”Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tri-personal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation? Christians affirm that it is, holding that Nicaea represents a fuller unfolding, not a distortion, of the self-disclosure of the God of Israel. Indeed, the trinitarianism of Nicaea and the Christological definitions of Chalcedon are seen as the valid and necessary interpretation of the claims of Jesus Christ in the context of the Old Testament witness to the God who is One. Without Nicaea and Chalcedon, it would not have been possible to maintain that Christianity is a biblical religion, the legitimate daughter of Old Testament Judaism.“
(Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The Church, p. 431)
Dr. Brown - “hard core” trinitarian.
1. He acknowledges a shift from the personal (i.e. unitarian) monotheism of Israel to the trinitarian monotheism of Christianity (Council of Chalcedon). Nothing shocking about that.
2. He calls it “a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation.“ Much can be said about that (and obviously unitarians - and binitarians! - wouldn’t agree with it) but my purpose here is only to present the case which he makes that there was development in the doctrine over several centuries in post-biblical times.
3. He insists on Nicaea and the definitions of Chalcedon as not only valid but necessary interpretations. They weren’t valid and necessary interpretations prior to Nicaea (325 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) - what about Christians who lived before the 4th century (Council of Nicaea) and the 5th century (Council of Chalcedon) and knew nothing of them? But again, my purpose here is only to present the case that a lengthy period of development of the doctrine occurred.
4. He says without Nicaea and Chalcedon it would not have been possible to maintain that Christianity is a biblical religion. That’s unconvincing. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism in the 1st century. No Christian living in the centuries prior to Nicaea and Chalcedon had any problem claiming Christianity is a biblical religion. Even so, and even here, he tacitly acknowledges that the doctrine of the Trinity developed over time in the claim that trinitarianism is the legitimate daughter of Old Testament Judaism - which wasn’t trinitarian.
