None of which teaches God in three persons. The honor of that interpretation of scripture goes to the Catholics. They had it before you. We get it from them. The preservation of church history documents it. You inherited the fruit of their labor.
Church councils?
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
None of which teaches God in three persons. The honor of that interpretation of scripture goes to the Catholics. They had it before you. We get it from them. The preservation of church history documents it. You inherited the fruit of their labor.
You don't define me; and the Scriptures predate existing groups.
Look again at those passages.
You’re correct on both counts. Scripture was written by people who were neither Catholic nor Protestant.
I look at them with great regularity. They haven’t changed. What has changed since they were written is the way Catholics and Protestants (I’m speaking here specifically about trinitarians) understand them.
Speaking about the New Testament writers,
”They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.”
(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, p. xvi)
”Elemental trinitarianism” isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity.
Fortman is as hardcore a trinitarian as they come. He isn’t denying the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity; he’s acknowledging that the Church developed the doctrine, over a period of several centuries, from various statements made by the NT writers.
The doctrine of the Trinity was developed later, by Church theologians, long after the earthly days of the biblical authors. The records documenting the process are well preserved and readily available for anyone who wants to examine them.
”They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.”
(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, p. xvi)
”Elemental trinitarianism” isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity.
Fortman is as hardcore a trinitarian as they come. He isn’t denying the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity; he’s acknowledging that the Church developed the doctrine, over a period of several centuries, from various statements made by the NT writers.
The doctrine of the Trinity was developed later, by Church theologians, long after the earthly days of the biblical authors. The records documenting the process are well preserved and readily available for anyone who wants to examine them.
The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea:
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
“O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever” (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
“For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water” (First Apol., LXI).
Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
“In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever” (n. 7; PG 5.988).
“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . ‘” (Against Heresies X.l)
Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
“We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
“If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father” (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
“For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
“Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . ” (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
Thanks. I understand what it sounds like on the surface. A closer reading of them may cause you to think otherwise about it. I’m discussing that in another thread this evening in regard to Tertullian. I would love to have you join me there.
The Didache (~A.D. 70)
And concerning baptism, baptise this way: Having first said all these things, baptise into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. … But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. — Didache 7:1, A.D. 70.
The Trinity in the Early Church Writings
The Trinity Delusion: Didache
The Didache and the Deity of Christ [Part 4]
"Although they identify Fortman as a Catholic, they project the false impression that Fortman either rejects trinity, or that he is willing to accept trinity without any Bible support for the doctrine. The Watchtower is a master at "the slight of hand" technique in quoting from orthodox trinitarian sources.
...
The doctrine of the Triune God has had an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation. I start the study from the authentic record of divine revelation that is found in the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments. What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, a wonderful God of life and love and righteousness and power and glory and mystery, who is the creator and lord of the whole universe, who is intensely concerned with the tiny people of Israel. It tells us of His Word, Wisdom. Spirit, of the Messiah He will send, of a Son of Man and a Suffering Servant to come. But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.
...
The doctrine of the Triune God has had an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation. I start the study from the authentic record of divine revelation that is found in the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments. What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, a wonderful God of life and love and righteousness and power and glory and mystery, who is the creator and lord of the whole universe, who is intensely concerned with the tiny people of Israel. It tells us of His Word, Wisdom. Spirit, of the Messiah He will send, of a Son of Man and a Suffering Servant to come. But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.
But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. To study the gradual transition from an unformulated Biblical witness to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to a dogmatic formulation of a doctrine of the Triune God, we look first to the Eastern Church where most of this development took place. The Apostolic Fathers were witnesses to the Biblical data and the traditional faith rather than theologians, but they furnished useful insights into the lines along which the Church's unconscious theology was developing. Most of them indicated quite clearly a belief in the divinity of Christ, less clearly a belief in the distinct personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. They gave solid evidence of a belief in three pre-existent 'beings,' but they furnished no trinitarian doctrine, no awareness of a trinitarian problem.
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power." (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power." (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)
The spirit of Yahweh was often described in personal terms. The spirit was grieved, guided men, instructed them, caused them to rest (Ps 143.10; Neh 9.20; Is 63.10, 14). But it seems quite clear that the Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. A few scholars today maintain, however, that even though the spirit is usually presented as an impersonal divine force, there is an under-lying assumption that the spirit was a conscious agent, which 'provided a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable." (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p6)
The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force or power. But in a few passages the sacred writers leave a vivid impression that for them He was someone distinct from both Father and Son with a distinct personal existence. In both Synoptics and Acts there are traces of the triadic pattern of Father. Son, and Holy Spirit. The clearest expression of this pattern is found in the baptismal formula where Matthew presents the three together as at once a triad and a unity. But nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead. And when the three are coordinated on the same divine level in a triadic pattern there seems to be no realization of the problem of the relationship between the three and of the three to the same Godhead.
The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force or power. But in a few passages the sacred writers leave a vivid impression that for them He was someone distinct from both Father and Son with a distinct personal existence. In both Synoptics and Acts there are traces of the triadic pattern of Father. Son, and Holy Spirit. The clearest expression of this pattern is found in the baptismal formula where Matthew presents the three together as at once a triad and a unity. But nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead. And when the three are coordinated on the same divine level in a triadic pattern there seems to be no realization of the problem of the relationship between the three and of the three to the same Godhead.
In both the Synoptics and Acts there is a realization that Jesus' tremendous works-His salvific death, resurrection, and exaltation -indicate that He was and always had been more than a mere man and that only divine titles could properly describe Him. But is there in them, any clear indication that a community in divine function meant a community of nature between Father and Son, so that they could say explicitly that Jesus is one same God with the Father? It seems not. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p15)
"Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person." (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)
Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person. ... Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)
"Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person." (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)
Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person. ... Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)
"There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead." -(The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)
Notice the Fortman's comment is specifically referring to Old Testaments writers, not New Testament writers. Further he goes on to say the New Testament writers do indeed teach the trinity! Also notice they delete the words, "paternity and filiation" and replace it with trinity.
The Old Testament Witness to God, SUMMARY: To the Old Testament writers ... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead. ... Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)
What else does Fortman say that JW's and anti-Trinitarians won't tell you:
Notice the Fortman's comment is specifically referring to Old Testaments writers, not New Testament writers. Further he goes on to say the New Testament writers do indeed teach the trinity! Also notice they delete the words, "paternity and filiation" and replace it with trinity.
The Old Testament Witness to God, SUMMARY: To the Old Testament writers ... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead. ... Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)
What else does Fortman say that JW's and anti-Trinitarians won't tell you:
Scriptures are the origin of Trinity
"As a Catholic and a firm believer in the Triune God ... The doctrine of the Triune God has had an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
In the New Testament the eternity and divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit were indicated clearly enough but nowhere formally declared. There was no formal doctrine about Christ's origin, nature, relation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There was no formal doctrine about a Triune God. But the elements for such a doctrine were there. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p68-70)
Old Testament witness
"As a Catholic and a firm believer in the Triune God ... The doctrine of the Triune God has had an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
In the New Testament the eternity and divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit were indicated clearly enough but nowhere formally declared. There was no formal doctrine about Christ's origin, nature, relation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There was no formal doctrine about a Triune God. But the elements for such a doctrine were there. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p68-70)
Old Testament witness
The Old Testament Witness to God, SUMMARY: ... Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)
[OT witness] The spirit of Yahweh was often described in personal terms. The spirit was grieved, guided men, instructed them, caused them to rest (Ps 143.10; Neh 9.20; Is 63.10, 14). But it seems quite clear that the Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. A few scholars today maintain, however, that even though the spirit is usually presented as an impersonal divine force, there is an under-lying assumption that the spirit was a conscious agent, which 'provided a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable." (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p6)
[OT witness] The spirit of Yahweh was often described in personal terms. The spirit was grieved, guided men, instructed them, caused them to rest (Ps 143.10; Neh 9.20; Is 63.10, 14). But it seems quite clear that the Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. A few scholars today maintain, however, that even though the spirit is usually presented as an impersonal divine force, there is an under-lying assumption that the spirit was a conscious agent, which 'provided a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable." (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p6)
New Testament witness
They [Bible writers] assign Him [Jesus] the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
They [the scriptures] give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
Johannine Writings: Summary: It is not hard to see the triadic pattern of John's Gospel. ... John comes closer to a trinitarian position than any other New Testament writer. He presents the divinity of the Son and the personality of the Spirit more clearly than any other. He stresses the divinity of Jesus and His unity with the Father more than any other writer and calls Jesus the Son of God more often than they do. ... He does not call the Holy Spirit 'God,' though he does regard Him as divine and puts Him on the same divine level with the Father and the Son in the Paraclete passages. More clearly than the other New Testament writers does he regard the Holy Spirit as a 'person' distinct from the Father and the Son and sent by the Father and by the Son. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p29)
They [Bible writers] assign Him [Jesus] the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
They [the scriptures] give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
Johannine Writings: Summary: It is not hard to see the triadic pattern of John's Gospel. ... John comes closer to a trinitarian position than any other New Testament writer. He presents the divinity of the Son and the personality of the Spirit more clearly than any other. He stresses the divinity of Jesus and His unity with the Father more than any other writer and calls Jesus the Son of God more often than they do. ... He does not call the Holy Spirit 'God,' though he does regard Him as divine and puts Him on the same divine level with the Father and the Son in the Paraclete passages. More clearly than the other New Testament writers does he regard the Holy Spirit as a 'person' distinct from the Father and the Son and sent by the Father and by the Son. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p29)
Pauline Writings, Summary: ... Without doubt Paul attributes full divinity to Jesus ... Though at times he presents the Son as in some sense subordinate to the Father, he never makes the Son a creature. ... Many passages suggest that the Spirit is an impersonal divine power; but in other passages so many personal activities are attributed to Him and He is presented in such close parallel to Christ that it is extremely difficult to regard Him as other than a distinct divine person. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p23)
Summary Of New Testament Witness To God: ... To Him are ascribed the strictly divine functions of creation, salvation, and judgment, and sometimes He is explicitly called God. The New Testament writers attribute divinity to Him in different ways. The Synoptists usually assign to Him the powers and prerogatives of Yahweh in the work of salvation, and at times put Him on the same divine level with the Father in knowledge and power. Paul calls Him the image of God, Lord, Son of God, Christ. and Savior; he says that He subsists in the form of God and is equal to God; he assigns to Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, and judgment; and he probably also calls Him God explicitly. Paul makes Christ's eternal pre-existence more explicit than the Synoptists did. If at times he sees the Son as in some sense subordinate to the Father, yet he never makes Him a creature but always puts Him on the side of the creator.
If the New Testament writers nowhere explicitly call the Holy Spirit God and do not explicitly ascribe to Him the divine functions of creation, salvation and judgment, still they do at times put the Holy Spirit on the same divine level as the Father and the Son, and ascribe to Him the divine functions of vivification, justification, and sanctification.
Summary Of New Testament Witness To God: ... To Him are ascribed the strictly divine functions of creation, salvation, and judgment, and sometimes He is explicitly called God. The New Testament writers attribute divinity to Him in different ways. The Synoptists usually assign to Him the powers and prerogatives of Yahweh in the work of salvation, and at times put Him on the same divine level with the Father in knowledge and power. Paul calls Him the image of God, Lord, Son of God, Christ. and Savior; he says that He subsists in the form of God and is equal to God; he assigns to Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, and judgment; and he probably also calls Him God explicitly. Paul makes Christ's eternal pre-existence more explicit than the Synoptists did. If at times he sees the Son as in some sense subordinate to the Father, yet he never makes Him a creature but always puts Him on the side of the creator.
If the New Testament writers nowhere explicitly call the Holy Spirit God and do not explicitly ascribe to Him the divine functions of creation, salvation and judgment, still they do at times put the Holy Spirit on the same divine level as the Father and the Son, and ascribe to Him the divine functions of vivification, justification, and sanctification.
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers. if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there. ... This means that a trinitarian schema or ground plan is there and must be there. And it seems clear that some of the New Testament writers not only deliberately coordinated the three in triadic formulas, but also to some extent were aware of the trinitarian problem that this involved, namely, the relationship of Christ and the Holy Spirit to the Godhead.' Only Paul and John seem to have attempted something of a solution of this problem, in terms of mission and economic trinity, and possibly something deeper. But where Paul only insinuates that the Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son. John clearly states this, and thus seems to put 'relational opposition' as a basis for the distinction of the three in the economic trinity. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p30-33)
John says simply but correctly 'the Word was with God and the Word was God,' the 'Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,' 'the Father and I are one,' 'the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son,' 'the Father sends the Son,' In the following centuries when heretics rise up to contest the divinity of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, the Fathers will be forced to reflect more deeply on the Biblical truths and to find more precise terms in which to express them. so that they can present and explain these truths of their faith in a way that will be intelligible and relevant to the men of their day. Their work will be necessary and invaluable, but it will add nothing essentially new to the Biblical witness to God. It will only give this witness a new mode of expression. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p30-33)
Overall Summary: It will be helpful to recapitulate the flow of trinitarian thought thus far so as to see what its status was on the eve of the Nicene conflict that was to play such a tremendous part in the further development of trinitarian thought and dogma. In the New Testament writings Jesus was called the 'Son of God,' 'Lord,' and 'Word' and was assigned the divine functions of creation, salvation, and judgment. He was explicitly said to be God and with God from eternity, to be one with the Father and in the Father. The Holy Spirit was not explicitly called God, but at times He was put on a level with the Father and Son in terms of divinity and personality. To Him were ascribed the divine functions of inspiration. vivification, justification. sanctification. There was no formal doctrine of one God in three co-equal persons, but the elements of this doctrine were there.
The Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were witnesses to the Biblical data and the traditional faith rather than theologians, but they furnished useful insights into the lines along which the Church's unconscious theology was developing. Most of them indicated quite clearly a belief in the divinity of Christ, less clearly a belief in the distinct personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. They gave solid evidence of a belief in three pre-existent 'beings,' but they furnished no trinitarian doctrine, no awareness of a trinitarian problem. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
Apostolic Fathers: Summary: ... All, except perhaps Hermas, subscribe to the divinity of Christ. I Clement coordinates Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit in an oath. Ignatius calls Christ God 14 times. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p43)
The Apostolic Fathers maintained that there was only one God. They affirmed the divinity and distinct personality of Christ quite clearly and that of the Holy Spirit less clearly. They offered no trinitarian doctrine and saw no trinitarian problem. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)
The Apologists
The Apologists were, in a sense, the Church's first theologians ... They identified Christ with God, with the Logos, with the Son of God, but they seemed to count His Sonship not from eternity but from the moment of his pre-creational generation. In thus using a two-stage theory of a pre-existent Logos to explain the Son's divine status and His relation to the Father. They Probably did not realize that this theory had a built-in 'inferiorizing principle' that would win for them the accusation of 'subordinationism.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
Origen, the greatest theologian of the East, rejected this two-stage theory and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But to reconcile the eternity of the Son with a strict monotheism, he resorted to a Platonic hierarchical framework for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and ended up by also making the Son and Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but 'diminished gods.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
The Apologists: Summary: In the Apologists we see a belief in the unity of God and in a trinity of divine 'persons.' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, although there is as yet no distinct conception of divine person and divine nature. There is an identification of Christ with the Son of God. with the Logos and with God. To the Logos they ascribe a divine pre-existence that is not only pre-creational but also strictly eternal. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p43)
The Apologists do not take the Sabellian road of a merely nominal trinity of persons but hold to a real distinction of the three, a distinction that is not in name only, not only in thought but in number. They base their distinction on rank or order. They realize there is a trinitarian problem and try to solve it for the Son in terms of an eternal Logos, for the Holy Spirit in terms of 'an effluence of God.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p50-52)
The Apologists went further. They affirmed that God is one but also triadic. To Christ they ascribed divinity and personality explicitly, to the Holy Spirit only implicitly. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)
To some extent Origen was a subordinationist, for his attempt to synthesize strict monotheism with a Platonic hierarchical order in the Trinity could have and did have only a subordinationist result. He openly declared that the Son was inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Son. But he was not an Arian subordinationist for he did not make the Son a creature and an adopted son of God. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)
Subordination and adoptionist
Thus the New Testament writers were not adoptionists, although in a few passages they can seem to point in this direction. ... Nor were they subordinationists in intention or words, if subordinationist is understood in the later Arian sense of the word; for they did not make the Son a creature but always put Him on the side of the creator. The New Testament writers do not witness to the Holy Spirit as fully and clearly as they do to the Son. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p30-33)
The Apologists were, in a sense, the Church's first theologians ... They identified Christ with God, with the Logos, with the Son of God, but they seemed to count His Sonship not from eternity but from the moment of his pre-creational generation. In thus using a two-stage theory of a pre-existent Logos to explain the Son's divine status and His relation to the Father. They Probably did not realize that this theory had a built-in 'inferiorizing principle' that would win for them the accusation of 'subordinationism.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
If God must have His Logos from eternity, must He also have His Son? Later theology and dogma will say yes unequivocally. But the Apologists are not quite clear on this point and rather seem to say no. For them. if the origination of the Logos from God is eternal, the generation of the Logos as Son seems rather to be pre-creational but not eternal, and it is effected by the will of the Father. This view. if compared with later theology and dogma, will smack of a sub-ordination or 'minoration' of the Son of God. This subordination of the Son was not precisely the formal intent of the Apologists. Their problem was how to reconcile monotheism with their belief in the divinity of Christ and with a concept of His divine sonship that they derived from the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p43)
To some extent Origen was a subordinationist, for his attempt to synthesize strict monotheism with a Platonic hierarchical order in the Trinity could have and did have only a subordinationist result. He openly declared that the Son was inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Son. But he was not an Arian subordinationist for he did not make the Son a creature and an adopted son of God. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)
John says simply but correctly 'the Word was with God and the Word was God,' the 'Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,' 'the Father and I are one,' 'the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son,' 'the Father sends the Son,' In the following centuries when heretics rise up to contest the divinity of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, the Fathers will be forced to reflect more deeply on the Biblical truths and to find more precise terms in which to express them. so that they can present and explain these truths of their faith in a way that will be intelligible and relevant to the men of their day. Their work will be necessary and invaluable, but it will add nothing essentially new to the Biblical witness to God. It will only give this witness a new mode of expression. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p30-33)
Overall Summary: It will be helpful to recapitulate the flow of trinitarian thought thus far so as to see what its status was on the eve of the Nicene conflict that was to play such a tremendous part in the further development of trinitarian thought and dogma. In the New Testament writings Jesus was called the 'Son of God,' 'Lord,' and 'Word' and was assigned the divine functions of creation, salvation, and judgment. He was explicitly said to be God and with God from eternity, to be one with the Father and in the Father. The Holy Spirit was not explicitly called God, but at times He was put on a level with the Father and Son in terms of divinity and personality. To Him were ascribed the divine functions of inspiration. vivification, justification. sanctification. There was no formal doctrine of one God in three co-equal persons, but the elements of this doctrine were there.
The Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were witnesses to the Biblical data and the traditional faith rather than theologians, but they furnished useful insights into the lines along which the Church's unconscious theology was developing. Most of them indicated quite clearly a belief in the divinity of Christ, less clearly a belief in the distinct personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. They gave solid evidence of a belief in three pre-existent 'beings,' but they furnished no trinitarian doctrine, no awareness of a trinitarian problem. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
Apostolic Fathers: Summary: ... All, except perhaps Hermas, subscribe to the divinity of Christ. I Clement coordinates Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit in an oath. Ignatius calls Christ God 14 times. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p43)
The Apostolic Fathers maintained that there was only one God. They affirmed the divinity and distinct personality of Christ quite clearly and that of the Holy Spirit less clearly. They offered no trinitarian doctrine and saw no trinitarian problem. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)
The Apologists
The Apologists were, in a sense, the Church's first theologians ... They identified Christ with God, with the Logos, with the Son of God, but they seemed to count His Sonship not from eternity but from the moment of his pre-creational generation. In thus using a two-stage theory of a pre-existent Logos to explain the Son's divine status and His relation to the Father. They Probably did not realize that this theory had a built-in 'inferiorizing principle' that would win for them the accusation of 'subordinationism.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
Origen, the greatest theologian of the East, rejected this two-stage theory and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But to reconcile the eternity of the Son with a strict monotheism, he resorted to a Platonic hierarchical framework for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and ended up by also making the Son and Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but 'diminished gods.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
The Apologists: Summary: In the Apologists we see a belief in the unity of God and in a trinity of divine 'persons.' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, although there is as yet no distinct conception of divine person and divine nature. There is an identification of Christ with the Son of God. with the Logos and with God. To the Logos they ascribe a divine pre-existence that is not only pre-creational but also strictly eternal. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p43)
The Apologists do not take the Sabellian road of a merely nominal trinity of persons but hold to a real distinction of the three, a distinction that is not in name only, not only in thought but in number. They base their distinction on rank or order. They realize there is a trinitarian problem and try to solve it for the Son in terms of an eternal Logos, for the Holy Spirit in terms of 'an effluence of God.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p50-52)
The Apologists went further. They affirmed that God is one but also triadic. To Christ they ascribed divinity and personality explicitly, to the Holy Spirit only implicitly. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)
To some extent Origen was a subordinationist, for his attempt to synthesize strict monotheism with a Platonic hierarchical order in the Trinity could have and did have only a subordinationist result. He openly declared that the Son was inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Son. But he was not an Arian subordinationist for he did not make the Son a creature and an adopted son of God. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)
Subordination and adoptionist
Thus the New Testament writers were not adoptionists, although in a few passages they can seem to point in this direction. ... Nor were they subordinationists in intention or words, if subordinationist is understood in the later Arian sense of the word; for they did not make the Son a creature but always put Him on the side of the creator. The New Testament writers do not witness to the Holy Spirit as fully and clearly as they do to the Son. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p30-33)
The Apologists were, in a sense, the Church's first theologians ... They identified Christ with God, with the Logos, with the Son of God, but they seemed to count His Sonship not from eternity but from the moment of his pre-creational generation. In thus using a two-stage theory of a pre-existent Logos to explain the Son's divine status and His relation to the Father. They Probably did not realize that this theory had a built-in 'inferiorizing principle' that would win for them the accusation of 'subordinationism.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction, p.xv)
If God must have His Logos from eternity, must He also have His Son? Later theology and dogma will say yes unequivocally. But the Apologists are not quite clear on this point and rather seem to say no. For them. if the origination of the Logos from God is eternal, the generation of the Logos as Son seems rather to be pre-creational but not eternal, and it is effected by the will of the Father. This view. if compared with later theology and dogma, will smack of a sub-ordination or 'minoration' of the Son of God. This subordination of the Son was not precisely the formal intent of the Apologists. Their problem was how to reconcile monotheism with their belief in the divinity of Christ and with a concept of His divine sonship that they derived from the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p43)
To some extent Origen was a subordinationist, for his attempt to synthesize strict monotheism with a Platonic hierarchical order in the Trinity could have and did have only a subordinationist result. He openly declared that the Son was inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Son. But he was not an Arian subordinationist for he did not make the Son a creature and an adopted son of God. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)
Although the word Trinity is not in the NT, what the word refers to is deeply present in the NT. Any ecclesiastical opinions about it are thus wholly secondary and subordinate to Scripture.
Similar threads
