Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!hedrick From: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Trinity: the fine line Message-ID: <3280@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 17:18:37 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.3280 Posted: Wed Aug 14 17:18:37 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 21:58:22 EDT References: <603@usl.UUCP> <3015@topaz.ARPA> <97@unc.unc.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 80 This is a response to a couple of issues that Frank Silbermann raised a few days ago. He asks how Modalism came to be considered a heresy. If you are interested in the Trinity, it is worth at least a glance at the early doctrinal debates. Otherwise you are liable to fall into known pitfalls. (It's obviously much more fun to avoid the known pitfalls and find new ones to fall into.) From the 2nd to 4th Century, Christian ideas about God moved slowly from wording that more or less recapitulated Biblical language to the first true Trinitarian formulations. The folks who did this work thought they were just clarifying their language and making explicit ideas that were already there in the NT. Along about the 3rd Century, a number of people saw where this was headed and decided that there had to be a better way. In particular, they were concerned that the discussions were moving towards tritheism. So these folks attempted to formulate a Christian theology based on a single, simple God. There were several different attempts to work out these ideas, generally referred to as "Monarchianism". The problem is that based on a simple model of God, it is hard to come up with an explanation of Christ's relation to God that does justice to Christian experience and the NT message. One group of Monarchians ended up saying that he was just a man, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Another went the other way, and ended up with Jesus as a sort of puppet. The latter group was known as "patripassian" because they said that the Father himself suffered on the cross. Both of these contradict the Biblical accounts, as well as the experience of the Church. As far as I know, nobody ever held an official church council to outlaw these ideas. However they were generally pounced on, by various bishops, and such major theologians as Tertullian and Origen. I'm not an expert in Church history, but the impression I get is that this approach was generally discredited and people went on to other things. Certainly by the 16th Century, Reformed creeds were referring to the Monarchians (not by that term: normally they listed representative theologians by name) as if it was well known that they were heretical. There was another major attempt to develop an alternative to the Trinity in the early 4th Century. This is referred to as Arianism. Unfortunately, Arius ended up with a Christ who was a semi-divine creature, not quite God but more than man. This manages to combine the disadvantages of both Monarchianism and tritheism. However this attempt turned out to be much harder to stop. Various councils were called, and things got tied up in Imperial politics. Arius' views were anathematized formally at several of these councils. The final result of this is the confession that is now known as the Nicean Creed (though in fact it seems to have come out of the Council of Constantinople in 381). It speaks of God as being a single essense (ousia), but having three persons (hypostases). Many people found this formulation somewhat painful, but every attempt to avoid it seemed to result in something worse. I think the final test of the various alternatives was how they dealt with Christ, and only the Trinity allowed for a Christ who was fully human, but also a full revelation of God. As for tritheism, as far as I know, no Christian theologian ever seriously considered this. It was always something that one accused others of believing. Christians believe that Christ revealed the Father. Making him a separate god doesn't help explain how he revealed the Father. You ask what I would think of a Roman who says that all of those gods are just aspects of a single God. Would I concede that he is a monotheist? If I say yes, you say I have drained monotheism of all content. But saying yes is absurd precisely because there are things about Roman mythology that makes it impossible to think of the Roman gods as being aspects of one God. They fight each other, among other things. You say that many of the ideas that I mention are also present in the OT prophets. Of course. I don't claim that Christians say things that contradict the OT. However in the OT there is a sense in which God is a mathematical point. We know what he wants us to do because he sent a prophet to say "Thus says the Lord". We know he loves us because he revealed that fact to us. But in Christ we believe we see God. So we are no longer dependent upon messages about him. However that doesn't mean that what we see is different from what had been revealed before. I don't doubt that the patriarchs of the OT knew God. I don't even doubt that there are Jews now who do. I think they would have a lot to gain if they came to know Christ, but I'm not interested in disproving other people's religions or their relationships to God. I'm sorry if I implied that it is impossible to believe in God's love without believing in the Trinity.