How is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity revealed in the Eucharist? Controversy with Arianism in the 4th century
As we have already said, the biblical texts cannot be cited as evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity, because those who are credited with the authorship of the biblical books did not know anything about the Trinity.
Tertullian was the first to introduce the concept of the Trinity into Christianity. It happened around the year 200. As mentioned in the Canon of the Holy Book, many church fathers, including Sabellius, contradicted him then. However, in the 4th century, after the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity, the Trinity prevailed over Monotheism. Before Tertullian there was no mention of the Trinity.
The dogma of the Trinity became the main component of Christianity and officially recognized as the basis of Christian doctrine after two ecumenical councils. On the first one, the Divinity of Jesus was recognized and fixed, and on the second, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Nicaea Cathedral
The Council of Nicaea was held in 325 by order of the pagan emperor Constantine, who a few years before this event announced the introduction of religious tolerance in the territory of the Empire.
Seeing that the contradictions and confrontations between Christian churches have a negative impact on the people and shake the pillars of the state, Constantine decided to organize a Council, to which representatives of various Christian churches were convened. The council was held under the personal leadership of Constantine. He personally opened it. The Council was attended by 2048 Christian clergy. Debate and debate continued for three months, but no agreement was reached. The audience could not come to a consensus on the foundations of the Christian faith.
The participants of the Council can be conditionally divided into three groups:
1) Adherents of Monotheism, denying the divinity of Jesus. They were led by Arius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Their views were shared by about a thousand clergymen.
2) Those who affirm that Jesus exists from the beginning with the Father and that they are one entity, although Jesus is a separate hypostasis. They said that if Jesus were not such, he could not be called the Savior. This group included Pope Alexander and a young pagan who announced his conversion to Christianity named Athanasius.
The book “Christian Religious Education” says the following about Athanasius: “We all know about the wonderful position that St. Athanasius the Messenger occupied in the holy church for centuries. Together with Pope Alexander, he attended the Council of Nicaea. Saint Athanasius was one of the righteous and faithful soldiers of Jesus Christ. His merit also includes the fact that he took part in the creation of the Creed. In 329 he became patriarch and successor to Pope Alexander."
3) Those wishing to harmonize and unite the two opinions mentioned. These include Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. He said that Jesus was not created from nothing, but was born from the Father in eternity, initially, therefore there are elements in him that are similar to the nature of the Father.
It is obvious that this opinion, which allegedly had to reconcile the two previous ones, is not much different from the opinion of Athanasius. Constantine inclined precisely to this opinion, which was held by 318 clergymen. The rest, including, of course, the supporters of Arius and a few supporters of other less common opinions, such as statements about the divinity of Mary, were against this decision.
The 318 clergy mentioned above issued the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, the main of which was the dogma of the divinity of Jesus. At the same time, an order was issued to burn all books and Gospels that contradicted this decree.
Arius and his supporters were excommunicated. A decree was also issued for the destruction of idols and the execution of all idolaters, and also that only Christians should be in the office.
Arius and his followers came across what Jesus predicted: “They will drive you out of the synagogues; even the time is coming when everyone who kills you will think that he is serving God. They will do this, because they know neither the Father nor Me” (John 16:2-3).
If they properly assessed the power and greatness of God, they would never have dared to attribute a son to Him and declare God a man crucified on a cross, born of a woman.
The Council of Nicaea did not discuss the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and disputes regarding its essence continued until the Council of Constantinople, which put an end to this issue.
Constantinople Cathedral
In 381, the emperor Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople to discuss the words of the Bishop of Constantinople, Macedon, who was an adherent of Arianism. He denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit and said about him what the Bible says about him: "The Holy Spirit is a Divine action widespread in the universe, and not a hypostasis other than the Father and the Son." He spoke of the Holy Spirit: "He is like the rest of God's creatures, and he served the Son as the angels served."
One hundred and fifty bishops arrived at the Council. They decided to anathematize Macedonia, deprive him of all church titles, and subject his followers to cruel punishments.
At the same time they adopted one of the most important resolutions of the ecumenical councils of the church, fixing the dogma of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and declaring it the third hypostasis in the Holy Trinity, supplementing the Father and the Son. They said, "We believe that the Holy Spirit is nothing but the Spirit of God, and God is nothing but His life, and if we say that the Holy Spirit is created, that is the same as saying that God is created." .
Some decrees were also adopted regarding the structure of the church and its policies.
Monotheism in the history of Christianity
Earlier, we have already cited texts from the Old and New Testaments, confirming that Monotheism is the religion of God, to which all His messengers, including Jesus, called for throughout the ages.
If the basis of the religion of Jesus was Monotheism, then where are the followers of Jesus? And when did Monotheism disappear from the life of Christians? And is it possible that all these testimonies of Monotheism did not have any influence on Christianity for so many centuries?
In order to find the answer to these questions, the researchers turned over the pages of ancient, medieval and modern history for a long time. They aimed to find out what happened to Monotheism during the twenty centuries of opposition to the paganism of Paul. And what was revealed to them?
Monotheism before the Council of Nicaea
The first generation of Christians after the ascension of Jesus believed in the Oneness of God and that Jesus himself was His slave and therefore a man. They believed that Jesus was God's messenger and prophet. This is confirmed by the texts of the Bible, which we cited earlier as evidence of Monotheism.
We also have historical evidence that the first generation of Christians professed pure Monotheism.
And the Encyclopedia Americana says: “The Monotheism movement in the history of religions began very early and in fact it appeared decades before the Trinity.” The fact is that Monotheism appeared with the appearance of messengers and prophets and flashed brightly during the prophetic mission of Jesus (peace be upon him), who, like his predecessors, brought the doctrine of Monotheism to the world.
The French Encyclopedia Larousse says: “The dogma of the Trinity was not in the books of the Old Testament, it did not manifest itself in the actions of the first church fathers and the closest disciples of Christ, however, the Catholic and Protestant churches continue to assert that Christians always had faith in the Trinity ... In during the entire period of the existence of the first Christian church, consisting of Jews - Jews who followed Jesus - the belief that Jesus was a man dominated. The inhabitants of Nazareth and all groups of Christians, consisting of former Jews, were convinced that Jesus was a man strengthened and supported by the Holy Spirit. And all this time no one reproached them for heresy, unbelief and godlessness. In the second century of the Christian era there were innovators and atheists. And in the same second century, there were believers who considered Jesus to be the Messiah and an ordinary person. With the increase in the number of pagans accepting Christianity, beliefs appeared that were not there before.
Aud Saman says, confirming that Jesus has nothing to do with polytheism and paganism: “By carefully studying the relationship of the disciples and Jesus, we find that they perceived him only as a person, since they, like the Jews, believed that God could not appear in the form of a man. Yes, they expected the coming of the Messiah, but the Messiah, according to their ideas, which they inherited from their fathers and grandfathers, was the messenger of God, but not God Himself.
The American Encyclopedia also emphasizes that the path from the first Council of Jerusalem, convened by the disciples of Jesus, to the Council of Nicaea was by no means direct, and Monotheism was widespread even in those areas where Paul preached, that is, in Antioch and among the Galatians, and Paul met sharp resistance.
And Bertrand Russell, the English philosopher, says: “You ask: why is Bertrand Russell not a Christian? I answer: because I believe that the first and last Christian died nineteen centuries ago, and with him died true Christianity, which this great prophet brought to people.
However, the originality of Monotheism, which dominated during the life of the first generation of Christians, and its strength could not prevent the spread of Paul's pagan call among newly converted Christians from among the former pagans. They found in his appeal the pagan foundations they were accustomed to, with the addition of ideals and moral and ethical standards that Roman and Greek paganism lacked.
As for the disciples of Jesus, they strongly rejected and condemned Paul's call and tried to prevent its spread. After their death, the followers of their work, the adherents of Monotheism, continued the struggle with the followers of Paul. Groups of those whom the church in its history calls heretics appeared. These are people who rejected the religious opinions (decrees) of the church, including groups that rejected the divinity of Jesus.
Among them are ebionites. This name goes back to the word "eyvonim" - "beggars".
These groups and communities appeared in the first century AD. They were founded by Jews. Their activity became especially active after 70 years.
The beliefs of these groups are reported to us by ancient historians. The patriarch of Alexandria said in 326 about Arianism: "This is the teaching of those who rebelled against the piety of the church, the teaching of the Ebionites, and it is very similar to the teaching of Paul of Samosata."
And Cyril of Jerusalem in 388 said about heretics: "Kerinth caused destruction in the church, and so did Menander, Carpocrates and the Ebionites."
The beliefs of this community were influenced by the distorted ideas about the world, God and religion that prevailed at that time, which is why they declared Jesus to be "superman."
Munkiz ibn Mahmoud as-Sakkar
- Eusebius of Nicomedia (? - 341) - Bishop of Constantinople (339-341). He was bishop of Berytus, then of Nicomedia. He had a significant influence on Constance, the wife of Emperor Licinius, the sister of Emperor Constantine the Great. At the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, he acted as the defender of Arius, with whom he was friendly in his youth, and later, together with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he was the head of a conciliatory party, whose members, named after both Eusebius, were called Eusebians. At the end of the council, Eusebius of Nicomedia refused to renounce the Arian heresy and was sent into exile by the emperor with his accomplices in Gaul. In 328, Eusebius, Arius and other Arians were returned from exile by Constantine, who fulfilled the dying request of his sister Constance. He led the struggle of the Arians against the defender of Orthodoxy, the Alexandrian Archbishop Athanasius the Great, and achieved his deposition and exile. Together with other bishops, he took part in the baptism of Emperor Constantine the Great, who died in 337 on his canonical territory in the outskirts of Nicomedia. By order of Emperor Constantius II, he presided over the Council of Antioch in 341, at which moderate Arianism was recognized as official teaching in the Eastern Roman Empire.
- Athanasius is credited with the creation of the Athanasian Creed: “Everyone who wishes to be saved must first of all have the catholic Christian faith. Anyone who does not keep this faith intact and pure is undoubtedly doomed to eternal death. The catholic faith lies in the fact that we worship the one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in the One Divinity, without mixing Hypostases and without dividing the Essence of the Divinity. For one hypostasis of the Godhead is the Father, another is the Son, and the third is the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is one, the glory is the same, the majesty is eternal. As the Father is, so is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father is not created, the Son is not created, and the Spirit is not created. The Father is incomprehensible, the Son is incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit is incomprehensible. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal. Just as there are not three Uncreated and three Incomprehensible, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. In the same way, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet not three Almighty, but one Almighty. Likewise, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Although they are not three Gods, but one God. Similarly, the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. Yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For just as Christian truth compels us to recognize each Hypostasis as God and Lord, so the Catholic faith forbids us to say that there are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is uncreated, uncreated and unborn. The Son comes only from the Father, He is not created or created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, He is not created, not created, not begotten, but proceeds. So there is one Father, not three Fathers, one Son, not three Sons, one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity, no one is either the first or the next, just as no one is more or less than the others, but all three Hypostases are equally eternal and equal to each other. And so in everything, as was said above, it is necessary to worship the Unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the Unity. And anyone who wants to be saved should think about the Trinity in this way. In addition, for eternal salvation, it is necessary to firmly believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For righteous faith consists in this, that we believe and confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, God and Man. God from the Essence of the Father, begotten before all ages; and Man, from His mother's nature, born in due time. Perfect God and perfect Man, possessing a rational Soul and a human Body. Equal to the Father in Divinity, and subordinate to the Father in His human nature. Who, although he is God and Man, is not two, but one Christ. United not because the human essence has turned into God. Completely One, not because the essences are mixed, but because of the unity of the Hypostasis. For just as rational soul and flesh are one man, so God and Man are one Christ, who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose from the dead on the third day; He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, whence He will come to judge the living and the dead. At His coming, all people will be resurrected bodily again, and will give an account of their deeds. And those who have done good will enter eternal life. Those who do evil go to eternal fire. This is the Catholic faith. He who sincerely and firmly does not believe in this cannot gain salvation. ”However, there is strong evidence that this symbol was formulated much later, and its author was not Athanasius at all. Adopted at the First Council of Nicaea (325) Creed - the formula of religion, in which the divinity of God the Son, called “consubstantial with the Father”, was proclaimed, and after a brief third component of the formula (“we believe in the Holy Spirit”), an anathema followed to Arianism. The text of the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, by Whom all things were created. For the sake of us people and for the sake of our salvation, he descended from heaven and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of the Father. And again coming with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giving One, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets. Into one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen. ”In 381, it was expanded and supplemented by the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, after which it became known as Niceo-Constantinople: “I believe in one God, the Almighty Father, the Creator of heaven and earth, everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, one being with the Father, through whom all things were created; for us people and for our salvation descended from heaven, took flesh from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and became a man, crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried, rose on the third day in accordance with the writings (prophetic), ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, and having to come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, proceeding from the Father, worshiped and glorified equally with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets. And into one, holy, universal and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen".
- Al-yahudiyya wa al-masihiyya. pp. 302-306.
- Ahmad Shalabi. Al-masihiyya. pp. 134-135.
- Ala Abu Bakr. Al-masihiyya al-haqqa allati jaa biha-l-masih. S. 136.
- Paul of Samosata (200 - 275) - Bishop of Antioch in 260-268; denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, was condemned as a heretic at the Council of Antioch (268). The followers formed a sect called the Paulians after him, which continued until the 4th century.
Upon being elevated to the See of Antioch, he caused controversy with his preaching of monarchism. At the Council of Antioch in 269 he was denounced by presbyter Malchio in heresy and was deposed. However, with the support of Xenovia, Queen of Palmyra, Paul held the see of Antioch until 272, when the emperor Aurelian, at the request of the Christians, expelled him from Antioch.
The disciple of Paul of Samosata, Lucian of Antioch, was later the teacher of Arius.
- Kerinth - one of the first Gnostics in time, according to ancient legends, lived in the apostolic age. Irenaeus and Hippolytus attribute to him an Egyptian education. Cerinthus distinguished Christ and Jesus as two distinct individuals. Jesus was a simple, ordinary-born man who attained a high degree of virtue. During baptism in the Jordan, a heavenly being, Christ, descended in the form of a dove, united with him. Through his power, Jesus worked miracles, and before his death on the cross, Christ, being passionless by nature, separated himself from the man Jesus (Irenaeus I, 26; Hippolytus VII, 33).
- Irenaeus of Lyons is one of the first Church Fathers, a leading theologian of the 2nd century. Greek of Asia Minor (born about 130); about the year 160 sent by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, to Gaul to preach Christianity; from 177 he was Bishop of Lyons.
- Muhammad Taqiy al-Usmani. Mahiya an-nasraniyya. pp. 63-64.
The emergence of the doctrine of the Trinity (Part 2)
Monotheism after the Council of Nicaea
Arianism
In 325, the first official decree on the divinity of Jesus was issued. This happened after the pagan emperor Constantine chose this opinion and rejected the rest, and Arius, because of whom this Council was convened, was decided to be considered a heretic.
Arius was one of the monks of the church and, as Mansi Johanna reports in his book The History of the Coptic Church: “The Son is not like the Father either in eternity, that is, in the primordial existence, or in essence. First there was the Father, and then He brought the Son out of non-existence by His will. No one can see or describe the Father, because he who has a beginning cannot know the Primordial. The Son is God by virtue of the Divinity acquired (given to him).
Arius died in 336, but his teachings spread after his death. Arianism has acquired so many followers that, as Professor Husni al-Atyar says in his book "The Beliefs of the Christian Sects Professing Monotheism": "Arianism would have been accepted by the whole world - according to the testimony of its enemies - if the bishops had not intervened and began to ruthlessly eradicate it" .
Asad Rustam says in his book “The Church of the Great City of God”: “Arius was a scholar and ascetic, a skilled preacher and mentor. A group of believers rallied around him, and a large number of clergymen joined him.
The historian Ibn al-Batriq confirms the large number of Arians. He says that most of the inhabitants of Egypt were Arians.
And the priest James Enis says: "History tells us how the church and its leaders erred and departed from the truth: most of the bishops approved the heresy of Arius and accepted it."
Arianism had considerable power not only during the life of its founder, but also after his death. The church convened several councils to examine his beliefs. Arius himself, with his supporters, also convened councils in 334 and 335. At the second council, they decided to remove from church activities Pope Athanasius, who called for Jesus to be considered God and under whose leadership the decrees of the Council of Nicaea were written. They exiled him to what is now France. In 341 they called a new council at Antioch. It was attended by 97 clergy from among the followers of Arianism. At this council, a number of resolutions were adopted, consistent with their convictions.
Later, the Roman emperor returned Athanasius to the papacy. The Arians protested and rebelled. Then a Council was convened in the territory of France in Arles, at which a unanimous decision, except for one vote, was adopted to remove Athanasius.
At the Milan Cathedral, this decision was confirmed, and Athanasius was removed. Alexandria was led by the Arian Bishop George the Cappadocian. And in 359, the emperor convened two councils - for Westerners in Serevkia and for Easterners in Ariminium. Both councils accepted the Arian beliefs as correct, and the Western churches remained Arian.
The historian mentions that Emperor Constantine also converted to Arianism in order to win the support of the people. This happened after he moved the capital to Constantinople.
Reverend Shanouda explained such a wide spread of Arianism with support from the emperor.
At the Council of Antioch, convened in 361, the Arians formulated a new creed, according to which: "The Son is different from the Father in his essence and will." In the same year, they convened a Council in Constantinople, at which 17 decisions were adopted that contradicted the decisions of the Council of Nicaea.
In the same year, the pagan Julian came to power. He returned Athanasius and his bishops to their former activities. Under him, they began to openly worship idols. He commissioned pagan Christians to lead the churches. In 363, he was replaced by Emperor Juvian, who completed what his predecessor had begun. He began the struggle against the Arians and introduced elements of paganism into Christianity, securing them. He said, addressing the people and statesmen: "If you want me to be your emperor, be Christians like me." He then banned Arianism as a current and restored force to the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. He demanded from Athanasius that he set out the essence of that Christianity, to which he forced the people to accept, despite the fact that he himself knew almost nothing about it.
Nestorianism
Arius was replaced in the 5th century by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, supported by some clergy and bishops. Nestor argued: "There is a Divine part in Jesus, but it does not belong to his human nature, and this part was not born from the Virgin, who, accordingly, cannot be called the Mother of God."
Nestorius believed that the union of God with Jesus was not valid. In other words, God only helped him. As for the presence of God in Jesus, and His union with him, Nestor called them metaphorical. That is, it was not God who dwelt in Jesus, but His assistance, support, and good manners and virtues bestowed on Jesus by Him.
In one of his sermons, Nestorius said, "How can I prostrate myself before a three-month-old baby?" He also said, “How can God have a mother? Only flesh is born of flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit. The created cannot give birth to the Creator. She gave birth to a man who later acquired the Divine nature.
At the Council of Ephesus, convened in 431, it was decided to remove Nestorius from church activities and expel him. He died in the Libyan desert. The historian Sayers ibn al-Muqaffa writes in his book The History of the Patriarchs: "Nestorius emphatically denied the divinity of Jesus and maintained that he was merely a man, a prophet, and nothing more."
Ibn al-Muqaffa also mentions that before the exile of Nestorius, the patriarchs sent to tell him that if he recognized the crucified one as God incarnate, they would forgive him and not expel him: “However, his heart became hardened, like the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not answer them ".
After Nestorius, his teaching underwent changes and became like the teachings that recognize the Trinity. The Nestorians say: “Jesus is a person who has two realities - Divine and human. He is really a man and really God. However, it was not the personality of Jesus that combined two realities, but the essence of Jesus that combined two personalities!
Monotheism after the Reformation
Despite the undivided power of the church, adherents of Monotheism in Christianity have always existed. At times, their activity was very weak due to persecution and persecution by the church, but they continued to exist.
And when the influence of the church weakened, the communities of adherents of Monotheism reasserted themselves. The foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity were shaken. Martin Luther said of him: "He has no power, and he is not in the biblical texts."
Falber says in his book History of the Monotheists: "Calvin said of the creed approved by the Council of Nicaea: it should be sung like a song, and not memorized as an explanation of the dogma."
And in his book A Brief Exposition of the Doctrine (1541), Calvin mentions the Trinity only occasionally.
Gradually, the communities professing Monotheism became stronger and began to be active in Europe. Even King Sigismund of Hungary (died in 1571) professed Monotheism.
In Transylvania, Monotheism became widespread. The American Encyclopedia mentions it. Famous adherents of Monotheism include Francis David, who was thrown into prison after the death of King Henry in 1571 and the accession of Stefan Batory, who professed Catholicism. The new king forbade adherents of Monotheism to distribute their books without his permission.
In the same century, an adherent of Monotheism appeared in Poland by the name of Faust Sotsin. His followers are known as Socinians. They rejected the Trinity and called for Monotheism. Some fled from the persecution of the church to Switzerland.
In Spain, Miguel Servet called for Monotheism, for which he was burned alive on charges of heresy in 1553. He wrote in his book The Trinity Misconception: "Ideas like the Trinity are invented by philosophers, and the biblical books know absolutely nothing about them."
And in Germany there was a community of Anabaptists - adherents of Monotheism. The Church managed to deal with them.
Later, several movements of anti-trinitarians (unitarians) arose - Christians who did not accept the dogma of the Trinity: in the middle of the 16th century in northern Italy; then, in 1558, a movement led by a well-known Unitarian physician. And at the Council of Pisa in 1562, the priests spoke of the Trinity, and most of those present rejected it.
In the 17th century, some Unitarian churches gained strength despite the relative small number of their followers. In 1605, adherents of Monotheism printed an important document, which stated: “God is One in His essence, and Jesus is really a man, but he is not a simple person, but the Holy Spirit is not a hypostasis, but the power (strength) of God.”
In 1658, a decree was issued to expel the Unitarian community from Italy. In those days, one of the most famous adherents of Monotheism was John Beadle, called the "father of English Unitarianism." While studying Christianity, he doubted the dogma of the Trinity and openly declared it, after which he was imprisoned twice, and then was exiled to Sicily.
In 1689, by royal decree, Unitarians were excluded from those covered by the law of religious tolerance. And this, beyond any doubt, indicated the numerous opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity and the strength of their influence. Berdanovsky writes in his book "The Development of Man": "In the 17th century, scientists could not meekly agree with the dogma of the Trinity."
In the 18th century, these Unitarians were called Arians, among them Dr. Charles Chavensi (d. 1787), pastor of the Boston church. He corresponded with the English-Arians.
Dr. Jonathan Michu also fearlessly opposed the proponents of the doctrine of the Trinity. And Dr. Samuel published his book Trinity from the Bible. In it, he concluded: “The Father is the only Supreme God. As for Jesus, he is inferior to him in position. And although he denied his adherence to Arianism, it is difficult to distinguish his views from the teachings of Arius. Mention should also be made of the biologist John Priestley (d. 1768). He published his message: "An Appeal to Sincere Christian Teachers" and distributed thirty thousand copies in England, after which he was forced to leave the country, and he died already in Pennsylvania.
Theophilus Lindsay (d. 1818) retired from church service and soon after entered the service of the Unitarian church, and his fellow Monotheist Thomas Belsham took a high position in the seminary. They later founded together the "Unitarian Association for Christian Enlightenment and the Propagation of Piety through Book Distribution".
After the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Unitarians formed the British-Foreign Union of the Monotheists.
And in the 19th century, Unitarian churches were established in several areas, which attracted many important figures, such as William Schaning (d. 1842), the pastor of the Boston church. He said: "Three hypostases require three essences and, accordingly, three Gods." He also said: "To explain and justify the system of the universe requires one source, not three, so the dogma of the Trinity has no religious or scientific value."
Jarod Sparks, a Unitarian minister at Leitmore, who later became president of Harvard University, held similar views.
In 1825, the "American Monotheism Association" was formed. In the middle of our century, the Dutch city of Leiden and its university were the center of Monotheism. He was known for the large number of followers of Monotheism, known as Lutherans or Reformers.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the number of adherents of Monotheism increased, and their activities became more active. About 400 Unitarian churches appeared in Great Britain and its colonies. The same thing happened in the United States. Also, two theological seminaries were opened, which taught Monotheism, in Britain, in Manchester and Oxford, and two more in the United States, one in Chicago and the second in Barkley, California. There were about 160 such churches and seminaries in Hungary. A similar phenomenon was observed in all Christian states of Europe.
In 1921, a seminar was held in Oxford under the direction of the Bishop of Carlyle, Dr. Rushdahl, which was attended by many clergymen. He addressed the audience with a speech and, among other things, said that reading the Bible did not make him believe Jesus was God. As for what is said in the Gospel of John and is missing in the other three Gospels, it cannot be regarded as a historical text. He also believed that everything said about the immaculate conception of Mary and the healing of the sick by Jesus, as well as the assertions that the spirit of Jesus existed before the creation of bodies, is not a reason for his deification. Many of those present shared his opinion.
Emil Lord Fidge says, “Jesus never thought he was more than a prophet, and in many cases he even thought he was less than that. And Jesus never said anything that would make those who listened to his words think that he had other thoughts and hopes than human ones ... Jesus found beautiful words to express his modesty. He said of himself: I am a son of man. Even in ancient times, the prophets tried to draw people's attention to that endless abyss that separated them from God, and therefore they called themselves the sons of men ... ".
In 1977, seven Christian scholars wrote a book called The Legend of God Incarnate. It follows from the book that its authors are convinced that the authors of the biblical books were people who wrote them at different times and under different circumstances, and that these books can in no way be considered a revelation of the Almighty sent down from above. The authors of the book also expressed their conviction that in our time, that is, at the end of the twentieth century, a new round in the development of Christian doctrine should begin.
Later, eight Christian scholars published a book in the UK called "Jesus is not the son of God." In this book, they confirmed what was said in the previous one. So, in particular, it says: “In our time, few people are able to believe in the transformation of a person into God, because this really contradicts reason.”
And during one of the meetings on London's Weekend Television, a Christian clergyman named David Jenkins, who ranks fourth among the 39 chief clergymen of the Anglican Church, said that the divinity of Jesus is not an absolutely proven and indisputable truth. He said: "Birth Jesus as a result of the virgin birth and his resurrection from the dead are not considered historical events. "His words created a real sensation among Protestants. The Daily Times newspaper asked the opinion of thirty-one of the mentioned thirty-nine highest-ranking Anglican priests about what Jenkins said, and only 11 of them insisted that Christians must regard Jesus as God and man at the same time, while 19 others said that it was enough to look at Jesus as the highest authorized God, while 9 of them expressed doubts about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, saying that it was just a series of incidents or sensations that These led his followers to believe that he stood among them alive. And 15 of them said that "the miracles mentioned in the New Testament are later inserts added to the story of Jesus." And, accordingly, these miracles cannot serve as evidence of the divinity of Jesus.
So the church, represented by the clergy, doubted the divinity of Jesus and even rejected it and confirmed that this dogma was alien to Christianity and was not part of it from the very beginning, and neither Jesus himself nor his disciples knew anything about his divinity, since the statement about it is an invention Paul, under whose influence some of those who wrote the gospels and epistles fell. And later these innovations were fixed by church councils.
From everything we have said earlier, it follows that the movement of Monotheism has always existed in Christian society. It was renewed every time sincere believers studied the Bible, and a veil fell from their uncorrupted, original, instinctive nature, and they saw the radiant truth: God is one, and there is no other deity besides God alone.
From the book “One God or Trinity”
Munkiz ibn Mahmoud as-Sakkar
- Muhammad Ahmad al-Hajj. An-nasraniyya min at-tawhid ilya at-taslis. pp. 168-170. An important note: unlike Nestorianism, Arianism is considered to be completely destroyed in the early Middle Ages. However, sociological studies show that the views of many unchurched Christians, who traditionally call themselves Orthodox, Catholics or Protestants (depending on the country or region of residence), are actually close to Arian. Among such “elemental Arians”, there are widespread views that God the Son is not identical with God the Father, that Jesus Christ did not exist as God from the beginning, but appeared as a result of birth and became God as a result of baptism, death on the cross or resurrection. The “spontaneous Arianism” of unchurched Christians can be explained by the fact that Arian ideas are much easier to understand than those ideas that prevailed in the doctrine of the Chalcedonian churches. Arianism as a denial of the divinity of Jesus is objectively shared by Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and Khlysts, Tolstoyans and at least many modern "Jews for Jesus". Some modern theologians today actually stand on the positions of the Arians.
- Muhammad Tahir at-Tuneir. Al-aqaid al-wasaniyya fi ad-diyanat an-nasraniya. S. 171.
- Ta'ifat al-muwahhiddin abara-l-kurun. pp. 48-50.
- Ahmad Abdu-l-Wahhab. Ihtilafat fi tarajim al-kitab al-muqaddas. S. 113.
Catechism
The dogma of the Holy Trinity
1. The dogma of the Holy Trinity is the foundation of the Christian religion
Wording: God is one in essence, but trinity in persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity is consubstantial and indivisible.The very word "Trinity" (Trias) of non-biblical origin, was introduced into the Christian lexicon in the second half of the 2nd century by St. Theophilus of Antioch. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is given in the Christian Revelation. No natural philosophy has been able to rise to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is incomprehensible, it is a mysterious dogma, incomprehensible at the level of reason. No speculative philosophy could rise to comprehend the mystery of the Holy Trinity. For the human mind, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is contradictory, because it is a mystery that cannot be expressed rationally.
It is no coincidence that o. Pavel Florensky called the dogma of the Holy Trinity "a cross for human thought." In order to accept the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity, the sinful human mind must reject its claims to the ability to know everything and rationally explain everything, i.e., in order to comprehend the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, it is necessary to reject one’s own understanding.
The mystery of the Holy Trinity is comprehended, and only in part, in the experience of spiritual life. This comprehension is always associated with an ascetic feat. VN Lossky says: "Apophatic ascent is an ascent to Golgotha, therefore no speculative philosophy could ever rise to the mystery of the Holy Trinity."
Belief in the Trinity distinguishes Christianity from all other monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam. Athanasius of Alexandria (Na Arians, first word, n. 18) defines the Christian faith as faith "in the unchanging, perfect and blessed Trinity."
The doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all Christian faith and moral teaching, for example, the doctrine of God the Savior, God the Sanctifier, etc. V.N. Lossky said that the doctrine of the Trinity is “not only the basis, but also the highest goal of theology, ... to know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity in its fullness means to enter into the Divine life, into the very life of the Most Holy Trinity "...
The doctrine of the Triune God comes down to three propositions:
- 1) God is trinity and trinity consists in the fact that there are three Persons (hypostases) in God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
- 2) Each Person of the Most Holy Trinity is God, but They are not three Gods, but the essence of a single Divine Being.
- 3) All three Persons differ in personal or hypostatic properties.
2. Analogies of the Holy Trinity in the world
The Holy Fathers, in order to somehow bring the doctrine of the Holy Trinity closer to the perception of man, used various kinds of analogies borrowed from the created world.For example, the sun and the light and heat emanating from it. A source of water, a spring from it, and, in fact, a stream or a river. Some see an analogy in the structure of the human mind (St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Ascetic Experiences. Soch., 2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1886, vol. 2, ch. 8, pp. 130-131):
“Our mind, word, and spirit, by the simultaneity of their beginning and by their mutual relations, serve as an image of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
However, all these analogies are very imperfect. If we take the first analogy - the sun, outgoing rays and heat - then this analogy assumes a certain temporal process. If we take the second analogy - a source of water, a key and a stream, then they differ only in our imagination, but in reality it is a single water element. As for the analogy connected with the abilities of the human mind, it can only be an analogy of the image of the Revelation of the Most Holy Trinity in the world, but not of an intra-trinitarian being. Moreover, all these analogies place unity above trinity.
St. Basil the Great considered the rainbow to be the most perfect of analogies borrowed from the created world, because “one and the same light is both continuous in itself and multicolored.” “And a single face opens up in multicolor - there is no middle and no transition between colors. It is not visible where the rays are delimited. We clearly see the difference, but we cannot measure the distances. And together, the multi-color rays form a single white. A single essence is revealed in a multi-colored radiance.
The disadvantage of this analogy is that the colors of the spectrum are not separate personalities. In general, patristic theology is characterized by a very wary attitude towards analogies.
An example of such an attitude is the 31st Word of St. Gregory the Theologian:
“Finally, I concluded that it is best to depart from all images and shadows, as deceptive and far from reaching the truth, to keep a more pious way of thinking, dwelling on a few sayings (Scriptures ...)”
In other words, there are no images to represent this dogma in our mind, all the images borrowed from the created world are very imperfect.
3. A Brief History of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity
Christians have always believed that God is one in essence, but trinity in persons, but the dogmatic doctrine of the Holy Trinity itself was created gradually, usually in connection with the emergence of various kinds of heretical delusions.The doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity has always been associated with the doctrine of Christ, with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Trinitarian heresies, trinitarian disputes had a Christological basis.
Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity was made possible by the Incarnation. As it says in the troparion of Theophany, in Christ "Trinity worship appeared." The teaching about Christ is “a stumbling block for the Jews, but foolishness for the Greeks” (1 Cor. 1:23). Likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity is a stumbling block for both "strict" Jewish monotheism and Hellenic polytheism. Therefore, all attempts to rationally comprehend the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity led to delusions of either a Jewish or Hellenic nature. The first dissolved the Persons of the Trinity in a single nature, for example, the Sabellians, while others reduced the Trinity to three unequal beings (Arnana).
- 3.1. The ante-Nicene period in the history of trinitarian theology.
According to this doctrine, the Logos is the true and perfect God, but at the same time, the apologists say, God is one and one, and then rationally thinking people have a natural doubt: the doctrine of the Son of God as the Logos does not contain hidden ditheism ? At the beginning of the third century, Origen wrote:
“Many who love God and who sincerely surrender to Him are embarrassed that the doctrine of Jesus Christ as the Word of God forces them, as it were, to believe in two gods.”
When we talk about the circumstances of the trinitarian disputes of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, we must keep in mind that at that time church exegesis was still in its infancy, the baptismal symbols used by the local Churches, because of their brevity, also could not serve as a reliable support for theology and, consequently, scope was opened up in theology for subjectivism and individualism. In addition, the situation was aggravated by the lack of a unified theological terminology.
- 3.1.1. Monarchism.
- 3.1.1.1. DYNAMISM OR ADOPTION.
Contemporaries testify to them that they were scientists who “diligently studied the geometry of Euclid, marveled at the philosophy of Aristotle” ... The most prominent representative of dynamism was Bishop Paul of Samosata (he was bishop in 250-272).
The Theodrians, as their contemporaries, in particular Tertullian, spoke of them, tried to make some kind of syllogism out of any text of Scripture. They believed that the Holy Scriptures needed to be corrected and compiled their own verified texts of the Holy Books. They understood God from the point of view of Aristotle, that is, as a single absolute universal being, a pure self-active thought, impassive and unchanging. It is clear that in such a philosophical system there is no place for the Logos, in its Christian understanding. From the point of view of the dynamists, Christ was a simple man and differed from other people only in virtue.
They recognized his birth from a Virgin, but did not consider him a God-man. It was taught that after a pious life He received some higher power, which distinguished Him from all the Old Testament prophets, however, this difference from the Old Testament prophets was only a difference in degree, and not a quality difference.
From their point of view, God is a concrete person with perfect self-consciousness, and the Logos is a property of God, similar to reason in man, a kind of non-hypostatic knowledge. The Logos, in their opinion, is one person with God the Father, and it is impossible to speak of the existence of the Logos outside the Father. They were called dynamists because they called the Logos a divine force, a force, naturally, non-hypostatic, impersonal. This power descended on Jesus just as it descended on the prophets.
Mary gave birth to a simple man, equal to us, who through free efforts became holy and righteous, and in him the Logos was created from above and dwelt in him, as in a temple. At the same time, the Logos and man remained different natures, and their union was only a contact in wisdom, will and energy, a kind of movement of friendship. However, they admitted that Christ had reached such a degree of unity that in a certain figurative sense one could speak of Him as the eternal Son of God.
Monarchian-dynamists used the term "consubstantial" to denote the unity of the Logos with the Father. Thus, this term, which subsequently played a huge role in the development of dogmatic teaching, was compromised. This doctrine, represented by Bishop Paul of Samosata, was condemned at the two Councils of Antioch in 264-65 and 269.
Obviously, within the framework of this doctrine there is no place for either the doctrine of the deification of man, or the doctrine of the unity of man with God. And a reaction to this kind of theology was another kind of monarchianism, which received the name modalism (from the Latin "modus", which means "image" or "way").
- 3.1.1.2. MODALISM
Then its center moved to Rome, where Praxeus became its preachers, and then the Roman presbyter Sabellius, after whom this heresy is sometimes also called Sabellianism. Some popes (Victor I and Callistus) supported the medalists for some time.
Noetus taught that Christ is the Father Himself, the Father Himself begotten and suffered. The essence of Noet's teaching boils down to the following: in His being, as a substratum, as a subject, God is unchanging and one, but He can be changeable in relation to the world, the Father and the Son are different as two aspects, modes of the Divine. Tertullian, in his polemic against the medalists, said that the God of Noet is "the one God who changes his skin."
“Its fullest expression and completion,” according to V.V. Bolotov, modalism received from the Roman presbyter Sabellius.
Sabellius was a Libyan by birth, he appeared in Rome around 200. In his theological constructions, Sabellius proceeds from the idea of a single God, Whom he calls the monad, or Son-Father. As a geometric image explaining the idea of the God of the monad, Sabellius offers a dimensionless point that contains everything in itself.
The monad, according to Sabellius, is a silent God, a God outside of relation to the world. However, due to some unknown inner necessity, the silent God becomes the speaking God. And as a result of this change, the brevity inherent in God is replaced by expansion. This speech of the hitherto silent God is identified with the creation of the world.
As a result of this strange metamorphosis, the Son-Father becomes the Logos. However, the Logos does not change in its substratum, that is, this change is only in relation to the created world.
Logos, in turn, according to Sabellius, is also a single entity that consistently manifests itself in three modes, or persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the modes of the Logos.
According to the teachings of Sabellius, the Father created the world and bestowed the Sinai legislation, the Son became incarnate and lived with people on earth, and the Holy Spirit from the day of Pentecost inspires and governs the Church. But in all these three modes, successively replacing one another, a single Logos operates.
The modus of the Holy Spirit, according to Sabellius, is also not eternal. It will also have its end. The Holy Spirit will return to the Logos, the Logos will again shrink into a monad, and the speaking God will again become a silent God, and everything will be immersed in silence.
In the III century, the teachings of Sabellius were twice condemned at local councils. In 261, the Council of Alexandria, chaired by St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and a year later, in 262, the Council of Rome, chaired by Pope Dionysius of Rome.
- 3.1.2. Origen's doctrine of the Trinity
Origen's doctrine of the Trinity has both its strengths and weaknesses, which are predetermined by the basic premises of his philosophy and his theology. He develops the doctrine of the Trinity from the point of view of his doctrine of the Logos, as the second Hypostasis of the Trinity.
It should be noted that Origen was the first who tried to establish the difference in terms in trinitarian theology. Since the time of Aristotle, there has been no fundamental difference between the terms "essence" and "hypostasis", and these terms were used as synonyms by some authors even in the 5th century.
Origen was the first to draw a clear line: the term "essence" began to be used to denote unity in God, and "hypostasis" to distinguish Persons. However, having established these terminological differences, Origen did not give a positive definition of these concepts.
In his doctrine of the Logos, Origen proceeds from the idea of the Logos-mediator, which he borrowed from Neoplatonist philosophy. In Greek philosophy, the idea of the Logos was one of the most popular. Logos was seen as an intermediary between God and the world he created. Since it was believed that God Himself, being a transcendent being, cannot come into contact with anything created, He needs an intermediary to create the world and manage it, and this intermediary is the Divine Word - the Logos.
Origen's doctrine of the Trinity is therefore called "economic" because he considers the relationship of the Divine Persons from the point of view of their relation to the created world. Origen's thought does not rise to consider the relationship of the Father and the Son, regardless of the existence of the created world.
Origen incorrectly taught about God as the Creator. He believed that God is the Creator by nature, and creation is an act of Divine nature, and not an act of divine will. The difference between what is by nature and what is by will was established much later by Saint Athanasius of Alexandria.
Since God is the Creator by nature, He cannot but create and is constantly busy creating some worlds, in other words, creation is co-eternal with God. So, in one of his works, he writes: “We believe that just as after the destruction of this world there will be another, there were other worlds, earlier than this one was.”
Starting from false premises, Origen, however, comes to the correct conclusion. The scheme of his thought is as follows: God is the Creator, He creates eternally, the Son is born by the Father precisely in order to be a mediator in creation, and, consequently, the very birth of the Son must be thought of eternally. This is Origen's main positive contribution to the development of trinitarian theology - the doctrine of the pre-eternal birth of the Son.
In addition, Origen, speaking of the pre-eternal birth, quite correctly notes that the pre-eternal birth cannot be thought of as an emanation, which was characteristic of the Gnostics, and one cannot be thought of as a dissection of the Divine essence, such a bias is found in Western theology, in particular, in Tertullian.
The absence of a unified ternary terminology led to the fact that many contradictory statements can be found in Origen. On the one hand, proceeding from the economic doctrine of the Logos, he clearly belittles the dignity of the Son, sometimes calls Him a kind of average nature, in comparison with God the Father and creation, sometimes directly calls Him a creation (“ktisma” or “poiema”), but at the same time the same time denies the creation of the Son out of nothing (ex oyk onton or ex nihilo).
Origen's doctrine of the Holy Spirit remains completely undeveloped. On the one hand, he speaks of the Holy Spirit as a special hypostasis, he speaks of the ejection of the Holy Spirit by the Father through the Son, but by dignity he places Him below the Son.
So, the positive aspects of Origen's teaching about the Holy Trinity. Origen's most essential intuition is the doctrine of the pre-eternal begetting of the Son, since begetting is begetting in eternity, the Father was never without the Son.
Origen rightly pointed out the wrong line of thought in this matter and rejected the doctrine of pre-eternal birth as an emanation or division of the Divine essence.
It is also important to note that Origen unconditionally recognizes the personality and hypostasis of the Son. His son is not an impersonal force, as was the case with the monarchian-dynamists, and not a mode of the Father or a single Divine essence, as with the medalists, but a Personality different from the Personality of the Father.
Negative aspects of the teachings of Origen. About the Logos, about the Son of God, Origen argues only economically. The very relations of the Divine Persons are of interest to Origen only insofar as, along with God, there is a created world, i.e., the existence of the Son - mediator is conditioned by the existence of the created world.
Origen cannot abstract from the existence of the world in order to think of the relationship between the Father and the Son in and of itself.
The consequence of this is the humiliation of the Son in comparison with the Father, the Son, according to Origen, is not a full owner of the divine essence like the Father, He is only involved in it.
Origen does not have any seriously developed doctrine of the Holy Spirit, in general, his doctrine of the Trinity results in subordination, the Trinity of Origen is a decreasing Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, each subsequent one is in a subordinate position in relation to the previous one, in other words The Divine Persons in Origen are not of equal honor, are not equal in dignity.
And, finally, it should be noted that Origen does not have a clear ternary terminology. First of all, this was expressed in the absence of a distinction between the concepts of "essence" and "hypostasis".
- 3.2. Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century
- 3.2.1. Prerequisites for the emergence of Arianism. Lucian of Samosata
However, Professor V.V. Bolotov, in his Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church, and in his works Origen's Teaching on the Trinity, argues that Arius and Origen proceeded from completely different premises, and the basic intuitions of their trinitarian theology are different. Therefore, to call Origen the forerunner of Arianism is unfair.
Perhaps Bolotov's point of view on this issue is more justified. Indeed, Arius was not an Origenist, in his theological education he was an Antiochene, the Antiochian theological school in matters of philosophy was guided by Aristotle, and not by the Neoplatonists, in contrast to the Alexandrians, to which Origen also belonged.
The strongest influence on Arius seems to have been Lucian of Samosata, an associate of Paul of Samosata. Lucian in A.D. 312 accepted a martyr's death during one of the last waves of persecution of Christians. He was a very educated man, among his students were not only Arius, but also other prominent leaders of Arianism, for example, Eusebius of Nicomedia. Aetius and Eunomius also considered Lucian one of their teachers.
Lucian proceeded from the idea of a radical difference between the Deity and everything created. Although he recognized, unlike the dynamists and medalists, the personal existence of the Son, nevertheless, he drew a very sharp line between God proper and the Logos, and also called the Logos by the terms "ktisma", "poiema".
It is quite possible that not all the works of Lucian of Samosata have come down to us, that he already had the teaching that the Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
- 3.2.2. Aria Doctrine
Arius' reasoning scheme is as follows: if the Son was created not from nothing, not from non-existent, therefore, he was created from the essence of the Father, and if He is also without beginning to the Father, then there is no difference at all between the Father and the Son, and thus we fall into Sabellianism .
Moreover, the origin of the Son from the essence of the Father must necessarily presuppose either an emanation or a division of the Divine essence, which in itself is absurd, for it presupposes some variability in God.
About the year 310, Arius moved from Antioch to Alexandria, and about the year 318 he preached his doctrine, the main points of which are as follows:
- The absolute monarchy of the Father. “There was a time when the Son was not,” Arius argued.
- Creation of the Son from nothing by the will of the Father. The Son is thus the highest creation, the instrument (organon "organon") for the creation of the world.
- The Holy Spirit is the highest creation of the Son and, therefore, in relation to the Father, the Holy Spirit is, as it were, a "grandson." Just as with Origen, there is a diminishing Trinity here, but the essential difference is that Arius separates the Son and the Spirit from the Father, recognizing them as creatures, which Origen, despite his subordination, did not do. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria called the Aryan Trinity "a society of three unlike beings."
- 3.2.3. Controversy with Arianism in the 4th century
Saint Athanasius posed the question before the Arians: “For what, strictly speaking, is the Son a mediator?” The Arians answered literally the following: “the creation could not take upon itself the unmitigated hand of the Father and the Father’s creative power,” that is, the Son was created so that through Him, by Him, everything else could come into being.
Saint Athanasius pointed out the whole stupidity of this kind of reasoning, because if the creature cannot receive the building power, then why in. In such a case, the Logos, who is himself created, can take this power upon Himself. Logically, the creation of the Son of the mediator would require its own mediator, and the creation of the mediator would require its own mediator, and so on ad infinitum. As a result, creation could never begin.
It can be said that the very presence of the Son in the Arius system is functionally unjustified, i.e. Arius assigns him a place in his system solely by virtue of tradition, and the Divine Logos itself in his system can be likened to some Atlanta, at the facade of the house, which with great tension supports the vaults of the cosmic building, which stand perfectly even without his help.
Arianism was condemned in 325 at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. The main act of this Council was the compilation of the Nicene Creed, in which non-biblical terms were introduced, among which the term "omousios" - "consubstantial" played a special role in the trinitarian disputes of the 4th century.
In essence, the trinitarian disputes of the 4th century had as their ultimate goal an Orthodox explanation of the meaning of this term. Since the Council Fathers themselves did not give a precise explanation of the terms, a tense theological dispute flared up after the Council. Among the participants of which there were few real Arians, but many did not quite correctly understand the Nicene faith, misunderstood the term "consubstantial." He was simply embarrassing to many, since in the East this term had a bad reputation, in 268 at the Council of Antioch it was condemned as an expression of modalist heresy.
According to the church historian Socrates, this "war" was no different from a night battle, because both sides did not understand why they were scolding one another. This was also facilitated by the lack of a common terminology.
The very spirit of the trinitarian disputes of the fourth century is well conveyed in the writings of St. Athanasius of Alexandria and the great Cappadocians. It is difficult for us to imagine it now, but at that time theological disputes were not the occupation of a narrow circle of theologians, they involved the broad masses of the people. Even the women in the bazaar did not talk about prices or crops, but argued bitterly about the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and about other theological issues.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria writes about those times “To this day, the Arians, not in small numbers, catch youths in the marketplace and ask them a question not from the Divine Scriptures, but as if pouring out from the abundance of their hearts: did the one who did not exist or that exist out of existence create? did he create him as a being or a bearer? And again, is there one unbegotten or two unbegotten?
Arianism, by virtue of its rationalism and extreme simplification of the Christian faith, was very sympathetic to the masses who had recently come to the Church, because it made Christianity understandable for people with an insufficiently high educational level in a simplified, accessible form.
Here is what St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Everything is full of people talking about the incomprehensible. If you ask how many obols (kopecks) you have to pay, he philosophizes about the born and the unborn. If you want to know the price of bread, they answer: The Father is greater than the Son. You ask: is the bath ready? They say: The son came from nothing.
One of the serious trends among the theological parties of the 4th century was the so-called Omyusianism. It is necessary to distinguish between two terms that differ in spelling by just one letter: omousios; - consubstantial and omoiusios - "like in essence".
The Omiusian doctrine was expressed at the Council of Ancyra in 358. An outstanding role among the Omiusians was played by Bishop Basil of Ancyra.
The Omiusians rejected the term "consubstantial" as an expression of modalism, since from their point of view the term "omousios" placed an excessive emphasis on the unity of the Godhead and thus led to the fusion of the Persons. They put forward their own term as a counterbalance: “likeness in essence”, or “similarly”. The purpose of this term is to emphasize the difference between the Father and the Son.
The difference between these two terms is well said by Fr. Pavel Florensky:
"Omiusios" or "omoiusios;" - “similar in essence”, it means - of the same essence, with the same essence, and at least “even it was given the meaning “omoiusios kata panta” - the same in everything” - everything is one, it can never mean numerical, t The whole force of the mysterious dogma is established at once by the single word "homousios" which was fully pronounced at the Council of 318, because in it, in this word, there is an indication of both real unity and real difference. "("The pillar and ground of the truth").
- 3.2.4. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity of the great Cappadocians. Ternary terminology
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, in his polemic with the Arians, proceeded from purely soteriological premises, he was insufficiently engaged in a positive disclosure of the doctrine of the Trinity, in particular, in the development of an accurate trinitarian terminology. This was done by the great Cappadocians: the trinitarian terminology they created made it possible to find a way out of that labyrinth of creed definitions in which the theologians of the 4th century were confused.
The great Cappadocians, first of all, Basil the Great, strictly distinguished between the concepts of "essence" and "hypostasis". Basil the Great defined the difference between “essence” and “hypostasis” as between general and particular, what Aristotle called the “first essence” began to be called the term “hypostasis”, what Aristotle called the “second essence” began to be called the actual “essence”.
According to the teachings of the Cappadocians, the essence of the Deity and its distinctive properties, i.e., the unbeginning of being and Divine dignity belong equally to all three hypostases. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are its manifestations in the Persons, each of which has the fullness of the divine essence and is in inseparable unity with it. The hypostases differ from each other only in personal (hypostatic) properties.
In addition, the Cappadocians actually identified (primarily two Gregory: Nazianzus and Nyssa) the concept of "hypostasis" and "person". “Face” in theology and philosophy of that time was a term that belonged not to the ontological, but to the descriptive plane, that is, the mask of an actor or the legal role that a person performed could be called a face.
By identifying "person" and "hypostasis" in trinitarian theology, the Cappadocians thereby transferred this term from the descriptive plane to the ontological plane. The consequence of this identification was, in essence, the emergence of a new concept that the ancient world did not know, this term "personality". The Cappadocians succeeded in reconciling the abstractness of Greek philosophical thought with the biblical idea of a personal Deity.
The main thing in this teaching is that a person is not a part of nature and cannot be thought in terms of nature. The Cappadocians and their immediate disciple St. Amphilochius of Iconium called the Divine hypostases "tropi yparxeos", i.e., "ways of being", of the Divine nature.
According to their teaching, a person is a hypostasis of being, which freely hypostasizes its nature. Thus, a personal being in its concrete manifestations is not predetermined by an essence that is given to it from the outside, therefore God is not an essence that would precede Persons. When we call God the absolute Personality, we thereby want to express the idea that God is not determined by any external or internal necessity, that He is absolutely free in relation to His own being, is always what He wants to be and always acts in such a way. as he wants, i.e. freely hypostasizes His triune nature.
- 3.2.5. Dukhoborism
Another name for Doukhoborism is Macedonianism, after the Archbishop of Constantinople Macedonia, who died in 360. How much Macedonia itself was involved in the emergence of this heresy is a moot point. It is quite possible that this heresy arose after his death; heretics-Doukhobors could hide behind his name and authority as a bishop of the capital of the eastern part of the Empire.
In the polemic against the Doukhobors, St. Athanasius of Alexandria and the great Cappadocians used the same method as in the dispute with the Arians. According to St. Athanasius and St. Basil the Great, the Holy Spirit is the beginning and power of the sanctification and deification of the creature, and therefore, if He is not the perfect God, then the sanctification that He gives is in vain and insufficient.
Since it is the Holy Spirit who assimilates the redeeming merits of the Savior to people, then if He Himself is not God, then He cannot communicate to us the grace of sanctification and, consequently, the salvation of man, real deification is impossible.
Through the efforts of the Cappadocians, the Second Ecumenical Council was prepared. On it the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was finally approved, and Nicene Orthodoxy was recognized as the true confession of the Orthodox faith in the interpretation given to it by the great Cappadocians.
- 3.3. Trinitarian delusions after the Second Ecumenical Council
Tritheists argued that in God there are three Persons and three essences, and unity in relation to God is nothing more than a generic concept. In contrast to them, the tetratheists, in addition to the existence of Persons in God, also recognized a special Divine essence in which these Persons participate and from which they draw their Divinity.
Finally, the trinitarian error is the filioque, which was finally established in the Western Church in the first half of the 11th century. Most of the ancient heresies were reproduced in one form or another in Protestantism. So, Michael Servet in the 16th century revived modalism, Socinus, at about the same time, dynamism, Jacob Arminius - subordinatism, according to this teaching, the Son and the Holy Spirit borrow their Divine dignity from the Father.
The eighteenth-century Swedish mystic Emmanuel Swedenborg revived patripassianism, that is, the doctrine of the suffering of the Father. According to this teaching, the only God the Father assumed a human form and suffered.
4. Evidence of Revelation about the Trinity of Persons in God
- 4.1. Indications of the Trinity (plurality) of Persons in God in the Old Testament
This plurality is already mentioned in the first verse of the Bible (Gen. 1:1): “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The verb "barra" (created) is in the singular, and the noun "elohim" is in the plural, which literally means "gods". In his notes on the book of Genesis, St. Philaret of Moscow notes:
“In this passage of the Hebrew text, the word elohim, Gods proper, expresses a certain plurality, while the expression “created” shows the unity of the Creator. The conjecture about the indication in this way of expression of the sacrament of the Holy Trinity deserves respect.
Gen. 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The word "make" is plural.
The same Gen. 8:22: “And God said, Behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.” Of Us is also plural.
Gen. 11, 6-7, where we are talking about the Babylonian pandemonium: “And the Lord said: ... let us go down and confuse their language there”, the word “we will go down” is in the plural.
St. Basil the Great in "Shestodnev" (Conversation 9), comments on these words as follows:
“A truly strange idle talk is to assert that someone sits and orders himself, oversees himself, compels himself powerfully and urgently. The second is an indication of the actual three Persons, but without naming the persons and without distinguishing them.
XVIII chapter of the book of Genesis, the appearance of three angels to Abraham. At the beginning of the chapter it says that God appeared to Abraham, in the Hebrew text is "Jehovah". Abraham, going out to meet the three strangers, bows to them and addresses them with the word "Adonai", literally "Lord", in the singular.
There are two interpretations of this passage in patristic exegesis. First: the Son of God, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, appeared, accompanied by two angels. We find such an interpretation in much. Justin the Philosopher, St. Hilary of Pictavia, St. John Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus.
However, most of the fathers - Saints Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Blessed Augustine - believe that this is the appearance of the Holy Trinity, the first revelation to man about the Trinity of the Godhead.
It was the second opinion that was accepted by the Orthodox Tradition and found its embodiment, firstly, in hymnography (the canon of the Trinity Sunday Midnight Office 1, 3 and 4 tones), which refers to this event precisely as the appearance of the Triune God and in iconography (the famous icon " Trinity of the Old Testament).
Blessed Augustine (“On the City of God”, book 26) writes: “Abraham meets three, worships one. Seeing the three, he comprehended the mystery of the Trinity, and bowing as if to one, he confessed the One God in Three Persons.
An indirect indication of the trinity of persons in God is the priestly blessing that existed in the Old Testament (Numbers 6:24-25). It sounded like this:
“God bless you and keep you! may the Lord look upon you with His bright face and have mercy on you! May the Lord turn His face towards you and give you peace!”
The threefold appeal to the Lord can also serve as a veiled indication of the trinity of persons.
The prophet Isaiah describes his vision in the Jerusalem Temple. He saw how the Seraphim, surrounding the Throne of God, cried: "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts." At the same time, Isaiah himself heard the voice of God: whom shall I send and who will go for Us? That is, God speaks of Himself both in the singular - Me, and in the plural - for Us (Isaiah 6:2).
In the New Testament, these words of the prophet Isaiah are interpreted precisely as a revelation about the Most Holy Trinity. We see this from parallel places. In In. 12:41 says, "Isaiah saw the glory of the Son of God and spoke of Him." Thus, this revelation of Isaiah was also the revelation of the Son of God.
In Acts. 28:25-26 it is said that Isaiah heard the voice of the Holy Spirit that sent him to the Israelites, so it was also a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. So Isaiah's vision was a revelation of the Trinity.
- 4.1.2. Indications of the Person of the Son of God with His Distinction from the Person of God the Father
First, it is the so-called "Angel of Jehovah." In the Old Testament, the Angel of Jehovah is mentioned in the description of some theophany. These are the appearances of Hagar on the way to Sura (Gen. 16, 7-14), to Abraham, during the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22, 10-18), at the appearance of God to Moses in the fiery bush (Ex. 3, 2-15 ), also refers to the Angel of Jehovah.
The prophet Isaiah (Is. 63, 8-10) says: “He (i.e., the Lord) was their Savior, in all their sorrow He did not leave them (meaning the Israelites) and the Angel of His face saved them.”
Another reference to the Son of God in the Old Testament is Divine Wisdom. The book of the Wisdom of Solomon says that she is the "Only Begotten Spirit." In Sirah (Sir. 24, 3) Wisdom says about itself: "I came out of the mouth of the Most High."
In Prem. 7:25-26 says that "She is the breath of the power of God and a pure outpouring of the glory of the Almighty ... She is ... the image of His goodness." In Prem. 8, 3 says that she "...has cohabitation with God," in Prem. 8, 4, that "she is the secret of the mind of God and the elector of His deeds" and, finally, in Prem. 9:4 that she "squats down on the throne of God." All these sayings concern the relationship of Wisdom to God.
About the attitude of Wisdom to the creation of the world, about her participation in the creation of the world. In Proverbs. 8:30 Wisdom itself says: "... I was with Him (i.e., with God) an artist" during the creation of the world. In Prem. 7:21 she is also called "the artist of all things." Prem. 9, 9: “Wisdom is with you, which knows your works and was present when you created the world, and knows what is pleasing before your eyes”, here it is said about the participation of Wisdom in creation.
About the participation of wisdom in the work of Providence. Prem. 7, 26-27: “She ... is a pure mirror of the action of God ... She is one, but she can do everything, and, staying in herself, renews everything”, i.e. here wisdom is assimilated the property of omnipotence - “everything can” . The tenth chapter of the Book of Wisdom says that Wisdom brought the people out of Egypt.
Basic intuitions of the Old Testament in the doctrine of wisdom. It is quite obvious that the properties of Wisdom in the Old Testament are identical with those properties that in the New Testament are assimilated to the Son of God: the personality of being, unity with God, origin from God through birth, pre-eternity of being, participation in creation, participation in Divine Providence, omnipotence.
The Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the New Testament constructs some of His statements in the image of Old Testament wisdom. For example, Sir. 24, wisdom says of itself: "I am like a vine that brings forth grace." The Lord in the New Testament: "I am the vine, and you are the branches." Wisdom says, "Come to me." The Lord in the New Testament - "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened"...
Some contradiction in the doctrine of wisdom may be the following verse in the Slavic translation of the Old Testament. In Proverbs. 8:22 says: "The Lord created me at the beginning of His ways in His works." The word "created" as it were points to the creatureliness of wisdom. The word “created” is in the Septuagint, but in the Hebrew, Massaret text there is a verb that is correctly translated into Russian as “prepared” or “had”, which does not contain the meaning of creation from nothing. Therefore, in the synodal translation, the word “created” was replaced by “had”, which is more in line with the meaning of Scripture.
The next name for the Son of God in the Old Testament is the Word. It is found in the Psalms.
Ps. 32:6: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the spirit of his mouth all their host.”
Ps. 106:20: "He sent his Word and healed them, and delivered them from their graves."
In the New Testament, according to the holy Evangelist John the Theologian, the Word is the name of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
The Old Testament messianic prophecies also point to the Son, His difference from the Father.
Ps. 2:7: “The Lord said to me: You are my Son; I have now begotten you."
Ps. 109, 1, 3: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand ... from the womb before the daylight day, your birth is like dew." These verses indicate, on the one hand, the personal difference between the Father and the Son, and, on the other hand, on the image of the origin of the Son from the Father - through birth.
- 4.1.3. Indications of the Person of the Holy Spirit with His distinction from the Father and the Son
St. Basil the Great says that the Holy Spirit, as it were, “incubated”, “revived” the primitive waters, just as a bird warms and hatches eggs with its warmth, i.e. we are not talking about moving in space, but about a creative Divine action .
Is. 63:10: "They rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit." Is. 48:16: "The Lord God and His Spirit sent me." In these words of the Old Testament about the Spirit of God, there is an indication, firstly, of the personality of the Holy Spirit, since it is impossible to grieve an impersonal force and an impersonal force cannot send anyone anywhere. Secondly, participation in the work of creation is assimilated to the Holy Spirit.
- 4.2. New Testament Evidence
- 4.2.1. Indications of the trinity of Persons without indicating Their difference
Further, the commandment about baptism, which the Lord gives to His disciples after the Resurrection (Matt. 28, 19): “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
Here the word "name" is in the singular, although it refers not only to the Father, but also to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit together. St. Ambrose of Milan comments on this verse as follows: “The Lord said “in the name”, and not “in the names”, because there is one God, not many names, because there are not two Gods and not three Gods.
2 Cor. 13:13: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." With this expression, the apostle Paul emphasizes the personality of the Son and the Spirit, which give gifts along with the Father.
1, In. 5:7: “Three bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” This passage from the epistle of the apostle and evangelist John is controversial, since this verse is not found in ancient Greek manuscripts.
The fact that this verse appeared in the modern text of the New Testament is usually explained by the fact that Erasmus of Rotterdam, who made the first printed edition of the New Testament, relied on later manuscripts dating back to the 14th century.
In general, this question is quite complex and not fully resolved, although in the West many editions of the New Testament are already published without this verse. This verse is found in Latin manuscripts of the 4th-5th centuries. How he got there is not entirely clear. It is suggested that perhaps these were marginalia, i.e., marginal notes that were made by some thoughtful reader, and then the scribes entered these notes directly into the text itself.
But, on the other hand, it is obvious that the ancient Latin translations were made from Greek texts, it may well be that since in the 4th century almost the entire Christian East was in the hands of the Arians, they, naturally, were interested in erasing this verse from the test of the New Testament, while in the West the Arians had no real power. It may well be, therefore, that this verse has been preserved in Western Latin manuscripts, while it has disappeared from Greek. However, there are good reasons to believe that these words were not originally in the text of John's epistle.
Prologue of the Gospel of John (John 1, 1): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here God is understood to mean the Father, and the Son is called the Word, i.e., the Son was eternally with the Father and was eternally God.
The Transfiguration of the Lord is also the Revelation of the Holy Trinity. Here is how V.N. Lossky comments on this event in the gospel history:
“That is why the Epiphany and the Transfiguration are celebrated so solemnly. We celebrate the Revelation of the Most Holy Trinity, for the voice of the Father was heard and the Holy Spirit was present. In the first case under the guise of a dove, in the second - like a radiant cloud that overshadowed the apostles.
- 4.2.2. Indications on the difference between Divine Persons and on Divine Persons separately
“In the very first verses of the Prologue, the Father is called God, Christ is the Word, and the Word in this Beginning, which here is not temporal, but ontological, is at the same time God. In the beginning the Word was God, and other than the Father, and the Word was with God. These three statements of the holy evangelist John are the seed from which the whole Trinitarian theology has grown, they immediately oblige our thought to affirm both identity and difference in God.
More indications of the difference between the Divine Persons.
Matt. 11:27: “All things are delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wants to reveal.
In. 14:31: “But so that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father commanded Me, so I do.”
In. 5:17: "Jesus said to them, 'My Father is working to this day, and I am working.'"
These verses point to the difference between the hypostases of the Father and the Son. In the Gospel of John (chapters 14, 15, 16) the Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit as another Comforter. The question may arise: why is there a “different” Comforter, what other Comforter is there?
This is due to the peculiarities of synodal translation. In 1 Jn. 2:1, you will see that there the Lord Jesus Christ is called the word "Intercessor" (in the Russian translation). In the Greek text, this is "paraklitos", i.e. the same word as in the Gospel of John is used to designate the Holy Spirit.
The word "parakaleo" (parakaleo) can have two meanings: on the one hand, it means "to console", and, on the other hand, it can mean "to call", to call for help. For example, this word could mean calling a witness to court to testify in favor of the accused, or calling a lawyer to defend one's interests in court. In the Latin text, in both cases, the word "advocatus (advocatus)" is used.
In the Russian translation, it is rendered differently, for the Spirit - as "Comforter", and for the Son - as "Khotadai". In principle, both translations are possible, but in this case the words “another Comforter” become not entirely clear. The Son is also, according to the Gospel of John, the Comforter and, calling the Spirit another Comforter, - “allos Parakletos”, the gospels thereby indicates the personal difference between the Son and the Spirit.
1 Cor. 12:3: "No one can call Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit," this is also an indication of the difference between the Son and the Spirit. In the same chapter (12:11) it says: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He pleases.” This is the clearest reference in the New Testament to the personal existence of the Holy Spirit, since the impersonal power cannot divide as it pleases.
5. Belief of the ancient Church in the Trinity of the Godhead
In Soviet times, in atheistic literature, one could come across the assertion that the ancient Church in the first centuries of its existence did not know the doctrine of the Trinity, that the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of the development of theological thought, and it does not appear immediately. However, the most ancient monuments of church writing do not give the slightest grounds for such conclusions.For example, mchn. Justin the Philosopher (mid-2nd century) (First apology, chapter 13): "We honor and adore the Father and the One who came from Him - the Son and the Spirit of the prophet." All ante-Nicene creeds contain confessions of faith in the Trinity.
Liturgical practice also bears witness to this. For example, a small doxology: “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (and its other forms, in ancient times there were several forms of small doxology) is one of the oldest parts of Christian worship.
Another liturgical monument is the hymn that was included in Vespers, “Quiet Light”... Tradition attributes it to the martyr Athenogenes, whose martyrdom, according to Tradition, took place in 169.
This is also evidenced by the practice of performing baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity.
The oldest monument of Christian writing from among those not included in the New Testament is the Didache, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", which, according to modern researchers, dates back to 60-80 years. I century. It already contains the baptismal form we use today: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The doctrine of the Trinity is quite clearly expressed in the works of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, and other authors of the II century.
6. Evidence of Revelation on the Divine Dignity and Equality of Divine Persons
When talking about the three Divine Persons, the following question may arise: are they all Gods in the true sense of the word? After all, the word God can also be used in a figurative sense. In the Old Testament, for example, the judges of Israel are called "gods". The Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 4:4) calls Satan himself "the god of this world."- 6.1. The Divine Dignity of God the Father
We restrict ourselves to two links. In In. 17:3 the Lord Jesus Christ calls His Father "the only true God." 1 Cor. 8:6: "We have one God the Father, of whom are all." Since the Divine dignity of the Father is beyond doubt, the task is reduced to proving with references to the Holy. Scripture that the Son and the Holy Spirit have the same Divine dignity as the Father, that is, to prove the equality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the Divine dignity has no degrees and gradations.
- 6.2. Evidence of Revelation on the Divine Dignity of the Son and His Equality with the Father
- 6.2.1. Testimonies of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself
The Pharisees, hearing this statement of Christ, were indignant at Him, because He called God His Father, making Himself equal to God. At the same time, Christ not only does not correct the Pharisees in any way, does not refute them, but, on the contrary, confirms that they completely correctly understood His statement.
In the same conversation after the healing of the paralytic (John 5:19-20), the Lord says: “... The Son can do nothing of Himself unless He sees the Father doing: for whatever He does, the Son does also” . This is an indication of the unity of the will and action of the Father and the Son.
OK. 5:20-21 - healing of the paralytic in Capernaum. When the paralytic was brought on a bed and lowered to the feet of Jesus through the dismantled roof, the Lord, having healed the sick man, addressed him with the words: “Your sins are forgiven you.” According to Jewish ideas, as well as according to Christian ones, only God can forgive sins. Thus Christ delights in the divine prerogatives. This is precisely how the scribes and Pharisees understood it, who said to themselves: “Who can forgive sins except God alone?”
Sacred Scripture ascribes to the Son the fullness of the knowledge of the Father, Jn. 10:15: “As the Father knows Me, so I know the Father”, points to the unity of the life of the Son with the Father Jn. 5:26: "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he gave to the Son to have life in himself."
The Evangelist John speaks of this in 1 Jn. 1:2: “We proclaim to you this eternal life which was with the Father and has appeared to us.” At the same time, the Son, just like the Father, is the source of life for the world and man.
In. 5:21: “For as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so the Son also gives life to whomever He will.” The Lord repeatedly points directly to His unity with the Father, Jn. 10:30: “I and the Father are one”, Jn. 10, 38: "... the Father is in Me and I in Him", Jn. 17:10: "And all that is mine is yours, and yours is mine."
The Lord Himself points to the eternity of His existence (John 8:58) “...Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” In the High Priestly Prayer (John 17:5) the Lord says: “And now, Father, glorify me with you with the glory that I had with you before the world was.”
The Son is the whole Father in Himself. At the Last Supper, at the request of the Apostle Philip, “Lord! show us the Father, and it is enough for us,” the Lord answers: “... he who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). The Lord points out that the Son should be honored in the same way as the Father (John 5:23): "... He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." And not only to honor as the Father, but also to believe in Him as in God: Jn. 14:1: "... believe in God, and believe in Me."
- 6.2.2. Testimony of the Apostles on the Divine Dignity of the Son and His Equality with the Father
The Apostle Thomas (John 20, 28), in response to the Savior's suggestion to put his fingers in nail sores, exclaims "My Lord and my God." Jude. 4: "those who deny the only Sovereign God and our Lord Jesus Christ." Here the Lord is directly called God.
- 6.2.2.1. TESTIMONIES OF THE APOSTLE JOHN
In Rev. 19:13 also refers to the Word of God. Ap. John describes a vision of the Faithful and True, who judges and fights in righteousness. This Faithful and True is called by John the Word of God. We can consider that the "Word" of the Evangelist John means the Son of God.
In 1 Jn. 5:20 Jesus Christ is directly called God: "This is the true God and eternal life." In the same verse the Lord is called the true Son, and in 1 Jn. 4, 9 app. John speaks of Christ as the only begotten Son: "God sent his only begotten Son into the world." The names "only-begotten", "true" are intended to show us a very special relationship of the Son to the Father, which is fundamentally different from the relationship of all other beings to God.
Ap. John also points to the unity of the life of the Father and the Son. 1 In. 5:11-12: “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son (of God) has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.”
Finally, app. John ascribes Divine properties to the Son of God, in particular, the property of omnipotence (Rev. 1, 8): “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord, who is and was and is to come, the Almighty.”
The word "Almighty" indicates omnipotence.
- 6.2.2.2. TESTIMONIES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL
Acts. 20, 28, an episode when the apostle Paul, on his way to Jerusalem, says goodbye to the Ephesian presbyters in Melite. He speaks of "the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased for Himself by His own blood," i.e., points to the Divine dignity, calling Christ God.
In Col. 2:9, the Apostle Paul affirms that in Him, that is, in Christ, “dwells all the fullness of the bodily Godhead,” that is, all the fullness of the Godhead, which is inherent in the Father.
In Heb. 1:3, the apostle calls the Son “the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis”, it is obvious that the word “hypostasis” is used here in the sense of “essence”, and not in the sense in which we understand it now.
2 Cor. 4, 4 and in Col. 1:15 the Son is spoken of as "the image of the invisible God." It's the same in Phil. 2:6 "He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." The Apostle Paul assimilates to the Son of God the property of eternity, in Col. 1:15 says of the Son that He is "begotten before every creature." In Heb. 1:6 the Son is spoken of as the "Original", i.e., born before the existence of the world.
All of the above convinces us that the Son of God has the Divine dignity equally with the Father, that He is God in the true, and not in the figurative sense.
- 6.2.3. Interpretation of the so-called "derogatory passages" of the Gospel
First of all, this is Ying. 14:28: “I am going to the Father; for my Father is greater than me." This verse can be interpreted in two ways: both from the point of view of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and from the Christological point of view.
From the standpoint of the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, everything is simple here, according to the hypostatic relationship, the Father, as the Head and Culprit of the Son's existence, is greater in relation to Him.
But this verse received a Christological interpretation in the Orthodox Church. This interpretation was given at the Councils of Constantinople in 1166 and 1170. The dispute that arose around this verse was connected with the teachings of Metropolitan Konstantin of Kirkir and Archimandrite John Irenik.
They argued that it was impossible to interpret this verse in terms of Christology, since humanity in Christ is completely deified, and it is generally impossible to distinguish it from the Deity. One can distinguish only mentally, in one's imagination alone. Since humanity is deified, it must be revered on an equal footing with the Divine.
The participants in the Councils of Constantinople rejected this teaching as unambiguously Monophysite, in fact preaching the fusion of Divine and human nature. They pointed out that the deification of human nature in Christ does not in any way imply a fusion of natures or a dissolution of human nature into the Divine.
Even in the state of deification, Christ remains a true Man, and in this respect, in His humanity, He is less than the Father. At the same time, the fathers of the cathedrals referred to Jn. 20, 17, the words of the Savior after the Resurrection, addressed to Mary Magdalene: “I ascend to my Father and your Father and my God and your God”, where Christ calls His Father both Father and God at the same time. This double name indicates that the difference of natures was not abolished even after the Resurrection.
Long before these Councils, in the 8th century, St. John of Damascus interpreted this verse as follows:
“He calls God Father because God is a Father by nature, and ours by grace, God is by nature to us, and He was made by grace, since He Himself became a man.”
Since the Son of God became like us in everything after the Incarnation, His Father is both God to Him and God, just as He is to us. However, for us he is God by nature, and for the Son - by economy, since the Son Himself deigned to become a man.
There are quite a few such pejorative passages in Holy Scripture. Matt. 20:23, the Savior's answer to the request of the sons of Zebedee: "Let me sit on my right hand and on my left - it does not depend on me, but for whom it is prepared by my Father." In. 15:10: "I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love." Statements like these are attributed by church exegetes to the human nature of the Savior.
In Acts. 2, 36 it is said about Christ that “God made this Jesus whom you crucified Lord and Christ”, the Evangelist Luke has the verb epoiese here, which can really be understood as “created” (in the sense of “created from nothing”). However, it is clear from the context that creation is meant here not according to nature, but according to economy, in the sense of “prepared.” 6.2.4. The Belief of the Ancient Church in the Divine Dignity of the Son of God and His Equality with the Father
One of the oldest monuments of patristic literature is the epistles of the Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-bearer, dated to about 107. In the Epistle to the Romans, in chapter 6, St. mchn. Ignatius writes:
“Let me be an imitator of the sufferings of my God. I desire the Lord, the Son of the true God and the Father of Jesus Christ - I seek Him,” that is, he directly calls Jesus Christ God.
Not only the ancient Christian writers have evidence that the ancient Christians honored Christ precisely as God. Such evidence is also available from pagan authors. For example, in a letter from Pliny the Younger (who was proconsul in Bithynia) to Emperor Trajan (no later than 117). This letter raises the question of how the proconsul should behave towards local Christians, since under Trajan there were persecutions of Christians.
Describing the life of Christians, Pliny says that they have a custom to gather together at dawn and sing hymns to Christ as God. The fact that Christians even then revered Christ precisely as God, and not just as a prophet or an outstanding person, was also known to the pagans. This is also evidenced by later pagan authors who argued with Christianity, such as Celle, Porfiry, and others.
- 6.3. Revelation Testimonies of the Divine Dignity of the Holy Spirit and His Equality with the Father and the Son*
Why the doctrine of the Spirit is stated more briefly is well explained by St. Gregory the Theologian (word 31):
“The Old Testament clearly preached the Father, not the Son with such clarity. New - opened the Son and gave an indication of the Divinity of the Spirit. It was not safe, before the divinity of the Father was confessed, to clearly preach the Son, and before the Son was recognized, to burden us with the preaching of the Holy Spirit and expose us to the danger of losing our last strength, as happened with people who are burdened with food taken inappropriately, or still weak. eyes are focused on sunlight. It was necessary that the Trinity Light should illuminate those who were enlightened with gradual additions, proceeds from glory to glory.”
There is only one direct indication that the Holy Spirit is God in Holy Scripture. In Acts. 5, 3-4, the apostle Peter denounces Ananias, who hid part of the price of the sold estate:
“Why did you allow Satan to put into your heart the idea of lying to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to men, but to God.”
In addition, there are indirect evidence of the Divine dignity of the Spirit. For example, the Apostle Paul, speaking of the human body as a temple, uses the terms "temple of God" and "temple of the Holy Spirit" as synonyms. For example 1 Cor. 3:16: "Don't you know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you."
An indirect indication of the Divine dignity of the Spirit is the commandment about baptism (Matt. 28:20) and the apostolic greeting of the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 13:13).
In the Holy The Scriptures are assimilated to the Holy Spirit, just as to the Son, Divine attributes. In particular, omniscience (1 Cor. 2, 10): “The Spirit penetrates everything, even the depths of God”, and, from the context, it is clear that the word “penetrates” is used here in the sense of “knows, comprehends”.
The ability and power of the remission of sins is assimilated to the Holy Spirit, which also only God can do (John 20, 22-23)
“Receive the Holy Spirit: to whom you forgive sins will be forgiven; on whom you leave, on that they will remain.
The Holy Spirit is credited with participating in the creation of the world. In Gen. 1:2 speaks of the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters. It is not just about mechanical movement in space, but about the Divine creative action.
The participation of the Holy Spirit in creation is spoken of in Job. Here we are talking about the creation of man: "The Spirit of God created me and the breath of the Almighty gave me life."
While attributing divine properties to the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture does not place the Holy Spirit among creatures anywhere. In 2 Tim. 3:16 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God."
In the fifth book "Against Eunomius" (which is traditionally attributed to Basil the Great, but according to the unanimous opinion of modern patrolologists, it does not belong to him, the most common opinion is that it was written by a contemporary of Basil the Great, the Alexandrian theologian Didymos Slepets) contains the following words: "Why does not the Holy Spirit God, when His writing is inspired."
The Apostle Peter (2 Pet. 1, 21), speaking of Old Testament prophecies, notes that “they were spoken by the holy men of God, being moved by the Holy Spirit”, that is, the Holy Scripture is inspired by God, because it was written by people moved by the Holy Spirit.
Then the argument of the author of the fifth book Against Eunomius becomes clear. If we call Holy Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why can't we call Him God Himself?
- 6.3.1. Major Objections to the Divine Dignity of the Holy Spirit and His Equality with the Father and the Son
Saint Gregory the Theologian explains this passage in the following way (Word 31):
“The Evangelist does not simply say “everything”, but everything that came to be, that is, everything that received the beginning of being, not with the Son the Father, not with the Son, and everything that did not have the beginning of being.” In other words, if the thought of the Doukhobors is logically continued, then one can go to the point of absurdity and assert that not only the Holy Spirit, but also the Father and the Son Himself received existence through the Word.
Sometimes they refer to the fact that the Holy Spirit in the enumeration of the Divine Persons in the Holy. Scripture is always placed in the last, third place, which supposedly is a sign of belittling His dignity.
However, there are texts of Holy Scripture where the Holy Spirit is not in the third, but in the second place. For example, in 1 Pet. 1:2, it says: "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification from the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ." Here the Holy Spirit is placed second, not third.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (“Sermon about the Holy Spirit against the Macedonian Doukhobors”, chapter 6) says:
“The order in number is considered a sign of some decrease and change in nature, it would be as if someone, seeing a flame divided in three lamps (and suppose that the cause of the third flame is the first flame, kindling the last successively through the third), then began to assert that the heat in the first flame is stronger, and in the next it concedes and changes to a smaller one, but the third one no longer calls it fire, even if it burned and shone just as accurately, and produced everything that is characteristic of fire.
Thus, the placement of the Holy Spirit in the third place is not due to His dignity, but to the nature of the Divine dispensation, in the order of dispensation the Spirit succeeds the Son, completing His work.
7. Difference of Divine Persons according to hypostatic properties
According to church teaching, Hypostases are Personalities, and not impersonal forces. At the same time, hypostases have a single nature. Naturally, the question arises, how to distinguish between them?All divine properties, both apophatic and kataphatic, belong to a common nature, they are characteristic of all three Hypostases and therefore cannot by themselves express the differences of Divine Persons. It is impossible to give an absolute definition of each Hypostasis using one of the Divine names.
One of the features of personal existence is that a person is unique and inimitable, and therefore, it cannot be defined, it cannot be summed up under a certain concept, since a concept always generalizes, it is impossible to bring it to a common denominator. Therefore, a personality can be perceived only through its relation to other personalities.
This is exactly what we see in the Holy Scriptures, where the idea of Divine Persons is based on the relationship that exists between Them.
- 7.1. Evidence of Revelation on the relationship of Divine Persons
- 7.1.1. Relationship between Father and Son
Qty. 1:15 says that the Son is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature."
Prologue of the Gospel of John: "The Word was with God." The Greek text is "with God" - "pros ton Theov". V.N. Lossky writes:
“This expression indicates movement, dynamic closeness, it could be translated “to” rather than “y”. “The word was to God,” i.e., thus “pros” contains the idea of a relationship, and this relationship between the Father and the Son is the pre-eternal birth, so the Gospel itself introduces us into the life of the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.”
- 7.1.2. The Trinitarian Position of the Holy Spirit
In. 14:26: "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name."
From these two verses it is clear that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is different from the Son, He is another Comforter, but at the same time there is no opposition between the Son and the Spirit, there is no relationship of subordination. These verses point only to the differences between the Son and the Spirit and to some correlation between them, and this correlation is not established directly, but through the relationship of the second and third Hypostasis to the Father.
In In. 15:26 the Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father." "Finding" is the hypostatic property of the Holy Spirit, which distinguishes Him from both the Father and the Son.
- 7.2. Personal (hypostatic) properties
Personal properties are properties that are incommunicable, eternally remaining unchanged, exclusively belonging to one or another of the Divine Persons. Thanks to these properties, the Persons are distinguished from each other, and we recognize them as special Hypostases.
Saint John of Damascus writes:
"Non-fertility, birth and procession - only these hypostatic properties distinguish the three Holy Hypostases, inseparably distinguished not by essence, but by the distinctive property of each hypostasis."
8. Trinity of Divine Persons and the category of number (quantity)
Saying that God is threefold, that there are three Persons in God, it must be borne in mind that three in God is not the result of addition, because the relationship of the Divine Persons for each Hypostasis is threefold. V.N. Lossky writes about this:“Relations for each hypostasis are threefold, it is impossible to introduce one of the hypostases into a dyad, it is impossible to imagine one of them without the other two immediately arising. The Father is the Father only in relation to the Son and the Spirit. As for the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, they are, as it were, simultaneous, for one presupposes the other” (V. N. Lossky, Outline of the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Dogmatic Theology, M., 1991, p. 216).
The refusal to oppose the Divine Persons, that is, the refusal to think of them in isolation, as monads, or as dyads, is, in essence, the refusal to apply the very category of number to the Holy Trinity.
Basil the Great writes about this: “We do not count by going from one to plurality by adding, saying: one, two, three, or first, second, third, for “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me” (Is. 44, 6). Never until now have they said "the second God", but worshiped God from God. Confessing the difference of hypostases without dividing nature into plurality, we remain under one-man command.
When we talk about the trinity in God, we are not talking about a material number that serves to count and is not applicable to the realm of the Divine being, therefore, in trinitarian theology, the number from a quantitative characteristic is transformed into a qualitative one. Trinity in God is not a quantity in the conventional sense, it only points to the inexpressible divine order. According to Rev. Maximus the Confessor "God is both a monad and a triad."
- 8.1. Why is God trinity in Persons?
Saint Gregory the Theologian tries to express the mystery of the trinity in the following way:
“The unit comes into motion from its wealth, the duality is overcome, for the Divine is higher than matter and form. The Trinity closes in perfection, for it is the first to overcome the composition of the duality, thus the Divinity does not remain limited, but does not extend to infinity either. The first would be inglorious, and the second would be contrary to order. One would be completely in the spirit of Judaism, and the second - Hellenism and polytheism.
The holy fathers did not try to justify the trinity in the face of human reason. Of course, the mystery of the threefold life is a mystery that infinitely surpasses our cognitive faculties. They simply pointed to the insufficiency of any number except the number three.
According to the Fathers, one is a poor number, two is a divisive number, and three is a number that surpasses division. Thus, both unity and plurality are inscribed in the Trinity at the same time.
In V.N. Lossky, this same idea develops as follows (Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic Theology. M., 1991, p. 216-217):
“The Father is the total gift of His Deity to the Son and the Spirit; if He were only a monad, if He identified with His essence and did not give it away, He would not be fully a person....
When the monad is revealed, the personal fullness of God cannot stop at the dyad, for "two" presupposes mutual opposition and limitation; "two" would divide the divine nature and introduce into infinity the root of uncertainty. This would be the first polarization of creation, which would be, as in the Gnostic systems, a mere manifestation. Thus, the Divine reality in two Persons is unthinkable. The transcendence of "two", that is, number, is accomplished "in three"; it is not a return to the original, but a perfect revelation of personal being.”
Thus, we can say that "three" is, as it were, a necessary and sufficient condition for the disclosure of personal being, although, of course, the words "necessary" and "sufficient" in the strict sense are not applicable to Divine being.
9. How to correctly think about the relationship of Divine Persons, the image of eternal birth and eternal procession
The relationships of the Divine Persons, which are revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures, only designate, but in no way substantiate the hypostatic difference. It cannot be said that there are three Hypostases in God, because the first Hypostasis eternally gives birth to the second and eternally exhausts the third.The Trinity is a kind of primary given, which is not deduced from anywhere, it is impossible to find any principle that could justify the trinity of the Godhead. No sufficient reason can explain it either, because there is no beginning and no reason that precedes the Trinity.
Since the relations of the Divine Persons are tripartite for each Hypostasis, they cannot be thought of as relations of opposition. The latter affirms Latin theology.
When the Holy Fathers of the Eastern Church say that the hypostatic property of the Father is unbegottenness, they thereby want to say only that the Father is not the Son, and is not the Holy Spirit, and nothing more. Thus, Eastern theology is characterized by apophaticism in its approach to the mystery of the relation of the Divine Persons.
If we try to define these relations in some positive way, and not in an apophatic way, then we thereby inevitably subordinate the Divine reality to the categories of Aristotelian logic: connections, relationships, etc.
It is absolutely unacceptable to think of the relationships of the Divine Persons by analogy with the relationships of cause and effect that we observe in the created world. If we speak of the Father as the hypostatic cause of the Son and the Spirit, then by doing so we only testify to the poverty and insufficiency of our language.
Indeed, in the created world, cause and effect are always opposed to each other, they are always something external to each other. In God, this opposition, this division of a single nature does not exist. Therefore, in the Trinity, the opposition of cause and effect has only a logical meaning, it means only the order of our mental representation.
What is the eternal birth and eternal procession?
Saint Gregory the Theologian (Word 31) rejects all attempts to define the mode of being of the persons of the Holy Trinity:
“You ask: what is the adventure of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first, what is the non-fertility of the Father. Then, in turn, I, as a naturalist, will discuss the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit, and we will both be struck with madness for having peeped the mysteries of God.
"Birth" and "proceeding" cannot be thought of either as a single act, or as some process extended in time, since the Divine exists outside of time.
The terms themselves: “birth”, “proceeding”, which the Holy Scripture reveals to us, are only an indication of the mysterious communion of Divine Persons, these are only imperfect images of their indescribable communion. As St. John of Damascus, "the image of birth and the image of the procession are incomprehensible to us."
10. The doctrine of the monarchy of the Father
This question, as it were, is subdivided into two sub-questions: 1) are we not humiliating the second and third Hypostasis, affirming the Father's monarchy?; and 2) why is the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father of such fundamental importance, why have the holy fathers of the Orthodox Church always insisted on such an understanding of trinity relations?The unity of command of the Father in no way detracts from the divine dignity of the Son and the Spirit.
The Son and the Holy Spirit by nature have everything that is inherent in the Father, with the exception of the property of unbegottenness. But the property of unbornness is not a natural property, but a personal, hypostatic one; it characterizes not nature, but the mode of its existence.
St. John of Damascus says about this: “Everything that the Father has has both the Son and the Spirit, except for unbegottenness, which means not a difference in essence or dignity, but an image of being.”
V.N. Lossky tries to explain this somewhat differently (Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic Theology. M., 1991):
“A beginning is only perfect when it is the beginning of an equally perfect reality. In God, the cause, as the perfection of personal love, cannot produce a less perfect effect, it wants them to be equal, and therefore is also the cause of their equality.
St. Gregory the Theologian (Word 40 on Baptism) says: "There is no glory to the beginning (i.e., the Father) in the humiliation of those who are from Him."
Why did the Fathers of the Eastern Church insist on the doctrine of the Father's monarchy? To do this, we need to remember what the essence of the trinitarian problem is: how to simultaneously think in God both trinity and unity, moreover, so that one is not affirmed to the detriment of the other, so that while affirming unity, one does not merge Persons and, affirming the differences of Persons, one does not divide single entity.
The Holy Fathers called God the Father the Divine Source. For example, St. Gregory Palamas in his confession says:
"The Father is the only cause and root and source, in the Son and the Holy Spirit of the contemplated Deity."
In the words of the Eastern Fathers, "there is one God because there is one Father." It is the Father who communicates his one nature equally, though in a different way, to the Son and the Holy Spirit, in whom it remains one and indivisible.
At the same time, the absence of a relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son has never embarrassed Eastern theology, since a certain correlation is also established between the Son and the Holy Spirit, and not directly, but through the Hypostasis of the Father, it is the Father who sets the Hypostases in their absolute difference. At the same time, there is no direct relationship between the Son and the Spirit. They differ only in the mode of Their origin.
According to V.N. Lossky (Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic Theology. M., 1991, p. 47):
“The Father is thus the limit of the relationships from which the Hypostases derive their distinction: giving the Persons their origin, the Father establishes their relationship with the one principle of the Godhead as birth and presence.”
Since the Father and the Holy Spirit simultaneously ascend to the Father as one cause, then by virtue of this alone they can be thought of as different Hypostases. At the same time, while arguing that birth and procession, as two different ways of the origin of Divine Persons, are not identical to each other, Orthodox theologians, in accordance with the tradition of apophatic theology, reject any attempts to establish what exactly this difference consists of.
St. John of Damascus writes that "of course, there is a difference between birth and procession - we have learned this, but what image of the difference - we do not comprehend this at all."
Any attempt to somehow cancel or weaken the principle of one-man command inevitably leads to a violation of the balance in the Trinity, the balance between trinity and singularity. The most striking example of this is the Latin doctrine of the filioque, that is, the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as a single cause.
11. Roman Catholic doctrine of the filioque
The logic of this doctrine, the foundations of which were laid by the blessed Augustine, consists in the assertion that something that is not opposed in God cannot be distinguished either. Here one can see a tendency to think about the relationships of the Divine Persons in a naturalistic way, by analogy with the relationships that are observed in the created world, by analogy with the relationships of cause and effect.As a result, an additional relationship is introduced between the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is also defined as a procession. As a result, the point of equilibrium immediately shifts sharply towards unity. Unity begins to prevail over trinity.
Thus, the being of God is identified with the Divine essence, and the Divine Persons or Hypostases are transformed into a certain system of intra-essential relations that are thought within the very divine essence. Thus, according to Latin theology, essence logically precedes Persons.
All this has a direct bearing on the spiritual life. Thus, in Catholicism there is a mysticism of the impersonal Divine Essence, the mysticism of the "abyss of the deity", which is in principle impossible for Orthodox asceticism. In essence, this means a return from Christianity to the mysticism of Neoplatonism.
That is why the Fathers of the Orthodox Church have always insisted on unity of command. V.N. Lossky defines unity of command as follows (Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic theology. M., 1991, p. 218): Personal Beginning.
The very principle of the unity of the Godhead is understood in quite different ways in Oriental, Orthodox, and Latin theology. If, according to Orthodox teaching, the principle of unity is the Personality, the Hypostasis of the Father, then among the Latins, the principle of unity is the impersonal essence. In this way the Latins devalue the individual. Even eternal life itself and eternal bliss are understood by the Latins and the Orthodox in different ways.
If, according to Orthodox teaching, eternal beatitude is participation in the life of the Most Holy Trinity, which implies a personal relationship with the Persons of the Godhead, then among Catholics eternal beatitude is spoken of as contemplation of the Divine essence, thus, eternal beatitude acquires a certain shade of intellectualism among Catholics.
The doctrine of monarchy not only allows us to maintain in a trinitarian theology a perfect balance between trinity and singularity, but also to affirm the concept of God as an absolute Person.
12. Consubstantial Persons of the Holy Trinity
We confess the Most Holy Trinity as consubstantial and indivisible, which has also been consolidated in the liturgical practice of the Church (the initial cry of Matins).Consubstantial means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three independent Divine Persons possessing all divine perfections, but these are not three special separate beings, not three Gods, but the One God. They have a single and indivisible Divine nature. They inseparably possess all divine perfections, have a single will, power, power and glory. Each of the Persons of the Trinity possesses the divine nature in perfection and wholly.
The word “consubstantial” does not occur in Holy Scripture, although the very idea of the consubstantiality of the Divine Persons is expressed quite clearly there.
First of all, in the Gospel of John, which speaks of the relationship of the Father and the Son. In. 10:30: “I and the Father are one”, Jn. 14:10: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me,” Jn. 14:9: "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
The Apostle Paul (I Cor. 2:11) presents the Holy Spirit in the same position towards God as the human spirit is in relation to man.
The term "consubstantial" itself is first encountered by Dionysius of Alexandria in the middle of the 3rd century. Then this term was compromised by modalist heretics, primarily by Paul of Samosata, and then was introduced into the Christian lexicon at the First Ecumenical Council.
It should be noted that this term is also found in non-Christian authors, primarily in Plotinus. Plotinus also has a doctrine of the trinity. According to his teaching, the trinity consists of three consubstantial hypostases, which he calls "one", "mind" and "soul of the world". This trinity in Plotinus is a descending hierarchy and manifests itself in a continuous emanation of hypostases, which pass one into another and are reflected in each other.
Thus, there is a significant difference in the doctrine of the trinity at the heights of ancient philosophy and in Christianity. In Plotinus, hypostases, firstly, are not thought of as independent persons, and secondly, there is a relationship of subordination between the hypostases.
The doctrine of the consubstantiality of Divine Persons was revealed in the 4th century thanks to the activities of the great Cappadocians - Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa. They substantiated the idea of consubstantiality by streamlining the trinity terminology.
First of all, their merit lies in the fact that they were able to accurately determine the meaning of the trinity terms: "essence", "hypostasis", "person". For a long time there was no distinction between the concepts of "essence" and "hypostasis". Essentially, these two terms meant the same thing.
One can cite a lot of testimonies of the Fathers of the Church, for example, Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century), at the very end of the 4th century, Bless. Jerome Stridonsky wrote that the school of secular sciences does not know any other meaning of hypostasis as only essence.
The neoplatonists, Plotinus and Porphyry, already had a tendency to some distinction between these concepts. By essence, the later Neoplatonists understood being in general, and by hypostasis they understood something concrete and definite. It was this idea that was borrowed by the Cappadocians, first of all by Basil the Great, who, having distinguished the concept of essence and hypostasis, established the relationship between them, as between the general and the particular (38 letter of Basil the Great).
Since that time, behind the hypostasis, in Christian theology, the meaning of a concrete, separate, independent being has been established. In addition, the Cappadocians identified the term "hypostasis" with the term "person". The word "face" was not a philosophical term. It was a rather descriptive term, it could mean a form, physiognomy, an actor's mask, a legal role, etc. In trinitarian theology, this term was compromised by Sabellius, for whom faces are not independent hypostases, but nothing more than certain masks that The Deity consistently tries on Himself.
Having identified the concept of person and hypostasis, the Cappadocians not only streamlined the terminology, but also introduced a completely new concept that the history of previous theological and philosophical thought did not know, the concept that we denote by the word “personality”. As a result, the word "face" received an ontological load, which it lacked before, and moved from the descriptive plane to the ontological plane, and the term "hypostasis" was filled with personalistic content.
Thus, the relationship between the concepts of "essence" - "nature" (these terms were used interchangeably by the Cappadocians) and "hypostasis" - "person" are correlated as follows. Hypostasis in relation to nature is an image, a way, a form of being of nature, that which contains nature, that in which nature exists and in which it is contemplated, and nature in relation to hypostasis is its inner content.
Of course, it must be borne in mind that such a distinction between nature and hypostasis is methodological in nature, since, just as nature without hypostasis is an abstract concept, so hypostasis without nature is nothing more than an abstract principle. Prot. George Florovsky says that hypostases, according to the teachings of the Cappadocians, are "immutable and eternal images of the existence of the One God."
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that a person, a hypostasis, a person cannot be thought in terms of nature, that is, this is not a part of nature, but the principle of its existence, the source of the dynamism of natural energies, the origin from which nature lives and acts. Personality completely encompasses nature, contains it to itself, being itself capable of freely self-determining in relation to it.
The word "consubstantial" can be used in two senses. For example, we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father in divinity and consubstantial with all of us in humanity. The same word is used in different senses. All people are also consubstantial with each other, but each human individual is part of a species, i.e., the individual, as it were, divides the nature to which he belongs, the individual is the result of the atomization of nature.
There is nothing like this in the Trinity, because there each Person contains a single nature in its entirety. Each of the human hypostases contains human nature. We say that all people are consubstantial with each other, that each human hypostasis contains the same, identical nature, but we understand the identity of nature as the identity of the qualitative characteristics of nature. At the same time, each human face is an individual that is separate from other individuals, each has its own action, different from the action of another, each has its own desires, which do not coincide with the desires of others.
In God, everything is completely different. There is one Divine nature, and this one Divine nature indivisibly abides in each of the Hypostases. Each Person contains a single nature without any division of it. Thus, consubstantial in relation to God denotes the identity of being.
Consubstantial Persons Prev. Trinity of St. John of Damascus defines it as "the identity of will, action, force and movement." Obviously, we do not observe this identity of actions and strength in people.
Thus, the Divine Trinity is at the same time a unit, for the trinitarian life is realized as an indissoluble unity of love. Each of the Persons of the Trinity does not live for Himself, but gives Himself without reserve to the other Hypostases, while remaining completely open to their response, so that all three coexist in love with each other. The life of Divine Persons is interpenetration, so that the life of one becomes the life of another. Thus, the existence of the God of the Trinity is realized as love, in which the own existence of a person is identified with self-giving.
Prot. Georgy Florovsky says this about the understanding of the term "consubstantial" by the great Cappadocians:
“One-substantial is not a perfect coincidence, not only the identity of properties and definitions, but the inexpressible unity of the trinity of life.”
13. The image of the Revelation of the Holy Trinity in the world
From the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, it follows that the Divine has a single action, but at the same time, each of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity relates to this action in a special way, that is, each of the Persons acts together with the other two, but in a special way.St. Gregory of Nyssa explains how the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity relate to Divine actions:
“Every action that extends from God to the creature, proceeds from the Father, extends through the Son and is accomplished by the Holy Spirit.”
Such statements can be found in many Church Fathers. They usually turn to Rom. 11, 36. It is better to consider it in the Slavic version than in Russian: “As from That and That and in Him is everything”, based on this statement of the Apostle Paul, the patristic expression “From the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit” was obtained. In Divine actions, thus, the trinity of hypostases and their inexpressible order is displayed.
It should be borne in mind that the way of life within the divine is different from the way of the revelation of the Holy Trinity in the world. If in the eternal existence of the Trinity, regardless of God's relationship to the world, birth and procession take place "independently", then in the divine dispensation there is its own timeless succession. The Father appears as the source of action, the Son as the manifestation or as the doer who works through the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit appears as the power that reveals, assimilates and completes.
This can be explained with specific examples. In relation to wisdom, the Father is the source of wisdom, the Son is hypostatic wisdom itself, the manifestation of wisdom, and the Holy Spirit is that power that assimilates wisdom to man. It can be said that the Father favors, the Son acts, and the Holy Spirit perfects the creature in goodness and beauty.
The Father is the source of love, Jn. 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” The Son is a manifestation of Love, its revelation, I Jn. 4:9: “The love of God for us has been revealed in this, that God has sent his Son into the world,” Rom. 5:5: "The love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit."
Such an order does not detract from the Son....
Deepening our understanding of God, Christianity tells us about the Triune God. The root of this teaching is found in the Old Testament. Christianity, the only monotheistic religion, teaches about God as the Holy Trinity. Neither Judaism nor Mohammedanism, although descended from the same root as Christianity, profess the Most Holy Trinity. Acceptance of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is inextricably linked with faith in Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God. Whoever does not believe in the Son of God does not believe in the Trinity either. In view of the special importance of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity, it is revealed with particular clarity in the Gospel. First of all, it is actually and really revealed in the event of the Baptism of the Lord or Theophany, when the Son of God received baptism from John, the Holy Spirit descended on the Baptized in the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father testified about the Son: “This is. My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"(Matthew 3:16-17).
John the Baptist testifies of Him: “I didn't know Him; but for this he came to baptize with water, that he might be revealed to Israel. I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove and dwell on Him. I didn't know Him; but He who sent me baptizes with water said to me, On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”(John 1:31-34).
“In many places in the Gospel, God the Father and the Holy Spirit are mentioned. All farewell conversation. The Lord and his disciples are concluded in the ce6e revelation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Sending His disciples to preach the Gospel to the whole world, before His ascension, and blessing them, the Lord says to them: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”(Matthew 28:19-20). Book of Acts of St. apostles begins with a story about the descent of the Holy Spirit on them. All the Persons of the Holy Trinity are constantly mentioned as in the Acts of St. apostles, as well as in the apostolic epistles. From the first days of St. Church faith in the Holy Trinity is the main dogma of her religion. This dogma constitutes the main content of the Orthodox Creed, which is nothing but the consistent revelation of the fate of each Person of the Holy Trinity for our salvation. All this clearly suggests the fundamental meaning of this dogma in the Orthodox Church's worldview. And this basic dogma of our faith is a constant stumbling block and temptation for all unbelievers, for all rationalists who cannot in any way reconcile the doctrine of the unity of God with the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. They see this as an irreconcilable internal contradiction, a direct violation of human logic. This conclusion of theirs is the result of their misunderstanding of the difference that exists between reason or mind and spirit. The question of Unity in the Trinity is not decided from a superficial logical or mathematical point of view. It requires penetration into the depths of the laws - we do not say the Divine, but also our human spirit, reflecting in itself the laws of the Divine Spirit. But before talking about this, we ask you to pay attention to the fact that the dogma of the Holy Trinity reveals that fullness of the Divine Essence and Divine life, which other monotheistic religions, not to mention paganism, do not know. Both in Judaism (with its Jewish understanding) and in Mohammedanism, the Divine, in His inner life, in His deepest Being, appears to be deeply lonely and solitary. It is only in Christianity that the inner life of the Divine is revealed as the fullness and richness of life realized in the inseparable unity of the love of the three Persons of the Divine. In Christianity, there is no place for the solitude of the Deity in His intra-divine life. Recognizing this advantage of the Christian understanding of the Divine life, they nevertheless say and object: “How is it so: God is one, but trinity in Persons? If it is trinitarian in Persons, it means not one; if one, how is it threefold? This is not only incomprehensible, but also contradictory.
Since ancient times there have been various attempts to bring the mystery of the Trinity closer to human understanding. For the most part, these attempts come down to similitudes from the created world, and do not reveal the secrets of the Trinity in essence. The most common and well-known of these comparisons are two: 1) a comparison with the sun, from which light is born and warmth emanates, and 2) a comparison with the spiritual nature of a person who combines three spiritual forces in his single “I”: reason, feeling and will. Both comparisons, for all their clarity and apparent correctness, have the drawback that they do not explain the trinity of persons in the Godhead. Both light and warmth in the sun are only manifestations or manifestations of the very same energy that is contained in the sun, and, of course, they do not represent self-active personalities uniting in a single being of the sun. The same must be said about the three forces or abilities of the human soul - mind, feeling and will, which, being separate forces of the human spirit, separate abilities, also do not have their own personal existence, do not have their own "I". All of them are only different talents or powers of our deepest single "I", the nature of which remains completely unknown and incomprehensible to us. Thus, both comparisons leave without explanation the main secret in the dogma of the Holy Trinity, which consists in the fact that the three Persons of the Godhead, constituting the One and Inseparable Divine Trinity, at the same time retain each of His personal character, His own “I ". The most profound and correct approach to understanding the dogma of the Holy Trinity is the explanation of Metropolitan Anthony (formerly of Kiev and Galicia), on the basis of which he considers the property of the human spirit, correctly noticed by him, namely the property of love. This explanation is very simple, very deeply consistent with the laws of the psychological and moral life of a person, and is based on the undoubted facts of human experience. Life experience testifies that persons bound by mutual love, while fully preserving and even strengthening their own personality, over time merge into a single being living a single common life. This phenomenon is observed in the lives of spouses, and in the lives of parents and children, and in the lives of friends; as well as in social life, in the life of entire peoples, at certain historical moments feeling like a single whole being, with a single mood, common thoughts, a single common aspiration of the will, and at the same time without each individual losing his personal life, his personal properties, and his personal will. This fact is undeniable and known to all. He shows us the direction in which we should seek clarification and understanding of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. This dogma becomes clear to us not as a result of one or another of our reasoning and logical conclusions. It becomes clear to us only in the experience of love. We must never forget the difference between these two paths to the knowledge of the truth. One way, external experience and logical conclusions, reveals to us truths of another kind. The truths of the religious life are known; in a different way than the truths of the external world: they are known precisely in this last way. In the Acts of St. apostles we read: “The multitude of believers had one heart and one soul”(Acts 4:32). We cannot understand this fact with the mind unless we experience it with the heart. Surely, many sinful people could have “one heart and one soul”, if their individual isolation could, so to speak, melt in the warmth of mutual love, then why can’t there be inseparable unity in the three most holy Persons of the Godhead?! Such is the mystery of the Christian doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity: it is incomprehensible to the human mind, which strives to comprehend this mystery with its own external forces and means, but it is revealed to the same mind through the experience of a loving heart.
Prot. Series Chetverikov († 1947). (From the manuscript "The Truth of Christianity")
God is one in essence, but trinity in persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity consubstantial and indivisible.
The very word "Trinity" of non-biblical origin was introduced into the Christian lexicon in the second half of the 2nd century by St. Theophilus of Antioch. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is given in the Christian Revelation.
The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is incomprehensible, it is a mysterious dogma, incomprehensible at the level of reason. For the human mind, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is contradictory, because it is a mystery that cannot be expressed rationally.
It is no coincidence that o. Pavel Florensky called the dogma of the Holy Trinity "a cross for human thought." In order to accept the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity, the sinful human mind must reject its claims to the ability to know everything and rationally explain everything, i.e., in order to comprehend the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, it is necessary to reject one’s own understanding.
The mystery of the Holy Trinity is comprehended, and only in part, in the experience of spiritual life. This comprehension is always associated with an ascetic feat. V.N. Lossky says: "The apophatic ascent is the ascent to Golgotha, therefore no speculative philosophy could ever ascend to the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity."
Belief in the Trinity distinguishes Christianity from all other monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam. The doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all Christian faith and moral teaching, for example, the doctrine of God the Savior, God the Sanctifier, etc. V.N. ... to know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity in its fullness means to enter into the Divine life, into the very life of the Most Holy Trinity.”
The doctrine of the Triune God comes down to three propositions:
- God is trinity and trinity consists in the fact that in God there are three Persons (hypostases): Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
- Each Person of the Most Holy Trinity is God, but They are not three Gods, but the essence of a single Divine Being.
- All three Persons differ in personal or hypostatic properties.
Analogies of the Holy Trinity in the world
The Holy Fathers, in order to somehow bring the doctrine of the Holy Trinity closer to the perception of man, used various kinds of analogies borrowed from the created world.
For example, the sun and the light and heat emanating from it. A source of water, a spring from it, and, in fact, a stream or a river. Some see an analogy in the arrangement of the human mind (St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. Ascetic experiments): “Our mind, word and spirit, by the simultaneity of their beginning and by their mutual relations, serve as an image of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
However, all these analogies are very imperfect. If we take the first analogy - the sun, outgoing rays and heat - then this analogy assumes a certain temporal process. If we take the second analogy - a source of water, a key and a stream, then they differ only in our imagination, but in reality it is a single water element. As for the analogy connected with the abilities of the human mind, it can only be an analogy of the image of the Revelation of the Most Holy Trinity in the world, but not of an intra-trinitarian being. Moreover, all these analogies place unity above trinity.
St. Basil the Great considered the rainbow to be the most perfect of analogies borrowed from the created world, because “one and the same light is both continuous in itself and multicolored.” “And a single face opens up in multicolor - there is no middle and no transition between colors. It is not visible where the rays are delimited. We clearly see the difference, but we cannot measure the distances. And together, the multi-color rays form a single white. A single essence is revealed in a multi-colored radiance.
The disadvantage of this analogy is that the colors of the spectrum are not separate personalities. In general, patristic theology is characterized by a very wary attitude towards analogies.
An example of such an attitude is the 31st Word of St. Gregory the Theologian: “Finally, I concluded that it is best to depart from all images and shadows, as deceptive and far from reaching the truth, but to stick to a more pious way of thinking, dwelling on a few sayings” .
In other words, there are no images to represent in our mind this dogma; all images borrowed from the created world are very imperfect.
A Brief History of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity
Christians have always believed that God is one in essence, but trinity in persons, but the dogmatic doctrine of the Holy Trinity itself was created gradually, usually in connection with the emergence of various kinds of heretical delusions. The doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity has always been associated with the doctrine of Christ, with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Trinitarian heresies, trinitarian disputes had a Christological basis.
Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity was made possible by the Incarnation. As it says in the troparion of Theophany, in Christ "Trinity worship appeared." Teaching about Christ "For the Jews it is a stumbling block, but for the Greeks it is folly" (1 Corinthians 1:23). Likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity is a stumbling block for both "strict" Jewish monotheism and Hellenic polytheism. Therefore, all attempts to rationally comprehend the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity led to delusions of either a Jewish or Hellenic nature. The first dissolved the Persons of the Trinity in a single nature, for example, the Sabellians, while others reduced the Trinity to three unequal beings (Arians).
Arianism was condemned in 325 at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. The main act of this Council was the compilation of the Nicene Creed, in which non-biblical terms were introduced, among which the term "omousios" - "consubstantial" played a special role in the trinitarian disputes of the 4th century.
To uncover the true meaning of the term "homousios" took great efforts of the great Cappadocians: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa.
The great Cappadocians, first of all, Basil the Great, strictly distinguished between the concepts of "essence" and "hypostasis". Basil the Great defined the difference between "essence" and "hypostasis" as between the general and the particular.
According to the teachings of the Cappadocians, the essence of the Deity and its distinctive properties, i.e., the unbeginning of being and Divine dignity belong equally to all three hypostases. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are its manifestations in the Persons, each of which has the fullness of the divine essence and is in inseparable unity with it. The hypostases differ from each other only in personal (hypostatic) properties.
In addition, the Cappadocians actually identified (primarily two Gregory: Nazianzus and Nyssa) the concept of "hypostasis" and "person". “Face” in theology and philosophy of that time was a term that belonged not to the ontological, but to the descriptive plane, that is, the mask of an actor or the legal role that a person performed could be called a face.
By identifying "person" and "hypostasis" in trinitarian theology, the Cappadocians thereby transferred this term from the descriptive plane to the ontological plane. The consequence of this identification was, in essence, the emergence of a new concept that the ancient world did not know: this term is “personality”. The Cappadocians succeeded in reconciling the abstractness of Greek philosophical thought with the biblical idea of a personal Deity.
The main thing in this teaching is that a person is not a part of nature and cannot be thought in terms of nature. The Cappadocians and their immediate disciple St. Amphilochius of Iconium called the Divine hypostases "ways of being" of the Divine nature. According to their teaching, a person is a hypostasis of being, which freely hypostasizes its nature. Thus, a personal being in its concrete manifestations is not predetermined by an essence that is given to it from the outside, therefore God is not an essence that would precede Persons. When we call God the absolute Personality, we thereby want to express the idea that God is not determined by any external or internal necessity, that He is absolutely free in relation to His own being, is always what He wants to be and always acts in such a way. as he wants, i.e. freely hypostasizes His triune nature.
Indications of the Trinity (plurality) of Persons in God in the Old and New Testaments
In the Old Testament there are a sufficient number of indications of the trinity of Persons, as well as covert indications of the plurality of persons in God without indicating a specific number.
This plurality is already mentioned in the first verse of the Bible. (Gen. 1:1): "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". The verb "bara" (created) is in the singular, and the noun "elohim" is in the plural, which literally means "gods".
Gen. 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”. The word "make" is plural. Same Gen. 3:22: "And God said, Behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.""Of Us" is also plural.
Gen. 11:6–7 where we are talking about the Babylonian pandemonium: “And the Lord said, Let us go down and confuse their language there.”, the word "let's get down" is in the plural. St. Basil the Great in Shestodnev (Conversation 9) comments on these words as follows: “Truely strange idle talk is to assert that someone sits to himself, orders, oversees himself, compels himself authoritatively and urgently. The second is an indication of the actual three Persons, but without naming the persons and without distinguishing them.
XVIII chapter of the book of Genesis, the appearance of three angels to Abraham. At the beginning of the chapter it says that God appeared to Abraham, in the Hebrew text is "Jehovah". Abraham, going out to meet the three strangers, bows to them and addresses them with the word "Adonai", literally "Lord", in the singular.
There are two interpretations of this passage in patristic exegesis. First: the Son of God, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, appeared, accompanied by two angels. We find such an interpretation in Mch. Justin the Philosopher, St. Hilary of Pictavia, St. John Chrysostom, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus.
However, most of the fathers - Saints Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Blessed Augustine - believe that this is the appearance of the Holy Trinity, the first revelation to man about the Trinity of the Godhead.
It was the second opinion that was accepted by the Orthodox Tradition and found its embodiment, firstly, in hymnography, which refers to this event precisely as a manifestation of the Triune God, and in iconography (the famous icon “Old Testament Trinity”).
Blessed Augustine (“On the City of God”, book 26) writes: “Abraham meets three, worships one. Seeing the three, he comprehended the mystery of the Trinity, and bowing as if to one, he confessed the One God in Three Persons.
An indication of the trinity of God in the New Testament is, first of all, the Baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Jordan from John, which received the name of Theophany in Church Tradition. This event was the first clear Revelation to mankind about the Trinity of the Godhead.
Further, the commandment about baptism, which the Lord gives to His disciples after the Resurrection (Matthew 28:19): "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Here the word "name" is in the singular, although it refers not only to the Father, but also to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit together. St. Ambrose of Milan comments on this verse as follows: “The Lord said “in the name”, and not “in the names”, because there is one God, not many names, because there are not two Gods and not three Gods.
2 Cor. 13:13:"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." With this expression, the apostle Paul emphasizes the personality of the Son and the Spirit, which give gifts along with the Father.
1 In. 5:7: “Three testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” This passage from the epistle of the apostle and evangelist John is controversial, since this verse is not found in ancient Greek manuscripts.
Prologue of the Gospel of John (John 1:1): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here God is understood to mean the Father, and the Son is called the Word, i.e., the Son was eternally with the Father and was eternally God.
The Transfiguration of the Lord is also the Revelation of the Holy Trinity. Here is how V.N. Lossky: “That is why the Epiphany and the Transfiguration are celebrated so solemnly. We celebrate the Revelation of the Most Holy Trinity, for the voice of the Father was heard and the Holy Spirit was present. In the first case under the guise of a dove, in the second - like a radiant cloud that overshadowed the apostles.
Difference of Divine Persons according to hypostatic properties
According to church teaching, Hypostases are Personalities, and not impersonal forces. At the same time, hypostases have a single nature. Naturally, the question arises, how to distinguish between them?
All divine properties belong to a common nature, they are characteristic of all three Hypostases and therefore, by themselves, they cannot express the differences of Divine Persons. It is impossible to give an absolute definition of each Hypostasis using one of the Divine names.
One of the features of personal existence is that a person is unique and inimitable, and therefore, it cannot be defined, it cannot be summed up under a certain concept, since the concept always generalizes; cannot be reduced to a common denominator. Therefore, a personality can be perceived only through its relation to other personalities.
This is exactly what we see in the Holy Scriptures, where the idea of Divine Persons is based on the relationships that exist between them.
Starting approximately from the end of the 4th century, we can talk about generally accepted terminology, according to which hypostatic properties are expressed in the following terms: the Father has unbegottenness, the Son has birth (from the Father), and the procession (from the Father) of the Holy Spirit. Personal properties are properties that are incommunicable, eternally remaining unchanged, exclusively belonging to one or another of the Divine Persons. Thanks to these properties, the Persons are distinguished from each other, and we recognize them as special Hypostases.
At the same time, distinguishing three Hypostases in God, we confess the Trinity consubstantial and indivisible. Consubstantial means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three independent Divine Persons possessing all divine perfections, but these are not three special separate beings, not three Gods, but the One God. They have a single and indivisible Divine nature. Each of the Persons of the Trinity possesses the divine nature in perfection and wholly.
From lectures on dogmatic theology
at the Orthodox St. Tikhon Theological Institute
All about the Trinity
All about the Trinity, or rather the whole truth about the doctrine and faith in the Trinity. The article will show how this doctrine plays a role in the worship of God, and also provide truthful and reliable information that every self-respecting person should know.
Should we believe in the Trinity?
Do you believe in the Trinity? Most people in the Christian world believe. After all, for centuries the doctrine of the Trinity has been the main teaching of various churches.
In view of this, you might think that there can be no questions here. But they are, and recently even some of the supporters of this doctrine have added fuel to the fire of disputes.
Why should such a topic be of interest to us? Because Jesus himself said: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Therefore, our future depends on whether we know the true nature of God, which means that we need to fully understand the issue of the Trinity. So why not do it? (John 17:3).
Ideas about the Trinity are different. But in general this doctrine says that the Deity exists as three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet it is one God.
According to the doctrine, all these three persons are equal, omnipotent and uncreated, all exist eternally in the Godhead.
Others, however, say that the doctrine of the Trinity is false, that the Most High God is a separate, eternal, and omnipotent person. According to such people, before becoming a man, Jesus was, like the angels, a separate spiritual person created by God, and therefore he must have had a beginning. They teach that Jesus was never and in no way equal to the Most High God, he always was and remains subordinate to God.
They are also convinced that the holy spirit is not a person, but the spirit of God, his active force.
Proponents of the doctrine of the Trinity say that it is based not only on religious tradition, but also on the Bible. Critics of this theory argue that
it is not biblical, and one historical work even says: "The origin [of the Trinity] is entirely pagan" ("The Paganism in Our Christianity").
If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then to say that Jesus was never equal to God as part of the Godhead is to humiliate Jesus. But if this teaching is false, then to call anyone equal to the Most High God means to humiliate God, and it is even worse to call Mary "Mother of God". If the doctrine of the Trinity is false, then it is insulting to speak of God as one book says: “If [people] do not keep this Faith intact and undefiled, then [they] will undoubtedly die forever. The Catholic faith is this: we worship one God in the Trinity” (“Catholicism”).
Therefore, there are good reasons to learn the truth about the Trinity. But before examining the origin of this doctrine and its claims to truth,
it will be useful to define more precisely what this doctrine is. What is the Trinity? How do its proponents explain this doctrine?
How is the doctrine of the Trinity explained?
The Roman Catholic Church states: “The term ‘Trinity’ is used to refer to the main dogma of the Christian religion… In accordance with this, the Athanasian Creed says: ‘The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three Gods, but one God.” In this Trinity ... Persons are equal and equal: all are equally uncreated and omnipotent ”(“ The Catholic Encyclopedia ”).
Almost all the churches of Christendom agree with this. The Greek Orthodox Church, for example, also calls the Trinity "the fundamental
dogma of Christianity" and even says: "Christians are those who accept Christ as God." In one work of the same church it is said: “God is triune.
[…] The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God” (“Our Orthodox Christian Faith”).
Thus, the Trinity means "one God in three Persons." It is believed that each of these Persons had no beginning, but exists forever. Each
supreme, none of them is greater or less than the other.
Is it difficult to catch the train of thought? Many sincere believers find this teaching confusing, contrary to common sense, unlike anything in their
life. They wonder: how can it be that the Father is God, Jesus is God, the holy spirit is God, and yet there is not three, but only one God?
"Beyond human understanding"
Such confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered a doctrine that is "beyond human understanding."
So do many of those who recognize the Trinity. Monsignor Eugene Clark says, “God is one and there are three Gods. There is nothing like it in creation, that's why we are not able to understand it, we can only accept it. Cardinal John O'Connor states: "We know that this is a deep mystery, which we have not yet come close to understanding." Pope John Paul II also speaks of "the unfathomable mystery of God the Trinity."
Therefore, one dictionary says: “Believers in the doctrine of the Trinity cannot agree on exactly how to define this doctrine, or, more precisely, how it should be explained” (“A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge”).
It is understandable why the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “In the seminaries of the Roman Catholic Church, there are hardly any teachers
theological theory about the Trinity, which would not be asked from time to time with the question:
‘How do you preach the Trinity?’ And if this question is indicative of the confusion among the students, then perhaps it is just as indicative of the confusion among their professors.”
The validity of this observation can be seen if you go to the library and read the works written in defense of the Trinity. Countless pages are devoted to attempts to explain this teaching. But, having spent a lot of time and effort wandering through the labyrinths of incomprehensible theological terms and explanations, the researchers are left with nothing.
The Jesuit Joseph Bracken comments on this: “Priests who have spent so much effort in studying ... the Trinity in the seminary, as they should
expected, did not dare to speak about this doctrine from the pulpit to their flock, even on the feast of the Trinity. […]
Why bother people by talking about something they won’t understand anyway?” He also says, "The Trinity is a matter of formal faith and has little or no bearing on daily Christian life and worship" ("What Are They Saying About the Trinity?"). But this is the “main dogma” of the churches!
Catholic theologian Hans Küng points out that the Trinity is one of the reasons churches fail to achieve significant success among non-Christians. He says: “The idea of the Trinity is simply not able to be understood even by knowledgeable Muslims, just as the Jews have not been able to comprehend it until now.
[…] The differences that the doctrine of the Trinity makes between the one God and the three hypostases do not convince the Muslims; they are not enlightened, but rather confused, by theological terms borrowed from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims consider all this a play on words. […]
Why is it necessary to add something to the concept of the unity and exclusiveness of God, if this only nullifies his unity and exclusiveness? ("Christentum und Weltreligionen").
"God is not a God of disorder"
How could such a confused teaching come about? The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Such a mysterious dogma presupposes God's revelation."
Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler write: “Strictly speaking… the Trinity is a mystery… which cannot be known without revelation and which even after revelation cannot be fully understood” (“Kleines Theologisches Wörterbuch”).
However, the assertion that if the doctrine of the Trinity is such an intricate mystery, then it must have come about as a result of God's revelation,
gives rise to another serious problem. Why? Because God's revelation itself does not allow such a view of God, saying: "God is not God
disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Considering these words, let us think: would God create such a confusing doctrine about himself that even experts cannot explain it?
Hebrew, Greek and Latin?
Moreover, do people really need to be theologians in order to ‘know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’? (John 17:3). If yes, then
Why did only a few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah?
It was not they who became his faithful disciples, but humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. These common people were so confident in what Jesus taught them about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their faith (Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36 ; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13).
Is this teaching biblical?
If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, it must be clearly and consistently stated in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles said, the Bible
it is God's revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God in order to properly worship him, we can expect the Bible to be clear about who he is.
Believers in the first century considered the Scriptures to be a trustworthy revelation from God. It was the basis of their beliefs, the decisive authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to the people in the city of Berea, “they received the word with all diligence, examining the Scriptures daily,
is it true” (Acts 17:10, 11).
Jesus himself set an example in basing his teachings on Scripture, repeatedly saying, "It is written." He "explained to them what was said about Him in all
Scripture” (Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27).
So Jesus, Paul, and the believers of the first century taught people from the Scriptures. They knew that “all Scripture is divinely inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 2 Peter 1 :20, 21; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).
If the Bible can correct, then the important doctrine of the Trinity must be clearly stated in it. But do theologians and historians themselves believe that this teaching is biblical?
"Trinity" in the Bible?
One Protestant publication says: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible ... Officially, it entered the theology of the church no earlier than the 4th century.”
("The Illustrated Bible Dictionary"). And the well-known Catholic work also says that the Trinity is “not ... a word spoken directly and directly
God” (“The New Catholic Encyclopedia”).
The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes: “There is really no single term in Scripture that would designate the Three
Divine Faces together. The word τρίας [triʹas] (which is translated into Latin as trinitas [trinitas]) is first found in the writings of Theophilus
Antioch about 180 AD. e. […] After some time, the Latin form trinitas appears in the writings of Tertullian.”
However, this does not yet prove that Tertullian taught the Trinity. In one Catholic work, for example, it is noted that some words of Tertullian
subsequently used by others to describe the Trinity. And then the following caveat is given in this work: “But from the fact that he used these words, no hasty conclusions can be drawn, since he does not apply these words to the theological theory of the Trinity” (“Trinitas-A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity” ).
The Hebrew Scriptures Testify
If the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, is there at least a clear idea of the Trinity in it? What do the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) show, for example?
One encyclopedia states: “Theologians today agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible” (“The Encyclopedia of Religion”). And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “There is no doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the Old [Old] T[estament].”
Similarly, the Jesuit Edmund Fortman acknowledges in his book The Triune God: “The Old Testament ... neither directly nor indirectly speaks of the Triune God, who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. […]
There is no evidence that any of the holy writers even suspected the existence of [the Trinity] in the Godhead. […] To see in the [Old Testament] indications or allusions to the trinity of persons, or its “veiled signs,” is to go beyond the words and meaning of the holy writers ”(italics ours. - Ed.).
A study of the Hebrew Scriptures confirms these words. This means that in the first 39 books of the Bible, which constitute the reliable canon of divinely inspired
Hebrew Scriptures, there is no clearly stated doctrine of the Trinity.
The Greek Scriptures Testify
But maybe the Trinity is clearly spoken of in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament)?
One encyclopedia says: “Theologians agree that there is no clearly stated doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” (“The Encyclopedia of Religion”).
Edmund Fortman states: “The writers of the New Testament ... did not formulate the official dogma of the Trinity and did not set forth the clear doctrine that in one God there are three equal divine persons. […] We will not find anywhere any dogma about three separate divine persons existing and acting in one Deity.”
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says, "There is neither the word 'Trinity' in the New Testament, nor any explicit dogma about it."
Bernhard Lohse writes: "As for the New Testament, there is no real dogma about the Trinity" ("Epochen der Dogmengeschichte").
One dictionary similarly states: “There is no stated doctrine of the Trinity in the N[ew] T[estament]. “There is no explicit statement in the Bible that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same in essence,” [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]” (“The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology”).
Yale University professor Washburn Hopkins confirmed: "Jesus and Paul were apparently unfamiliar with the doctrine of the trinity ... they say nothing about it" ("Origin and Evolution of Religion").
Historian Arthur Wygall notes: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a thing, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. This idea was accepted by the Church only three hundred years after the death of our Lord” (“The Paganism in Our Christianity”).
So, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of the 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures clearly teach the Trinity.
Did the early Christians teach this?
Did the early Christians teach the Trinity? Let's see what historians and theologians have to say:
“Early Christianity did not have such a clear doctrine of the Trinity as was later developed in the creeds” (“The New International Dictionary of
New Testament Theology).
“The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea [of the Trinity] to their own faith. They were devoted to God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son
God, and also recognized... the Holy Spirit; but there was no idea that these three constituted a real Trinity, being equal and one in One” (“The Paganism in Our Christianity”).
“At first, the Christian faith did not have the idea of the Trinity… As can be seen from the New [Testament] and other Christian writings of early times, the idea of the Trinity did not exist either in apostolic times or immediately after them” (“Encyclopædia of Religion and ethics").
“The formulation “one God in three Persons” was firmly entrenched and finally entered the Christian life and religion only at the end of the 4th century. […]
There was nothing among the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers that even remotely resembled such a frame of mind or perspective” (“The New Catholic
encyclopedia").
What did the ante-Nicene fathers teach
The ante-Nicene fathers were recognized as the leading religious teachers of the first centuries after the birth of Christ. What they taught is of interest to us.
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 AD. e., called Jesus, before his coming to earth, a created angel who is "different from God, who created everything." Justin said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator ... wanted him to do or say."
Irenaeus, who died about 200 CE. e., said that, before becoming a man, Jesus existed separately from God and obeyed him.
Irenaeus pointed out that Jesus is not equal to "He who is the true and only God," who "stands above all and besides whom there is no other."
Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 CE. e., called God "uncreated, eternal and the only true God." He said that the Son "stands behind the only almighty Father," but is not equal to him.
Tertullian, who died around 230 CE. e., taught that God has the supremacy in everything. He wrote: “The Father is different from the Son (other), since he is greater; how the one who begets differs from the one who is begotten; the one who sends is different from the one who is sent.” Tertullian also said: “There was a time when the Son was not. […] Before everything else, God was one.”
Hippolytus, who died about 235 CE. e., said that God is “one God, the first and only, the Creator and Lord of everything,” who “had nothing equal to him in time [of the same duration] ... But he was One, in itself; who, having willed, created what was not there before”, for example, created the one who later became the man Jesus.
Origen, who died around 250 CE. e., said that "the Father and the Son are two persons ... two beings, as far as their essence is concerned" and that "compared to the Father [the Son] is a very small light."
Summarizing this historical evidence, Alvan Lamson writes: “The doctrine of the Trinity that is widespread today ... does not find support in the words of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation can be applied to all the pre-Nicene Fathers, that is, to all Christian writers of three centuries after the birth of Christ.
True, they speak of the Father, the Son, and… the Holy Spirit, but not as equal beings, not as one being, not as Three in One, as those who believe in the dogma of the Trinity admit today. Just the opposite is true” (“The Church of the First Three Centuries”).
Thus, the Bible and history clearly show that the doctrine of the Trinity was unknown in biblical times and for several centuries to come.
How was the doctrine of the Trinity formed?
Perhaps now you are wondering: if the doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical, then how did it become a dogma in the Christian world? Many believe that this dogma was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. e.
But it is not so. It was indeed declared at the Council of Nicaea that Christ had the same essence as God, and this declaration laid the foundation for the later theological theory of the Trinity. But at that council the dogma of the Trinity was not accepted, because then the holy spirit was not mentioned as the third person of the triune Deity.
The role played in Nicaea by Constantine
For many years there was strong opposition to the idea that Jesus was God, based on the Bible. Trying to end
disagreements, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all the bishops to Nicaea. Only a part of the bishops came to the meeting, about 300 people.
Constantine was not a Christian. It is believed that he later converted to Christianity, but was baptized only when he was on his deathbed. Henry
Chadwick says of him: "Like his father, Constantine worshiped the Invincible Sun ... his conversion cannot be seen as the result of an inner
location ... He was guided by military considerations. He never fully understood Christian doctrine, but he was sure that the victory in the battle would be given by the God of Christians” (“The Early Church”).
What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Constantine himself presided,
actively led the discussion and personally proposed… the key wording about the relationship of Christ to God in the symbol that was adopted at the council, “[that Christ] is one essence with the Father”… Trembling before the emperor, the bishops, with the exception of only two, signed the symbol, and many did it against their will."
Thus the role of Constantine was decisive. After two months of bitter religious disputes, this pagan politician stepped in and
decided the case in favor of those who claimed that Jesus is God. But why? Certainly not because of any biblical beliefs. “Constantine understood practically nothing about Greek theology,” says one book (“A Short History of Christian Doctrine”). What he understood was that religious divisions were threatening his empire and he wanted to unite his dominions.
However, none of the bishops who gathered at Nicaea spoke of the Trinity. They only ruled on the nature of Jesus, not on the role of the holy spirit. If the Trinity were a clear biblical truth, shouldn't these bishops bring it to the attention of the council?
Further developments
After the Council of Nicaea, disputes on this topic did not stop for decades. For a time, those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even managed to win favor again. But later the emperor Theodosius decided the case not in their favor. He took the creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea as the basis of the creed in his empire and, in order to clarify its wording, convened in 381 CE. e. Cathedral of Constantinople.
At this council it was decided that the holy spirit is on the same level with God and Christ. For the first time, the Trinity of Christendom came into focus.
And yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a generally accepted dogma. Many resisted the acceptance of this teaching, and thereby brought upon themselves severe persecution. Only in later centuries was the dogma of the Trinity formulated in creeds.
The Encyclopedia Americana states: “The final formation of the theological theory of the Trinity took place in the West within the framework of scholasticism.
Middle Ages, when they tried to explain this theory in philosophical and psychological terms.
Athanasian Creed
The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a priest who supported Constantine in Nicaea. The symbol that bears his name says: “We honor the one God in the trinity ... The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three Gods, but one God.”
Knowledgeable scholars, however, agree that Athanasius did not compose this symbol. The New Britannica says: “The Eastern Church did not know about this symbol until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (who died in 373), but was probably compiled in southern France in the 5th century. […]
In the 6th and 7th centuries, the influence of this code seems to have extended mainly to southern France and Spain. In the ninth century it was used in church liturgies in Germany and somewhat later in Rome.
So centuries passed from the time of Christ before the doctrine of the Trinity spread widely in the Christian world. But what guided
decision making? Word of God or clerical and political motives? Washburn Hopkins answers: "The ultimate orthodox
the definition of the trinity was largely a matter of ecclesiastical politics” (“Origin and Evolution of Religion”).
Apostasy was foretold
The shameful history of the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity is consistent with what Jesus and his apostles predicted for the time to come after them.
They said there would be apostasy, a deviation, a backsliding from true worship that would continue until the return of Christ, and then, before God's day of destruction of this system of things, true worship would be restored.
Of this “day,” the apostle Paul said, “That day will not come until the apostasy first comes, and the man of sin is revealed.”—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.
Later, he predicted: “After my departure, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and out of yourselves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29, 30). Other disciples of Jesus also wrote about this apostasy and about his "man of sin" -
clergy. (See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.)
Paul also wrote: “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their whims they will choose for themselves teachers who will flatter their ears; and turn their ears away from the truth, and turn to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4).
Jesus himself explained what lay behind this apostasy from true worship. He said he had planted good seeds in the field, but the enemy, Satan,
sow tares in the same field. With the first sprouts of wheat came the tares. Therefore, it was to be expected that until the harvest, until the time when
Christ will correct everything, there will be a deviation from pure Christianity (Matthew 13:24-43).
The Encyclopedia Americana says: “The theological theory of the Trinity that developed in the 4th century did not accurately reflect the original Christian doctrine of the nature of God; on the contrary, this theory was a deviation from this teaching. Where did this deviation come from? (1 Timothy 1:6).
What influenced it?
In ancient times, back in Babylonian times, many people worshiped pagan gods grouped in threes or triads. It was also widespread in Egypt, Greece and Rome centuries before Christ, during his life and after his death. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to penetrate into Christianity.
Historian Will Durant notes: “Christianity failed to destroy paganism; it took over. […] From Egypt came the concept of trinity
deities."
And Siegfried Morenz writes: “The attention of Egyptian theologians was almost completely focused on the trinity ... The three gods were united and treated as one being, referring to him in the singular. This shows a direct connection between the spiritual power of the Egyptian religion and Christian theology” (“Ägyptische Religion”).
This also influenced how, in Alexandria, Egypt, at the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th century, churchmen such as Athanasius formulated the ideas that led to the doctrine of the Trinity. Their own influence also spread, so that Morenz calls "Alexandrian theology an intermediate link between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity."
The preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity states: "If paganism was defeated by Christianity, then
it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by paganism. The pure deism of the early Christians ... was turned into an incomprehensible
trinity dogma. Many pagan principles introduced by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato have been preserved as worthy of faith."
One dictionary notes that, according to many, the Trinity is "a distortion borrowed from pagan religions and grafted onto the Christian faith"
("A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge"). And another work says: "The origin [of the Trinity] is entirely pagan" ("The Paganism in Our Christianity").
This is why James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, for example, we find the trinity group of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu; and in the Egyptian religion -
Osiris, Isis and Horus... And the idea of God as a Trinity is found not only in historical religions.
I recall, in particular, the Neoplatonic idea of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which is “represented in a triune form” (“Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics”). But what does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?
Platonism
Plato lived presumably from 428 to 347 BC. e. Although he did not teach the Trinity per se, his philosophy set the stage for it. Later, philosophies grew rapidly, which included tripartite beliefs and were influenced by Platonic ideas about God and nature.
One French dictionary of Plato's influence says: "It seems that the Platonic trinity, which itself was only a reconstruction of the older
trinity of peoples who lived earlier, became a rational philosophical trinity of symbols, which gave rise to three hypostases, or divine faces, which are taught in
Christian churches. […]
This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity... can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions" ("Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel").
On the influence of this Greek philosophy, it is said: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity were given form by the Greek Fathers, who ... directly or indirectly were very strongly influenced by the philosophy of Plato ... That errors and distortions crept into the Church precisely from this source is irrefutable” (“The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge").
“The doctrine of the Trinity was formed gradually, and this occurred relatively late ... this doctrine originates from a source that has nothing to do with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures ... it was formed and introduced into Christianity by the efforts of the Fathers, who were under the influence
philosophy of Plato" ("The Church of the First Three Centuries").
By the end of the 3rd century A.D. e. "Christianity" and Neoplatonic philosophies became inseparable. As Adolf Harnack says, church doctrine is “strongly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [the pagan Greek worldview]. Thus it became a mystery to the vast majority of Christians” (“Grundriß der Dogmengeschichte”).
The church has said its new teachings are based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality, she legitimized in her midst the Hellenic speculation, superstitious views and customs of pagan sacrament worship."
Andrew Norton says about the Trinity: “We can trace the history of the emergence of this doctrine and find its source, but not in Christian revelation, but in the philosophy of Plato ... The Trinity is not the teaching of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of later followers of the teachings of Plato” ( "A Statement
of Reasons").
So, in the 4th century A.D. e. the apostasy predicted by Jesus and the apostles flourished.
The formation of the doctrine of the Trinity was but one proof of this. Other pagan beliefs began to be adopted by the apostate churches, such as hellfire, the immortality of the soul, and idolatry.
Spiritually speaking, Christendom has entered a predicted age of darkness dominated by a growing "man of sin"—the clergy (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7).
Why was this not taught by the prophets of God?
Why hasn't any of God's prophets taught God's people the dogma of the Trinity for thousands of years? After all, couldn't Jesus use his powers as a Great Teacher to explain the doctrine of the Trinity to his followers?
If this were the "master tenet" of faith, would God inspire the writing of hundreds of pages of the Bible, and yet not use any of the instructions written in it to teach people the dogma of the Trinity?
Should Christians believe that, centuries after Christ and after the completion of the writing of the inspired Bible, God will support
the formation of a doctrine that its ministers did not know about for millennia; a doctrine that is an "incomprehensible mystery" "beyond human understanding"; a doctrine that is admittedly pagan in origin and is “largely a matter of ecclesiastical politics”?
History clearly testifies: the doctrine of the Trinity is a deviation from the truth, it is an apostasy.
What does the Bible say about God and Jesus?
If an unbiased reader were to read the Bible from beginning to end, would he himself come to the conclusion that God is triune? Not at all.
It would become absolutely clear to an unprejudiced reader that only God is the Most High, the Creator, a separate person, not like anyone else, and that Jesus, even during his pre-human existence, is also a separate and individual person, a creation subordinate to God.
God is one, not three
The biblical doctrine that there is only one God is called monotheism. Church history professor LL Payne shows that monotheism in its purest form leaves no room for the Trinity: “The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a separate person. The notion that a trinity can be found there… is completely unfounded.”
Has anything happened to monotheism since Jesus came to earth? Payne replies: “There is no gap between the Old and New Testaments on this point. The monotheistic tradition continues. Jesus was a Jew raised by his parents in the spirit of the Old Testament scriptures.
His teaching was traditionally Jewish; of course he introduced a new gospel, but not a new theology. […] And he was convinced of the truth of the sublime verse of Jewish monotheism: “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God is one God.”
These words are found in Deuteronomy 6:4. In the Synodal edition, this verse reads like this: "Hear, Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." Nothing in
The grammatical structure of this verse does not suggest that more than one person is being referred to here.
In the words of the Christian apostle Paul, there is also no indication of any change in the nature of God, even after Jesus came to earth.
Paul wrote, "God is one" (Galatians 3:20; see also 1 Corinthians 8:4-6).
Thousands of times the Bible speaks of God as one person. When he speaks, he speaks as an undivided person. This is expressed very clearly in the Bible. God says, “I am Jehovah, this is my name, and I will not give my glory to another” (Isaiah 42:8, PAM). “I am Jehovah your God… Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:2, 3, PAM) (emphasis ours.-Ed.).
If God really consisted of three persons, why would all the inspired writers of the Bible need to speak of him as one person? Wouldn't that be cheating?
Certainly, if God were three persons, he would have the writers of the Bible write about it so clearly that there would be no doubt about it. This, at least, those who wrote the Christian Greek Scriptures should have done, for they were in personal communion with God's own Son. But they didn't.
From the words of the writers of the Bible, just the opposite is quite obvious: God is one Person; unique, inseparable Personality, which has no equal. “I am Jehovah, and there is no other; there is no God but Me” (Isaiah 45:5, PAM). “You, whose name is Jehovah, are One high above all the earth” (Psalm 82:19, PP).
A God that is not made up of multiple Gods
Jesus called God “the only true God” (John 17:3). He never spoke of God as a deity consisting of several persons. This is why no one but Jehovah is called Almighty in the Bible.
Otherwise, the word "almighty" would lose its meaning. Neither Jesus nor the holy spirit is ever called that, because only Jehovah is the Almighty. In Genesis 17:1 he declares, "I am God Almighty." Exodus 18:11 says, “Jehovah is greater than all gods.”
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word 'eloʹach (god) has two plural forms, 'elohimʹ (gods) and ʻeloheʹch (gods of something or someone).
These plural forms usually refer to Jehovah and are then translated as the singular "God." Do these plural forms indicate the Trinity? No.
William Smith says: “The strange idea that ['elohim] refers to a trinity of persons in the Godhead is unlikely to find support among scholars today. It is either what philologists call the plural, denoting greatness, or an indication of the fullness of God's power, the totality of all the powers manifested by God” (“A Dictionary of the Bible”).
Of the word 'elohimʹ it is said: "It is almost always required to be followed by a singular verbal predicate and a singular adjective" (The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures).
For example, in the creation account, the title 'elohimʹ appears 35 times, and each time the verb describing God's words and actions is in the singular (Genesis 1:1-2:4). The journal concludes by saying, "['Elohim] should rather be explained as an amplifying plural, indicating power and majesty."
The word 'elohim' does not mean 'persons' but 'gods'. Therefore, those who claim that the word implies the Trinity become polytheists, worshiping more than one God. Why? Because in this case there should be three gods in the Trinity. But almost all believers in the doctrine of the Trinity reject the view that the Trinity consists of three separate gods.
In the Bible, the words 'elohim and 'elohehʹ are also applied to some false idol gods (Exodus 12:12; 20:23). And in some cases, the words may refer to just one false god, as when the Philistines referred to “Dagon their god [’eloheʹch]” (Judges 16:23, 24).
Baal is called "the god ['elohim]" (1 Kings 18:27). It also applies to people (Psalm 81:1, 6). Moses was told that he would
"God ['elohim]" for Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1).
Obviously, the use of the titles 'elohim and 'elohehʹ for false gods and even for humans did not imply that each of them represented a multitude of gods; likewise, the use of the titles 'elohimʹ and ʻeloheʹch to Jehovah does not mean that he represents more than one person, especially when one considers all the other evidence contained in the Bible on this subject.
Jesus is a separate creation
When Jesus was on earth, he was a man, only perfect, because God transferred his life force into the womb of Mary (Matthew 1:18-25). But this was not the beginning of its existence. Jesus referred to himself as "coming down from heaven" (John 3:13).
So it was only natural that he would later say to his followers, “What if you see the Son of Man [Jesus] ascending where he was before?” (John 6:62).
Thus, before coming to earth, Jesus existed in heaven. But was he one of the faces of the almighty eternal triune Deity? No, the Bible clearly shows that during his pre-human existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither angels nor Jesus existed prior to their creation.
During his pre-human existence, Jesus was "begotten before every creature" (Colossians 1:15). He was "the beginning of God's creation"
(Revelation 3:14). The word "beginning" [gr. archi] cannot be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the 'beginner' of God's creation.
In the writings of John included in the Bible, various forms of the Greek word archʹ occur more than 20 times and always carry the general meaning of “beginning.” Yes, God created Jesus as the beginning of his invisible creations.
Let's see how closely these references to the origin of Jesus are connected with the words of the figurative “Wisdom” in the biblical book of Proverbs: “I, Wisdom, am the first thing that the Lord created. I was born before the mountains and before the hills. I came into being before the Lord made the fields of the earth and the first grains of dust” (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, SoP).
Although the one who was created by God is represented in these verses as "Wisdom", most scholars agree that this is a rhetorical figure designating Jesus as a spiritual being before he came to earth.
Speaking during his prehuman existence as "Wisdom," Jesus goes on to say that he was "beside him [God] as a skillful helper" (Proverbs 8:30, SoP). In keeping with this role as a skillful helper, Colossians 1:16 (NT) says of Jesus that "through him" God created all things in heaven and on earth.
So, through this skillful worker, as if his junior partner, Almighty God created everything else. The Bible summarizes this as follows: “We have one God, the Father, from whom all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things” (1 Corinthians 8:6, NT) (our italics - Ed.).
Of course, it was to this skillful helper that God spoke with the words: “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26). Some claim
that the words “let us make” and “ours” in this verse point to the Trinity. But if you say: "Let's do something for ourselves," hardly anyone will think that several personalities are combined in you into one.
You simply mean that two or more people will do something together. In the same way, when God said “let us make” and “ours,” he was simply referring to another person, his first spiritual creation, his skilled helper, Jesus, who existed before he came to earth.
Is it possible to tempt God?
Matthew 4:1 says that Jesus was "tempted by the devil." After showing Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,” Satan said, “All these things I will give you, if you bow down to me.”—Matthew 4:8, 9. Satan tried to get Jesus to betray God.
But what test of devotion could there be if Jesus himself were God? How could God rebel against himself? No. But angels and humans could rebel against God, and they did. The temptation of Jesus only made sense if he was not God, but an individual with his own free will; a person who, like any angel or person, could, if desired, commit a betrayal.
On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine that God could sin and betray himself. “Perfect are His works…God is faithful…He is just and true” (Deuteronomy 32:4). This means that if Jesus were God, it would be impossible to tempt him (James 1:13).
Not being God, Jesus could commit treachery. But he remained faithful, saying, “Get behind me, Satan; For it is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him alone” (Matthew 4:10).
How big was the ransom?
One of the main reasons why Jesus came to earth is also directly related to the Trinity. The Bible says, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.”—1 Timothy 2:5, 6.
Jesus, who was no more and no less than a perfect man, became a ransom that exactly made up for what Adam had lost - the right to a perfect human life on earth. Therefore, the apostle Paul could justifiably call Jesus “the last Adam,” adding: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45).
The perfect human life of Jesus was exactly the “redemption” required by God's justice. Even human justice requires that the punishment be in proportion to the evil done.
But if Jesus had been part of the Godhead, the price of the ransom would have been immeasurably greater than what God's Law required (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21). It was not God who sinned in Eden, but only the perfect man, Adam. Therefore, in order to really satisfy the demand of God's justice, exactly the same ransom was needed - a perfect man, "the last Adam."
Thus, when God sent Jesus to earth as a ransom, he intended Jesus to be the one to satisfy the demand.
justice: not an incarnation of a deity, not a god-man, but a perfect man, “below the angels” (Hebrews 2:9, CoP; compare Psalm 8:6, 7). How could a part of the supreme Deity - be it the Father, the Son, or the holy spirit - ever be lower than the angels?
"Only Begotten Son" - what does it mean?
In the Bible, Jesus is called the “only begotten Son” of God (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity say that since God is eternal, then the Son of God is also eternal. But how can anyone, being a son, be the same age as his father?
Proponents of the doctrine of the Trinity argue that in the case of Jesus, the word "only-begotten" takes on a different meaning, different from the definition of the word "beget", which is given in the dictionary: "Giving life to someone, becoming a father" ("Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language" in 17 volumes).
They say that in the case of Jesus, it carries "the meaning of eternal relationship," a kind of relationship between a father and an only son, but not based on birth (Vine, "Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words"). Does it seem logical? Can a person be native
the father of someone without begetting him into the world?
Moreover, why is the same Greek word translated "only begotten" used in the Bible (and Vine bluntly admits it) to describe the relationship between Isaac and Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten" son. There is no doubt that Isaac was the only begotten in the truest sense of the word, and not equal to his father in age and position.
One work says that the basic Greek word for "only begotten" that was applied to Jesus and Isaac is the word
monogenes, derived from the word monoʹos, which means "single", and the words gynomai - the root word, meaning "to generate", "become (be born)" (Strong, "Exhaustive Concordance").
Therefore, the word monogenesʹ is defined as "the only begotten, the only begotten, that is, the only child" (Robinson, "A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament").
The dictionary, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: "[Monogenesʹ] means 'the only descendant', i.e. having no brothers or sisters"
("Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament").
This dictionary also says that John 1:18; 3:16, 18 and 1 John 4:9 “Jesus' relationship with the Father is not merely compared to the relationship that exists between an only child and his father. This is the relationship of the only begotten with the Father.”
So Jesus, the only begotten Son, had a beginning. Almighty God can rightly be called the Giver of Life, or Father, in the same sense as an earthly father, such as Abraham, who gave birth to a son (Hebrews 11:17). Therefore, when the Bible refers to God as the "Father" of Jesus, it means exactly what it says: that they are two different persons. God is the elder. Jesus the younger - in time, position, power and knowledge.
If you think about the fact that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes clear why, in relation to Jesus,
the expression "only begotten Son" is used.
Many other created spirit creatures, the angels, are also called “sons of God” in the same sense as Adam, because their life force comes from Jehovah God, the Source or Source of life.—Job 38:7; Psalm 35:10 ; Luke 3:38). But they were all created through "the only begotten Son," the only one who was directly begotten by God (Colossians 1:15-17 NT).
Was Jesus considered God?
The Bible often refers to Jesus as the Son of God, but no one in the first century ever considered him to be God the Son. Even the demons who believe "that God is one" knew from their experiences in the spiritual realm that Jesus was not God. Therefore, they correctly referred to Jesus as a separate person—the “Son of God” (James 2:19; Matthew 8:29).
And when Jesus died, the nearby Roman soldiers, who were pagans, had enough knowledge to confirm the veracity of the words they heard from the followers of Jesus, not that Jesus was God, but that “truly He was the Son of God” ( Matthew 27:54).
Therefore, the expression "Son of God" refers to Jesus as a separate created person, not as part of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus could not be God himself, because John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God."
The disciples saw Jesus as “the only mediator between God and men,” not God (1 Timothy 2:5). By definition, a mediator is someone other than those who need mediation, so it would be illogical for Jesus to be the same person as one of the parties he is trying to reconcile. Then he would pretend to be someone he is not.
The Bible talks about the relationship between God and Jesus clearly and consistently. Only Jehovah God is the Almighty. He personally created Jesus in the form in which he existed before he came to earth. Thus, Jesus had a beginning, and there was no way he could be equal to God in power or eternity.
Is God always superior to Jesus?
Jesus never claimed to be God. All his statements about himself show that he did not consider himself equal to God in anything - neither in strength, nor in knowledge, nor in time.
In every period of existence, whether in heaven or on earth, Jesus' words reflect his submission to God. God is always higher, Jesus, created by God, is lower.
Jesus was different from God
Jesus repeatedly showed that he was a creation separate from God, and that there was God above him, Jesus - the God he worshiped and called "Father". In praying to God, that is, the Father, Jesus called him "the only true God" (John 17:3). As recorded at John 20:17, he said to Mary Magdalene, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."
This relationship is confirmed by the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Since Jesus had God, his Father, Jesus could not at the same time be this same God.
The apostle Paul did not hesitate to speak of Jesus and God as completely different persons: “We have one God the Father … and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The apostle shows the difference when he says, "Before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the chosen angels" (1 Timothy 5:21). Just as Paul speaks of Jesus and the angels in heaven, Jesus and God are separate persons.
Also noteworthy are the words of Jesus recorded at John 8:17, 18. He says: “It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true; I testify of myself, and the Father who sent me testifies of me. With these words, Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two different entities. How else could they be two witnesses?
Furthermore, Jesus showed that he was not one person with God by saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18).
With these words, Jesus emphasized that no one, not even himself, is as good as God. The extent to which God is good distinguishes him from Jesus.
Servant Subject to God
Many times Jesus spoke words like this: “The Son can do nothing of himself unless he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19). “I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me” (John 6:38). “My doctrine is not mine, but that of him who sent me” (John 7:16).
Is not the sender superior to the one sent?
This relationship is clearly described in Jesus' parable of the vineyard. Jesus likened God, his Father, to the owner of the vineyard, who left, leaving the vineyard in the care of the vinedressers, who represented the Jewish clergy. When the master later sent the slave to the vineyard for fruit, the vinedressers beat the slave and sent him back empty-handed.
Then the master sent another slave, then a third, and the vine-growers treated both in the same way. Finally the host decided: “I will send my beloved son [Jesus]; perhaps when they see him, they will be ashamed.” But the evil vinedressers said: “This is the heir; let us go and kill him, and his inheritance will be ours. And they brought him out of the vineyard and killed him” (Luke 20:16).
Thus, Jesus clearly showed that he was only the one whom God sent to do his will, as a father sends an obedient son. Jesus' followers have always regarded him as a servant, subordinate to God, not equal to him. They prayed to God for His Holy Servant Jesus, the One He had chosen to be Christ, and for signs and wonders done in the name of His Holy Servant Jesus (Acts 4:23, 24, 27, 30, SoP).
God is above at all times
At the very beginning of Jesus' ministry, as he was being baptized and emerging from the water, God's voice came from heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son,
whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16, 17). Did God say that he himself was his own son, that he was pleased with himself, that he sent himself? No, God, the Creator, said that he, as a superior, favored the inferior, his Son Jesus, in the work entrusted to him.
Jesus pointed to the superiority of the Father with these words: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; for he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor” (Luke 4:18). Anointing means the granting of power or authority by a superior to someone who does not yet have power. Here, God is clearly supreme because he anointed Jesus, giving him authority that he never had before.
Jesus clearly indicated the superiority of his Father when the mother of two of his disciples asked Jesus to seat them to his right and left when he came into the Kingdom. Jesus answered, “To let me sit on my right hand and on my left is not up to me, but to whom it has been prepared by my Father” (Matthew 20:23). If Jesus were Almighty God, then he could control these places. But Jesus couldn't do that, because God was in charge of them, and Jesus wasn't God.
Jesus' prayers are a powerful example of Jesus' subservience. Shortly before his death, Jesus showed who was superior by saying in prayer: “Father! Oh, that You would deign to carry this cup past Me! However, not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42). To whom did he pray? Parts of yourself? No, Jesus was praying to another person, his Father, a God whose will was higher and could be different from his own, the only one who could "carry this cup away" from him.
Just before he died, Jesus exclaimed, “My God, My God! why did you leave me?" (Mark 15:34). Who was Jesus talking to? To yourself or to a part of yourself? Of course, the exclamation "My God" was not issued by the one who considered himself God. And then, if Jesus was God, then who left him? Is he himself?
It's pointless. Jesus also said, “Father! into your hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). If Jesus was God, why did he need to commit his spirit to the Father?
After his death, Jesus was in the tomb for three incomplete days. If he were God, then the words of Habakkuk 1:12 (CoP) would be incorrect: “You are my Holy God, who never dies!” But the Bible says that Jesus died and was unconscious in the tomb. Who raised Jesus from the dead?
If he was truly dead, he couldn't resurrect himself. On the other hand, if he was not dead, then his imaginary death would be impossible
pay the ransom for Adam's sin. But Jesus paid the ransom in full because he really died. So it is “God raised him [Jesus] up, breaking the bands of death” (Acts 2:24).
The superior God Almighty raised the inferior, his servant Jesus, from the dead.
Does Jesus' ability to perform miracles, such as resurrect people, indicate that he was God? The apostles, the prophets Elijah and Elisha also possessed such power, but at the same time they remained just people. God gave the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles the power to perform miracles to show that He supported them. But this did not make any of them a part of the many-faced Deity.
Jesus didn't know everything
When prophesying the consummation of this system of things, Jesus said, “But of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). If Jesus were an equal part of the Godhead, he would know everything the Father knows. But Jesus did not know everything, because he was not equal to the Father.
Similarly, in Hebrews 5:8 (CoP) we read that Jesus "learned obedience through all that he endured." Can it be imagined that God needs
was there anything to learn? No, but Jesus needed to learn because he didn't know everything God knew. Jesus also had to learn what God never needs to learn: obedience. God never needs to be obedient to anyone.
The difference in knowledge between God and Christ also existed when Jesus was resurrected to heavenly life with God. Let's focus on the first words.
the latest Bible book: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him (Revelation 1:1).
If Jesus were part of the Godhead, would he really need another part of the Godhead—God—to give him revelation? Surely he would have known all about this revelation, as God knew. But Jesus didn't know, because he wasn't God.
Jesus Remains Submissive
Before becoming a man, and then on earth, Jesus obeyed God. After the resurrection, he still remains in subjection, occupying a secondary
position.
Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those who were with him said to the Jewish Sanhedrin: “God has exalted Him [Jesus] by seating Him at His right hand.”
(Acts 5:31, SoP). Paul wrote, “God exalted him to the highest position” (Philippians 2:9, SoP).
If Jesus were God, how could he be exalted, that is, given a higher position than what he previously held? He would already be an exalted part of the Trinity. If Jesus had been equal to God even before the exaltation, then after the exaltation he would have become higher than God.
Paul also said that Christ has entered “into heaven itself, to now appear for us before the face of God” (Hebrews 9:24). If you are standing in front of someone, can you be the same person with him? No. You must be a different, separate being.
Similarly, Stephen, before he was stoned, “looked up into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55).
It is clear that he saw two separate persons, but did not see the holy spirit, did not see the Deity-Trinity.
In the message recorded in Revelation 4:8-5:7, God is depicted sitting on his heavenly throne, but Jesus is not sitting there. He must go to God
to take the scroll from his right hand. This shows that in heaven Jesus is not God, but a completely different person.
In accordance with the above, published in Manchester (England) "Bulletin of the John Rylands Library" ("Bulletin of the John Rylands Library")
states: “After the resurrection to heavenly life, Jesus is described as a person who retained his individuality as distinct and separate from
the individuality of God as it was during the life of Jesus on earth.
Next to God and in comparison with God, he appears, of course, as a separate, angel-like, celestial being in the heavenly court of God, although, being the Son of God, he belongs to a different category and occupies a much higher position than them. (Compare Philippians 2:11 CoP.)
The Bulletin also says: “However, what is said about his life and duties as the heavenly Christ does not mean or imply that in divine status he is equal with God himself and is God.
On the contrary, in the way the New Testament portrays his heavenly personality and his
service, both its independent existence and its subordination to God are revealed.
In an endless future life in heaven, Jesus will remain a servant of God. The Bible says this: “Then the end, when He [Jesus in heaven] will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father… …Then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:24, 28) .
Jesus never claimed to be God
The position of the Bible is clear. Almighty Jehovah God is not only different from Jesus, but has stood above him at all times. Jesus is always portrayed as a separate and inferior humble servant of God. This is why the Bible explicitly states that “Christ is the head of God,” just as “Christ is the head of every man” (1 Corinthians 11:3). And that's why Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. More and more scientists agree with this. As the John Rylands Library Bulletin puts it: "It must be admitted that in the course of New Testament studies over the last, say, thirty or forty years, more and more respected scholars have come to the conclusion that Jesus ... never considered himself to be God."
Of first-century Christians, the Bulletin says: “Therefore, when they called [Jesus] by such honorific titles as Christ, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord, they did not mean that he was God, but that he did God's work."
So, even as some theologians admit, the idea of Jesus as God is contrary to the whole evidence of the Bible. According to the Bible, God always stands above, and Jesus is given the place of a subordinate servant.
The Holy Spirit is the active force of God
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the holy spirit is the third person of the Godhead, equal to the Father and the Son. One work says: “The Holy Spirit is God” (“Our Orthodox Christian Faith”).
The word most commonly used for "spirit" in the Hebrew Scriptures is ruʹach, meaning "breath, wind, spirit." In the Greek Scriptures, the word pneʹuma has a similar meaning. Do these words indicate that the holy spirit is part of the Trinity?
Operating force
The use of the term “holy spirit” in the Bible shows that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to carry out many of his purposes. To some extent, this force can be likened to electricity - a force that can be adapted to perform a wide variety of tasks.
Genesis 1:2 says that “the Spirit [Heb. ruach] God hovered over the waters. In this case, the spirit of God was his active force, which gave shape to the Earth.
God uses his spirit to enlighten those who serve him. David prayed, “Teach me to do Thy will, for Thou art my God; May your good spirit [ruach] guide me to the land of righteousness” (Psalm 142:10). When 70 capable men were appointed to help Moses, God told him, “I will take from the Spirit [ruʹach] that is on you and put it on them” (Numbers 11:17).
The men of God wrote down prophecies “being moved by the Spirit [Gk. from pneuma] to the Saints” (2 Peter 1:20, 21). Therefore, Scripture is "God-breathed" [Gr. Theopneustos, meaning "breathed in by God"] (2 Timothy 3:16). In addition, the holy spirit led some people to see visions or
prophetic dreams (2 Samuel 23:2; Joel 2:28, 29; Luke 1:67; Acts 1:16; 2:32, 33).
The Holy Spirit prompted Jesus to go into the wilderness after being baptized (Mark 1:12). The Spirit burned like fire in the servants of God, stirring them to action. And he helped them speak boldly and courageously (Micah 3:8; Acts 7:55-60; 18:25; Romans 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19).
Through his spirit, God executes judgments against men and nations (Isaiah 30:27, 28; 59:18, 19). The Spirit of God can go anywhere, working for or against people (Psalm 139:7-12).
"Excessive Strength"
The Spirit of God can give God's servants "excessive strength" (2 Corinthians 4:7). This allows them to endure the trials of faith and do things that without this spirit they would not be able to do.
For example, Judges 14:6 says of Samson: “The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he tore to pieces a lion like a kid; and he had nothing in his hand.
Did a divine personality really enter Samson or take over him, causing his body to do what he did? No, according to another translation of the Bible, “the power of the Lord made Samson strong” (“Today’s English Version”).
The Bible says that when Jesus was baptized, the holy spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove, not in the form of a man (Mark 1:10). This active power of God enabled Jesus to heal the sick and raise the dead. Luke 5:17 says, "The power of the Lord appeared in healing the sick."
The Spirit of God gave the disciples of Jesus the power to work miracles. Acts 2:1-4 tells us that when the disciples were together at Pentecost, “suddenly
there was a noise from heaven, as if from a rushing strong wind ... And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them to speak.
So, the holy spirit gave Jesus and other servants of God the power to do things that people normally cannot do.
Not a person
But aren't there verses in the Bible in which the holy spirit is animated? Yes, but note what the Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this: “Although this spirit is often described as animated, the holy writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] in all likelihood never considered this spirit to be a separate person and did not present it as a person in his writings” (“The Triune God”).
Scripture often speaks of something inanimate as being animate. Wisdom is said to have children (Luke 7:35). Sin and death are said to reign (Romans 5:14, 21). Genesis 4:7 (in The New English Bible) says, "Sin is the demon lurking at the door," thus sin is animated as the vicious spirit that lurks at Cain's door.
But, of course, sin is not a spiritual person; in the same way, the animating of the holy spirit does not make him a spiritual person.
Similarly, in 1 John 5:6, 8, not only the spirit but also “water and blood” are said to “bear witness.” But water and blood are clearly not personalities,
neither is the person and the holy spirit.
This is consistent with the fact that the Bible generally speaks of the "Holy Spirit" as inanimate, for example, a parallel is drawn between the holy spirit,
water and fire (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8). People are called to be filled with holy spirit instead of drinking wine (Ephesians 5:18). They are said to be filled with holy spirit as well as wisdom, faith, and joy (Acts 6:3; 11:24; 13:52).
And in 2 Corinthians 6:6, the holy spirit is mentioned among other attributes. Such expressions would not be so common if the holy spirit were a person.
Also, while some Bible verses say that the spirit speaks, other verses show that it is actually done through humans or angels (Matthew 10:19, 20; Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Hebrews 2:2 ). The action of the spirit in such cases is similar to the action of radio waves, with the help of which messages are transmitted between people who are far from each other.
Matthew 28:19 says, "In the name of... the Holy Spirit." But the word "name" in both Greek and Russian does not always mean a personal name. When we say "in the name of the law" we do not mean man. We refer to the relevant law, to its force. One work says: "The use here of the word 'name' (onoma) is common in the Septuagint and papyri when referring to power or authority" (Robertson, "Word Pictures in the New Testament").
Therefore, one who is baptized "in the name of ... the Holy Spirit" recognizes the power of this spirit: that this spirit comes from God and acts according to God's will.
"Comforter"
Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a "comforter" who would teach, guide, and speak (John 14:16, 26; 16:13). The Greek word Jesus used for “comforter” (paraʹkletos) is masculine. So when Jesus mentioned what this comforter would do, he used masculine personal pronouns (John 16:7, 8).
On the other hand, when the Greek neuter word (pneʹuʹma) is used to designate a spirit, the Greek text appropriately uses the neuter pronoun to indicate the inanimate nature of the spirit.
Most translators who support the doctrine of the Trinity hide this fact and in John 14:17, as in many other places, give the word "spirit" the meaning of a living being, a person. Grammatically, this is expressed in Russian in the form of the accusative case. The accusative case of animate masculine nouns corresponds to the genitive case, and the accusative case of inanimate masculine nouns corresponds to
nominative.
Although here “spirit” denotes the active power of God and is therefore an inanimate noun, in many
In translations of the Bible, the accusative case of the word "spirit" corresponds to the genitive case ("spirit"), which erroneously indicates the animation of the spirit.
Not part of the Trinity
Various sources acknowledge that the Bible does not support the notion that the holy spirit is the third person of the Trinity. For example:
“Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a clear indication of the Third Person” (“Catholic Encyclopedia”).
“The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any hard evidence that even one of the writers of the Old Testament thought so. […]
Usually the Holy Spirit is presented in the Gospels and Acts as God's power or might” (Catholic theologian E. Fortman).
“There is no conception of the spirit of God as a person in the Old Testament… The spirit of God is simply the power of God.
If he is sometimes described as separate from God, it is because Yahweh's breath acts as an external force." “Most of the N[ew] T[estament] verses depict the spirit of God as something, not as someone; this is especially evident in the parallelism of the spirit and power of God” (“The New Catholic Encyclopedia”) (italics ours. - Ed.). “In general, in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, the spirit is spoken of as God's energy or power” (“Catholic Dictionary”).
Therefore, neither the Jews nor the early Christians considered the holy spirit to be part of the Trinity. This teaching appeared centuries later. As noted in the Catholic
dictionary”, “the third Person was approved at the Council of Alexandria in 362 ... and finally adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381”,
that is, three and a half centuries after the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost!
So, the holy spirit is not a person and not part of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is the active force of God, which he uses to carry out his will. This power is not equal to God, but is always at his disposal and subordinate to him.
What verses are cited to support the doctrine of the Trinity?
Some Bible verses are said to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. However, when reading such verses, it should be remembered that neither biblical nor historical facts support this teaching.
Three in one
Three such “proving” verses are given in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, but it also admits: “The Old Testament does not teach the dogma of
Holy Trinity. In the N[ew] T[estament], the earliest evidence is found in the Pauline epistles, chiefly 2 Cor. 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles] and 1 Cor. 12:4-6. In the Gospels, the evidence of the Trinity is clearly found only in the baptismal formula in Matt. 28.19".
In the Synodal edition, three "persons" are listed in these verses. 2 Corinthians 13:13 says, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit with you all.”
1 Corinthians 12:4-6 says, “The gifts are different, but the Spirit is the same; and the ministries are different, but the Lord is one and the same; and the actions are different, but God is one and the same, working everything in everyone. And Matthew 28:19 says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Do these verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute the Triune Deity, that all three are equal in essence, power, and eternity? No, it does not say, just as the listing of three people - for example, Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov - does not mean that they are three in one.
References of this kind "prove only that there are three named subjects ... but such references by themselves do not prove that these three subjects
necessarily belong to the divine nature and are worthy of equal divine honor" (McClintock and Strong, "Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature).
While this work upholds the doctrine of the Trinity, it does say of 2 Corinthians 13:13: "It cannot rightly be said that they were of equal power, or of the same nature." And about Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "If we consider this passage separately, then it does not conclusively prove either that all three of the mentioned subjects are persons, nor their equality, nor their divinity."
In the account of the baptism of Jesus, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus saw "the Spirit of God descending like
dove, and descended on him” (Matthew 3:16). However, this does not prove that they are three in one. Many times Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together, but that doesn't make them one. Peter, James and John are mentioned together, but they also do not become one.
Also, the spirit of God descended on Jesus at the time of baptism, which shows that prior to baptism, Jesus was not anointed with the spirit. But how then could he be part of the Trinity, in which he and the holy spirit were always one?
Another reference to the three subjects together is found in some older Bible translations in 1 John 5:7. However, scientists
admit that initially these words were not in the Bible, they were added much later. In most modern translations, this inserted verse
falls rightly.
Other verses that cite the doctrine of the Trinity as evidence concern the relationship of only two subjects - the Father and Jesus. Let's look at some of these verses.
"I and the Father are One"
This verse, recorded at John 10:30, is often cited in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, although it does not mention the third person. But Jesus himself explained
what he meant when he said he was "one" with the Father.
In John 17:21, 22 he prayed to God for his disciples: “Let them all be one; as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, so may they also be one in Us ... ... May they be one, as We are one. Did Jesus pray that all of his disciples would become one being? No, apparently Jesus prayed that they, like him and God, would be one in thought and purpose. (See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.)
In 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered… But he who plants and he who waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he
Apollos were two faces in one, he meant that they had a common goal.
The Greek word used here by Paul and translated
as "one" (hyung), refers to the neuter gender and indicates commonality in cooperation. This is the same word that Jesus used in John
10:30 to describe your relationship with the Father. And this is the same word Jesus used in John 17:21, 22. Therefore, when he used these
In places the word meaning "one" (hyung), he spoke of unity in thought and purpose.
Trinity believer John Calvin said of John 10:30: “Thinkers of antiquity misused this verse to
evidence that Christ has…one essence with the Father. Because Jesus testifies not to the unity of essence, but to the agreement between him and the Father” (“Commentary on the Gospel According to John”).
In the verses immediately following John 10:30, Jesus convincingly proved that these words did not claim to be God. Jesus asked the Jews, who had come to this wrong conclusion and wanted to stone him: “To him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, do you say, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:31-36). Jesus claimed to be not God the Son, but the Son of God.
"Making Himself equal with God"?
Another verse cited in support of the doctrine of the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as in John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."
But who said that Jesus made himself equal with God? Not Jesus. Already in the next verse (19) he refutes this false accusation: "To this Jesus said ...
The Son cannot do anything by Himself unless He sees the Father doing it.
With these words, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not do anything on his own initiative. Is it possible for someone equal to Almighty God to say that “he can do nothing of himself”? (Compare Daniel 4:31, 32.)
Interestingly, the context of John 5:18 and John 10:30 shows that Jesus was defending himself against the false accusations made by the Jews, who, like those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, drew wrong conclusions.
"Equal to God"?
Philippians 2:6 in the Synodal Edition (1876) says of Jesus: "He, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." This verse is also translated in the King James Bible, published in 1611.
Some still use such translations to support the notion that Jesus was equal to God. But let's see how this verse sounds in other translations:
1869: "Who, being in the form of God, did not think it necessary to encroach on being equal with God" (Noyes, "The New Testament").
1965: "He is truly divine in nature! — never presumptuously made himself equal with God” (Friedrich Pfeflin, Das Neue Testament, revised edition).
1968: "Who, though in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to aspire to" ("La Bibbia Concordata").
1976: "He always had the nature of God, but he didn't think he had to force himself to try to become equal with God" ("Today's English Version").
1984: "Who, though in the form of God, did not allow the thought of encroaching on equality with God" ("New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures").
1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider that it was necessary to encroach on equality with God” (“The New Jerusalem Bible”).
Yet some argue that even these more accurate translations imply that 1) Jesus was already equal to God, but did not seek to keep it.
equality, or 2) he didn't need to encroach on equality with God because he already had it.
Ralph Martin says on this occasion about the original Greek text: “It is doubtful, however, that the meaning of the verb could be shifted from its original
the meanings of “grab”, “assign” to the meaning of “hold on tight”” (“The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians”).
Another work says: “Nowhere is there a verse in which the word ἁρπάζω [harpazo] or any of its derivatives would have the meaning of “possess”, “preserve”. It almost always means “to seize”, “to appropriate”. Thus, it is unacceptable to shift from the true meaning of the word "encroach" to the completely different meaning of "hold on tight"" ("The Expositor's Greek Testament").
From what has been said, it becomes clear that the translators who worked on such translations as the Synodal and the King James Bible distorted the rules,
to support the doctrine of the Trinity. If one reads the Greek text without prejudice, then Philippians 2:6 does not say that Jesus considered it appropriate to be equal with God, but quite the contrary, that Jesus did not consider that such equality would be appropriate.
The correct meaning of verse 6 is made clear by its context (verses 3-5, 7, 8). The Philippians are exhorted: “In humility of mind, honor one another
higher self." Paul then cites Christ as the pre-eminent example of this behavior: "You must have the same mind in you that was in Christ Jesus."
What "feelings"? Do not consider it robbery to be equal to God? No, that would be just the opposite of what Paul was talking about! Jesus, who considered God superior to himself, would never have encroached on equality with God; instead, he "humbled himself, being obedient unto death."
Of course, these words cannot be attributed to any of the constituent parts of Almighty God. It was said about Jesus Christ, excellent personal
an example of which Paul used to emphasize the main idea - the idea of the importance of humility and obedience to the Most High and Creator, Jehovah God.
"I am"
In John 8:58, some translations, such as the Synodal, quote the words of Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I am." Did Jesus teach here
how do believers in the doctrine of the Trinity claim that he was known by the title "I am"? And does this mean, as they claim, that he was Jehovah in
the Hebrew Scriptures, because Exodus 3:14 (FAM) says, “God said to Moses, I am the one that I am”?
In Exodus 3:14, the phrase "I am" is used as a title for God, showing that he really exists and does what he promised. In one work
Published by Dr. J. G. Hertz, this phrase is said: “For the captive Israelites, it meant: “Though He has not yet shown you His might, He will do it; He is eternal and will surely save you.”
Most modern translations follow Rashi [French commentator on the Bible and Talmud], translating [Exodus 3:14] with the expression "I will be what I will be"" ("Pentateuch und Haftaroth").
The expression in John 8:58 is markedly different from the expression in Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or title, but as an explanation for his existence before becoming human. Let's see how these words of John 8:58 are rendered in other translations of the Bible:
1869: "Before Abraham I am" (Noyes, "The New Testament").
1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" (Smith and Goodspeed, "The Bible-An American Translation").
1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already who I am" (Jörg Zink, "Das Neue Testament").
1981: "I lived before Abraham was born!" ("The Simple English Bible").
1984: "Before there was Abraham, there was I" ("New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures").
1990: “I was before Abraham was born” (translated by L. Lutkovsky).
So, the idea conveyed in this verse by the Greek is that the firstborn of God, Jesus, who was created “before every creature,” existed long before Abraham was born (Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30 , SoP; Revelation 3:14).
And again, the correctness of such an understanding is evidenced by the context. At that time, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming that he "saw Abraham" even though, they said, he was not yet 50 years old (verse 57). Jesus' natural reaction to this was to tell the truth about his age. Therefore, as one would expect, he told them that "he was before Abraham was born" (L. Lutkovsky's translation).
"The Word was God"
John 1:1 in the Synodal Edition reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." According to those who believe in the dogma of the Trinity, this means that the “Word” (Greek: ho logos), who came to earth as Jesus Christ, was none other than Almighty God.
Note, however, that again the context helps the correct understanding here. Even the Synodal edition says that “the Word was with God” (italics ours. - Ed.). A person who is “at” another person cannot himself be that other person.
In line with this, a journal edited by the Jesuit Joseph Fitzmyer notes that if the meaning of the last part of John 1:1 is "God," it "contradicts the previous part of the verse," which says that the Word was with God ( "Journal of Biblical Literature").
Let's also see how this part of the verse is rendered in other translations:
1808: "and the word was god" ("The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text").
1864: "and god was the word" (Benjamin Wilson, "The Emphatic Diaglott").
1928: "and the Word was a divine being" (Maurice Gojiel, "La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean").
1935: "and the Word was divine" (Smith and Goodspeed, "The Bible-An American Translation").
1946: "and the Word was divine" (Ludwig Timme, "Das Neue Testament").
1950: "and the Word was god" ("New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures").
1958: "and the Word was God" (James Tomanek, "The New Testament").
1975: "and God (or divine kind) was the Word" (Siegfried Schulz, "Das Evangelium nach Johannes").
1978: "and of a godlike kind was the Logos" (Johannes Schneider, "Das Evangelium nach Johannes").
In John 1:1, the Greek noun theosʹ (god) appears twice. The first time it refers to Almighty God, who had the Word (“and the Word [logos] was with God [a form of the noun theosʹ]”). In this case, the word theosʹ is preceded by the word tone, a Greek form of the definite article that refers to a specific person, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [tone] of God”).
On the other hand, when the word theosʹ appears a second time in John 1:1, there is no article before it. Therefore, it literally translates as "and God was the Word." However, as we have already seen, in many translations the second word theosʹ (the nominal part of the compound predicate) is translated as “divine”, “god-like” or “god”. On what basis is this being done?
Koine Greek—common Greek—had a definite article, but no indefinite article. Therefore, if before
the noun representing the nominal part of the compound predicate does not have a definite article, this noun, depending on the context, can be indefinite, that is, express its belonging to a number of similar ones.
One journal (Journal of Biblical Literature) says that expressions “in which the verb is preceded by a nominal part of the compound predicate without
articles, as a rule, have a qualitative characteristic. As noted in the magazine, this indicates that the logos can be called godlike.
John 1:1 says: “It is so obvious that the nominal part of a compound predicate has a qualitative characteristic that the noun [theosʹ] cannot be considered as definite, that is, expressing its singularity.”
Thus, John 1:1 emphasizes the quality of the Word, that it was "divine," "godlike," "god," but not Almighty God.
This is consistent with what is said in other parts of the Bible, showing that Jesus, who here acts as the representative of God and is called
"Word", was an obedient subordinate, who was sent to earth by the Superior, Almighty God.
There are many other Bible verses with the same grammatical structure, and almost all translators into other languages translate the nominal part of the compound predicate so that it has a qualitative characteristic.
For example, in Mark 6:49, where the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, it says, “They thought it was a ghost.” In Koine Greek, there is no indefinite article before the word "ghost".
But in order to match the translation of this verse with the context, almost all translators into other languages translate the nominal part of the compound predicate so that it has a qualitative characteristic. Similarly, since John 1:1 says that the Word was with God, it could not be God, but was "god" or "divine."
Theologian and scholar Joseph Henry Thayer, who worked on the American Standard Version of the Bible, said, "The Logos was divine, not the Divine Being himself." The Jesuit John Mackenzie wrote: “John. 1:1 must be accurately translated… ‘the word was a divine being’” (“Dictionary of the Bible”).
Breaking the rules?
Some, however, argue that such a translation violates the Koine Greek grammar rules published by the Greek specialist E.
Colwell in 1933. He argued that in Greek the nominal part of the compound predicate "has a [definite] article if it follows
verb; if it precedes the verb, then it has no [definite] article.
By this, Colwell meant that the nominal part of the compound predicate, which comes before the verb, must be understood as if it had before it
definite article. In John 1:1, the second noun (theosʹ) is the nominal part of the compound predicate and precedes the verb - “and [theosʹ]
was the Word. Therefore, Colwell argued, John 1:1 should read "and God was the Word."
But let's look at just two examples found in John 8:44. There Jesus speaks of the Devil: "He was a murderer" and "He is a liar." As in
John 1:1, in the Greek text, nouns ("murderer" and "liar"), representing nominal parts of compound predicates, precede verbs ("was" and omitted in Russian "is").
None of these nouns has an indefinite article, because in Koine Greek it does not exist. But in most translations, the nominal part of the compound predicate is translated in such a way that it has a qualitative characteristic, because this is required by the grammar of the Greek language and the context. (See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.)
Colwell was forced to admit this in relation to the nominal part of the compound predicate and said: “In this order of words, it is indefinite [with
indefinite article] only if the context so requires.
So, even Colwell admits that, when the context so requires, in sentences with this structure, translators can insert the indefinite article before the noun, or translate the nominal part of the compound predicate so,
for it to be of good quality.
Does the context require that the nominal part of the compound predicate be translated in this way in John 1:1? Yes, because, as the whole Bible testifies, Jesus
- not Almighty God. Therefore, in such cases, the translator must be guided by the unquestionable rules of grammar issued by
Colwell, but by context.
Many scholars disagree with such invented rules, as evidenced by many translations that insert the indefinite article in John 1:1 and elsewhere, or translate the nominal part of a compound predicate in such a way that it has a qualitative characteristic. Not according to such rules and the Word of God.
No contradiction
Does saying that Jesus Christ is "god" contradict the biblical teaching that there is only one God? No, because this word is sometimes applied in the Bible to powerful creatures. Psalm 8:6 (CoP) says: “Almost likening them [people] to gods [Heb. 'elohim]", that is, the angels.
When Jesus responded to the Jews who accused him of making himself equal with God, he noted that "[in the Law] God called those to whom the word of God came," that is, human judges (John 10:34). , 35; Psalm 82:1-6). Even Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4 is called "the god of this world."
Jesus occupies a position far above angels, imperfect humans, and Satan. If they are already called "gods", powerful ones, then, of course,
can be called the "god" of Jesus. The unique position that Jesus occupies in relation to Jehovah makes him a “mighty God.”—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.
But does the capitalized title “Mighty God” mean that Jesus is somehow equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah simply prophesied that this would be one of the titles that would be applied to Jesus, and in Russian such titles are capitalized.
However, although Jesus is called "mighty," only one can be "the Almighty." Calling Jehovah God “the Almighty” would not make sense if there were not other personalities who were also called gods, but who occupied a lower position.
The John Rylands Library Bulletin, published in England, notes that, according to the Catholic theologian Carl Rahner, although in verses such as John 1:1 the word theosʹ is used in relation to Christ, “in none of these cases does the word "theos" is not used in such a way as to identify Jesus with the one who appears throughout the New Testament as "ho Theos", that is, with the Most High God.
The Bulletin adds: “If the writers of the New Testament thought it necessary for believers to recognize Jesus as 'God', how would one explain the virtual absence of this particular form of recognition in the New Testament?”
But what about the words of the apostle Thomas, who, according to John 20:28, said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”? To Thomas, Jesus was like a "god," especially considering the unusual circumstances under which Thomas said those words.
Some scholars believe that with these words Thomas simply expressed his amazement, and although he said them to Jesus, they were addressed to God. Be that as it may, Thomas did not consider Jesus to be Almighty God, because he, like all the other apostles, knew that Jesus never said that he was God, but taught that “the only true God” is only Jehovah (John 17 :3).
Again, the context helps to understand this. A few days earlier, the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17).
Although Jesus had already been resurrected as a powerful spirit, Jehovah was still God to him. Jesus continued to speak of Him in this way even in the last book of the Bible, after He had been glorified (Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12).
Just three verses after Thomas' exclamation, in John 20:31, the matter is further clarified: "Now this is written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," and not Almighty God. And the word "Son" is used in its direct meaning, as in the case of a literal father and son, and not in the meaning of some mysterious part of the Triune Deity.
Must agree with the Bible
Some other verses are said to support the doctrine of the Trinity. But, as in the case of the verses already discussed, on closer examination it turns out that this is not the case.
Such verses only show that in considering any claims in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, one must ask oneself the question: Is this interpretation consistent with the consistent teaching throughout the Bible that the Most High is only Jehovah God? If not, then this interpretation is wrong.
It should also be remembered that none of the verses cited as evidence say that God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one.
whole in some mysterious Deity. No verse in the Bible says that all three are equal in essence, power, and eternity. The Bible consistently depicts Almighty God, Jehovah, as the only Supreme Being, Jesus as the Son he created, and the holy spirit as God's active force.
Worship God in His Way
Jesus said in prayer to God, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). What do you need to know? “[God] wants all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth [“come to an accurate knowledge of the truth,” HM]” (1 Timothy 2:4).
So God wants us to know exactly and in accordance with divine truth about him and his intentions. And the source of this truth is God's Word, the Bible (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17). If people know exactly what the Bible says about God, they will not be like those of whom Romans 10:2, 3 says, “They have a zeal for God, but not according to reason.” Or those Samaritans to whom Jesus said, “You do not know what you bow down to” (John 4:22).
Therefore, if we want to receive God's approval, we need to ask ourselves:
Accurate knowledge of the truth provides correct answers to these questions. Knowing these answers, we can worship God in any way that pleases him.
Dishonor God
“I will glorify those who glorify Me,” God says (1 Samuel 2:30). Does it glorify God that someone is called his equal? Does it glorify the fact that Mary is called "Mother of God" and "Mediator ... between the Creator and His creations", as can be read in the "New Catholic Encyclopedia"?
No, such views offend God. He has no equal, and he has no carnal mother, since Jesus was not God. And there is no "Mediator" because God appointed only one "mediator between ... [himself] and men," Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1, 2).
Undoubtedly, the doctrine of the Trinity has complicated and blurred people's understanding of the true position of God. This prevents people from gaining accurate knowledge about
Lord of the Universe, Jehovah God, and worship him as he wants.
The theologian Hans Küng said: "Why add anything to the concept of the unity and exclusiveness of God, if it only nullifies his unity and exclusiveness?" But this is precisely what faith in the Trinity has led to.
Those who believe in the Trinity do not have "God in their minds" (Romans 1:28). The same verse says, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do lewd things."
In verses 29 to 31 some of these "indecent things" are listed, such as "murder, strife," and that people are "treacherous," "unloving," "unmerciful." All this is characteristic of the followers of those religions that teach the dogma of the Trinity.
For example, believers in the dogma of the Trinity often persecuted and even killed those who rejected this dogma. But that's not all. During the wars, they also killed their fellow believers. What could be more "obscene" than the fact that Catholics killed Catholics, Orthodox - Orthodox, and Protestants - Protestants, and all in the name of the same Triune God?
Jesus directly said, “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). The Word of God develops this idea by saying: "The children of God and the children of the devil are known thus: everyone who does not do what is right is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother."
The Bible likens those who kill their spiritual brothers to “Cain, who was of the evil one [Satan] and killed his brother” (1 John 3:10-12).
So, teaching people confusing dogmas about God leads to actions that violate his laws. And indeed, what happened to the Christian
world, is consistent with the description given by the Danish theologian Søren Kierkegaard: "Christendom broke with Christianity without even realizing it."
The apostle Paul accurately described the spiritual state of Christendom today: “They say they know God; but by deeds they renounce, being vile and
disobedient and incapable of any good work” (Titus 1:16).
Soon, when God puts an end to this evil system of things, the Trinity-believing Christendom will be called to account. And he will be condemned for
their dishonoring deeds and teachings (Matthew 24:14; 25:31-34, 41, 46; Revelation 17:1-6, 16; 18:1-8, 20, 24; 19:17-21).
Reject the Trinity
Compromise with God's truth is impossible. Therefore, to worship God in a way that pleases him is to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. It is contrary to the beliefs and teachings of the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and early Christians. It contradicts what God himself says about himself in the Word inspired by him. This is why God counsels, “Remember that I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 46:9, SoP).
God does not want to make himself incomprehensible and mysterious. Rather, the more confused people are about who God is and what his intentions are, the more it plays into the hands of God's Adversary, Satan the Devil, "the god of this age." It is he who spreads such false teachings to blind the minds of unbelievers (2 Corinthians 4:4).
The doctrine of the Trinity also serves the interests of the clergy, who seek to retain power over people, trying to present this doctrine as if only theologians could understand it. (See John 8:44.)
Accurate knowledge of God leads to great changes. It frees us from teachings that are contrary to God's Word and from apostate organizations. As Jesus said, “Know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
By glorifying God as the Most High and worshiping him as he pleases, we can avoid the fate that soon befalls apostate Christendom.
We, on the other hand, can hope for God's favor when this system comes to an end: "The world is passing away, and so is its desire, but he who does the will of God abides forever" (1 John 2:17).
Live forever in heaven on earth
God promises that those who honor him will live forever. “The righteous shall inherit the earth and live on it forever,” God's Word assures us (Psalm 37:29).
But to be among the "righteous," you don't need to know much about the doctrine of the Trinity. You need to grow in the knowledge of God. Jehovah's Witnesses will gladly help you with this if you are not already receiving such help.
Liked the article all about the trinity then share with your friends on social networks. Would you like more useful information?
Subscribe to new articles, as well as order a topic or question that interests you
- Burns, Robert - short biography
- The concept of common vocabulary and vocabulary of limited use
- Nancy Drew: The Captive Curse Walkthrough Nancy Drew Curse of Blackmoore Manor Walkthrough
- Deadpool - Troubleshooting
- Won't start How to Survive?
- What to do if bioshock infinite won't start
- Walkthrough Nancy Drew: Alibi in Ashes
- Spec Ops: The Line - game review, review Spec ops the line crashes on missions
- Room escape level 1 walkthrough
- Processing tomatoes with boric acid How much will 2 grams of boric acid
- Cucumber Grass (Borago)
- Bioinsecticide Lepidocid: purpose, properties and application procedure Lepidocide waiting period
- How to change the language to Russian in steam
- Dendrobium noble: room care
- Morphology of plants general concepts - document
- Planting, propagation and care of bamboo at home, photo Growing bamboo from seeds
- How to strengthen the cellular signal for the Internet in the country
- Sanskrit reveals the forgotten meaning of Russian words (2 photos)
- The oldest language Sanskrit programming language of the future Dead language Sanskrit
- Who has dominion over all the earth?