.)1969. The Letters of  the Younger Pliny. London: Penguin Classics. Penguin Books.

Rusch, William G. (Series Editor). 1980. The Trinitarian Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 

Schaff, Philip. 1985. History of the Christina Church. Volumes I, II. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Stevenson, J. 1992. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337. Revised by W.H.C. Frend.  London: SPCK. 

Walker Williston and Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, Robert T. Handy. 1985. A History of the Christian Church. 4th Edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Williams, Rowan. 2001. Arius: Heresy & Tradition. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids and Cambridge, U. K. : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Young, Frances. 1991. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM Press.