IS GOD A TRINITY?
ADDENDUM #1
The preceding twelve part series entitled, Is God a Trinity?, provided an overview of the dynamics associated with this issue and brought forth conclusions based on where the evidence appears to lead. In this and the following addendum's to this series, I will examine the writings of probably the most influential person associated with establishing and defending the Trinitarian doctrine. Athanasius, who became Bishop of Alexandria in A.D. 328, was a participant in the Council of Nicaea and is often held to be the “father” of Trinitarianism. He is best known for his defense of Trinitarianism against the teaching of Arius; a fourth century theologian who taught the Son of God was created by the Father and was not eternal as the Father is.
In this first addendum, we will begin to examine Athanasius’ Four Discourses Against The Arians which he wrote between 356 and 360. These Discourses are taken from Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 4. Each Discourse is divided into chapters and chapters are divided into numbered sections.
My purpose in this addendum will be to carefully examine the writings of Athanasius and determine the validity of his statements and conclusions with particular attention given to how he uses scripture to support his position. I will limit my examination of Athanasius’ material to issues I have already dealt with in the foregoing twelve part series and to such other material of his that I feel provides meaningful challenge to a non-Trinitarian perspective.
As was true in the twelve part series on the Trinity, I will present material from the resource material I am using in a matter of fact manner and than offer my own comments as necessary. Scriptural quotations used in my presentation of Athanasius’ writings will be as found in his writing, including his use of capitol letters at times. When quoting Athanasius directly, I will always use quotation marks and italicize such quotes to show they are the words of Athanasius. Scriptural references used in my personal comments on Athanasius’ writings will be taken from the NIV unless otherwise noted.
DISCOURSE 1:
CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH FOUR:
Athanasius spends the first three chapters of this Discourse outlining his perspective of the Arian position and ridiculing those who take this position. He speaks of Arians as being non- Christian and irreligious. He writes of the “Arian madness” and calls Christians who follow the teachings of Arius “Ario-maniacs” and refers to Arian theology as “vomit.” In chapter four he refers to the Arians as “the enemies of God.” Athanasius associates the Arian teaching with the works of Satan and vehemently condemns Arianism as the rankest of heresies.
In chapter four, Athanasius continues his tirade against Arianism but begins to use scripture in support of his Trinitarian position. In section 11 he writes that “no scripture teaches that the Son was not eternal but always teaches that the Son is eternal and co-existent with the Father.” He quotes John 1:1 without elaboration and then recites a passage from Revelation, “Who is and who was and who is to come.” He then asks, “Now who can rob ‘who is and who was’ of eternity.” He is therefore associating the passage he quotes from the Revelation with the Son and believes it to show the Son is eternal.
He continues by referring to what Apostle Paul said in Romans 9:5. “Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever.” The implication by Athanasius is that Paul is calling Christ God in this passage and therefore Christ is God as God is God. He goes on to quote Romans 1:20, “The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead.” He then writes, “and what the Power of God is, he (Paul) teaches us elsewhere himself.” The “elsewhere” is then shown to be a reference to 1 Corinthians 1:24 where he quotes Paul as saying “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”
Athanasius then accuses the Arians of concluding that Paul, in Romans 1:20, is saying it is the Father whose power is being spoken of. Athanasius concludes Paul is writing that Christ is the eternal power of God that Paul speaks of in Romans 1:20. Athanasius believes that when Paul speaks of “His” eternal power, the “His” refers to God’s eternal power who is Christ. Athanasius believes 1 Corinthians 1:24 verifies this when Paul speaks of Christ being the power of God as well as the wisdom of God. Therefore Christ must be God as God is God since Christ is the very power and wisdom of God.
In section twelve of chapter four, Athanasius refers to the passage in Hebrews 1:3 about Jesus being the radiance of the Father’s glory and thus infers because He is the radiance of the Father He must be God as the Father is God. He goes on to use Psalm 144 as evidence the kingdom is a kingdom of all ages and infers this shows the Son to be eternal. He then speaks of the various statements of Jesus where he says, I am truth, I am light, I am the good shepherd, etc. Athanasius points out that Jesus does not say He became these things but that He is these things. He then concludes that “in the phrase ‘I, am,’ is signified that the Son is eternal and without beginning.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: It is disturbing how much invective Athanasius directs toward the Arians. To disagree is one thing, but to berate those you disagree with to the extent Athanasius does with the kind of language he uses is not exactly a reflection of Christian ethics. He does this not only in the Discourses under consideration but throughout his writings. While it is true that Christ berated the religious leaders of His day for their hypocrisy, it must be remembered these religious leaders were out to kill Christ and were continually in His face about just about everything He did. The circumstances don’t appear to be quite as dire between Athanasius and the Arians and yet Athanasius attacks them relentlessly with vicious rhetoric.
Since Athanasius does not elaborate on his quote of John 1:1, neither will I at this point. I refer the reader to my discussion of this passage in Part 4 of this series. The passage He recites from the Revelation is taken from Revelation 1:4. A careful examination of this passage will show that it is the Father who is being referred to as “Who is and who was and who is to come.” This phrase is not referring to the Son. See my discussion of this passage in Part 8 of this series. Athanasius did not do his homework on this passage.
Athanasius implies that Paul is referring to Christ as being God in Roman 9:5. The evidence is much stronger for seeing this passage as referring to the Father as the “God blessed forever.” See my in-depth discussion of this passage in Part 6 of this series.
Athanasius’ conclusion that Paul is speaking of Christ being the power of God and that this proves Christ is God is very problematical. An examination of the entire first chapter of Romans reveals Paul is primarily speaking of the Father and in fact draws distinction between God the Father and Jesus the Son when he says in verse seven, “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Notice Paul does not say from God our Father and our God Jesus Christ. Throughout Paul’s writings, when speaking of both Jesus and the Father in the same context, Paul always speaks of the Father as God and Jesus as Lord. While some may equate God and Lord as being the same, many scriptures show this not to be the case. Here is one that is rather explicit:
1 Corinthians 8:6: Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Paul shows that Jesus, “through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead” Romans 1:4. Some Non-Trinitarians see this passage as showing Jesus becoming the Son of God through the resurrection as opposed to pre-existing as the Son.
I am puzzled by the quote of Romans 1:20 that Athanasius uses. I don’t know what text he was using but his quote does not match any English or Greek text I have reviewed. He quotes the text as “The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen.” All texts I reviewed say “invisible things.” Invisible makes a lot more sense as Paul is showing how we can understand the invisible power and nature of God through the visible things He has made. Paul appears to be speaking of the qualities of God being seen in the things that God has made. The NIV brings this out as do many other translations.
Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
There is no reason to conclude, as Athanasius does, that Paul is referring to Jesus Christ in speaking of the eternal power of God. At the very beginning of this chapter Paul speaks of the gospel of God as the gospel He (God the Father) promised regarding His Son.
Romans 1:1-3: Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David.
It is the Father who has provided the gospel (good news) of the Son. As you read through Romans chapter one you find Paul often refers to God. When Paul’s references to God are seen in the overall context of this chapter, it becomes obvious that it is God the Father who is being referred to. It is the Father’s eternal power that verse twenty speaks of. This verse does not say “Christ, the eternal power of God.” Athanasius is making an unwarranted assumption that the power of God is Christ and therefore Christ is God. He then tries to back it up with the passage from 1 Corinthians where he concludes Paul is saying Christ is the actual power and wisdom of God and therefore is God as God is God.
1 Corinthians 1:23-24: But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
To conclude that Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about Christ being the power and wisdom of God shows that Christ is God is without merit. The context of 1 Corinthians chapter one is the message of the cross, seen as foolishness to some but in reality is power and wisdom to those who are called. Paul is not talking here about the nature of God’s power and wisdom being Christ but of how what Christ accomplished will benefit those who respond to the message. Paul is contrasting human wisdom with the wisdom that comes through knowing Jesus Christ. The knowledge of Christ becomes the power of salvation. This passage has nothing to do with identifying the actual innate power and wisdom of God as being Christ.
As elucidated earlier in this series, I believe the preponderance of scriptural evidence points to Jesus being the manifestation of the Father’s power and wisdom but not the source of that power and wisdom. The word (wisdom) of God became manifested in Jesus as Apostle John indicates in John 1:14. Upon completing his earthly mission He became the glorified Son of God the Father through His resurrection from the dead as Paul states in Romans 1:4. As the glorified Son of the Father He has been granted tremendous power and authority and He is therefore worthy of great worship. This does not, however, make Him co-eternal, co-equal and con-substantial with the Father as Athanasius and the creeds teach.
As to Athanasius’ reference to Hebrews 1:3, I refer the reader to my discussion of that passage in Part 1 of this series. His use of Psalm 144 has no bearing on the nature of God and Christ as it is a Psalm of David about God helping him defeat his enemies. There is nothing in this Psalm about the kingdom being of all ages. I don’t know what Athanasius was thinking here. As to his claim that the “I am” statements of Jesus signifies that He is eternal and without beginning, I refer the reader to my discussion of this issue in Part 8 of this series.
In reading through Athanasius’ Discourse material, I find it to be somewhat disjointed as he tends to move from one thought to another without there being any obvious relationship between the two thoughts. For example, in chapter four, section 13, he quotes John 14:28 as follows: "If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it come to pass, you may believe.” He then moves right into quoting Proverbs 8:23 which has to do with wisdom being brought forth before the earth was. There is no obvious connection between John 14:28 and Proverbs 8:23. Furthermore, he says nothing about his quote of Christ’s statement that “My Father is greater than I,” a statement that appears to negate the idea that the Father and Son are co-equal.
In this same section Athanasius quotes John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am," without elaboration. I must assume he is citing this passage to show Jesus is the "I am" of the OT and therefore is God. I again refer the reader to my discussion of the "I am" statements in part 8 of this series.
CHAPTER FIVE:
In chapter five section 14, Athanasius says, “the Father is the Origin of the Son and begat Him”. He goes on to imply that since the essence of the Father has always been, and the Son is generated from the essence of the Father, the Son must have always been. He thus supports the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. He goes on to say, “But if He is the Son, as the Father says, and the scriptures proclaim, and the Son is nothing else than what is generated from the Father; and what is generated from the Father is His Word, Wisdom and Radiance; what is to be said, but in maintaining ‘Once the Son was not,’ they rob God of His Word, like plunderers, and openly predicate of Him that He was once without His proper Word and Wisdom and that the Light was once without radiance, and the fountain was once barren and dry.”
Athanasius is saying the Arians are virtually robbing God of His Word, Wisdom and Radiance by saying there was a time when the son did not exist. Since Athanasius believes the Word, Wisdom and Radiance of God is the Son, the Son had to always exist as a dynamic of what God is. Here Athanasius is assuming the thing to be proved. In section 15, Athanasius writes, “when the Father says, ‘This is My Beloved Son,’ and the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father.” Athanasius is saying that Jesus is participating in the essence of the Father and therefore must be God as the Father is God because of this participation and shared essence.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: It appears Athanasius believes since the Son is begotten of the Father, the Son must share the Father’s essence and by sharing the Father’s essence the Son must be as the Father is God in all things short of being the Father. The idea that the Son must be of the Father’s essence is largely based on the proposition that the Word of God the Father (His thought, wisdom etc.) is the Son. The Word is believed to have existed eternally as the Son and therefore is of the very essence of the Father. It is believed this Word/Wisdom (essence of the Father) took on humanity as the man Jesus, who because of His human birth, took on human essence while at the same time retaining his God essence,
As discussed earlier in this series, the Son is believed to be a hypostasis of the single essence or substance that is the one God. Hypostasis is defined several different ways in the Greek. In one way, a person is seen as having attributes such as size, color, weight, wisdom, knowledge etc. These attributes are said to not exist independently from the person but are in the person in so much that they give definition to the person. The person itself, however, does not exist in something else but exists by itself. Therefore the person is seen as separate from their attributes. It is this separate self that would be the Greek hypostasis. Hypo means under and stasis means that which is permanent. Hypostasis is sometimes defined as “ground of being.” Seen in this manner, hypostasis is identical with the idea of essence or substance and God would be seen as a single substance, ground of being or hypostasis with His attributes a manifestation of His ground of being.
Under this usage of hypostasis, to say the Son is a hypostasis of the one God is problematical as you are virtually saying the Son is a hypostasis of the hypostasis. To say the Son is the Word (Wisdom) of God is to give an attribute of God the status of hypostasis or its own ground of being. Two grounds of being would be two separate entities which would negate the concept of a single essence called God. This approach virtually results in there being two Gods and a third God if you are going to say the Spirit is a hypostasis of the one God as well.
The Greeks also used hypostasis to define a single person (Greek prosopon) having various attributes by which that person was manifested. In this usage, hypostasis included a persons attributes as his substance or ground of being. In such usage, attributes such as wisdom, knowledge, understanding, all attributes expressed by word or speech, are all included in the one hypostasis or ground of being. Under this usage, the logos of God is an attribute that makes up God's hypostasis and could not be a separate hypostasis of the one God.
As already discussed in Part 4 of this series, the basic meaning of logos means “to speak.” This Greek word pertains to the thought, will and purpose of someone. It can also mean wisdom, reason and mind. The logos of God the Father has always existed as the cognitive function of God the Father. Therefore, the logos of God is eternal because God the Father is eternal. When Apostle John writes of the logos being made flesh, we shouldn't assume this word/speech has eternally existed as a person named the Son who has now taken on humanity. Our discussion of hypostasis reveals that the logos of God could very well be an attribute of His hypostasis, not a separate person called the Son.
A much more natural approach is to conclude the Son was generated as a result of the Father exercising His logos (thought, wisdom, purpose etc.) in order to fulfill His promise to send a Savior (Romans 1:1-3). At the human level we exercise logos all the time in creating physical things. Why should we insist that God could not have exercised logos to generate the human Son Jesus? Why should we insist the logos of God pre-existed as the Son and it was this pre-existent Son who became Jesus?
As already covered extensively in this series, scriptural phraseology points to the Son being in the purpose of the Father from the beginning and when the time was right this purpose was facilitated in the human birth of this Son who was named Jesus and was the prophesied anointed one. If we are to understand the essence of the Father being his substance, there is nothing in scripture that says Jesus was or had to be of that same substance. In reality, Jesus the Son was of human substance. He was born a human, lived as a human and died as a human. Because Mary was supernaturally impregnated doesn’t necessarily mean the Father’s substance was transferred to Jesus and that He was born a God man.
Some may argue that because the Father facilitated the impregnation of Mary, He passed His Divine substance to Jesus and therefore Jesus was of Divine substance in addition to the human substance obtained from Mary. The scriptures, however, do not show that because Mary was impregnated by the power of God, this impregnation passed on "Divine Genes" to Jesus and He became a hybrid. The scriptures show Jesus being born a human like any other human and exhibiting human behavior like any other human. The writer to the Hebrews points out Jesus was tempted and tried in every way as we all are tempted and tried.
There is only one area where Jesus was not your ordinary human. Jesus was endowed with a much higher level of Divine power from God than is true of any other human who has ever lived. This enabled Him to live a sinless life and do many great works. It was God's will that Jesus succeed in God's mission for Him and He was granted the tools to do just that.
Being endowed with Divine power does not equate with being Divine. The Apostles were endowed with Divine power as can be seen in the miracles they performed, including raising the dead. This did not make them God. Moses was endowed with Divine power when he brought the plagues upon Egypt, divided the Red Sea, and got water to gush out of a rock. Elijah was endowed with Divine power when he caused it not to rain and then caused it to rain again. This display of power did not make these men God. It was God's power working through them that enabled them to do what they did. They became agents of God's purpose. There is every scriptural reason to believe the same was true of Jesus.
God the Father directly begat Jesus and because of this direct begettal Jesus became His one and only directly begotten human Son. God empowered this one and only directly begotten human son to fulfill His will as the promised Messiah to Israel. Because of what this Son accomplished, we too can be spiritually begotten as sons of the Father.
I have quoted and discussed dozens of scriptures and scriptural passages in this series that virtually demand the conclusion that Jesus the Son is not co-equal with the Father as Trinitarianism teaches. No scripture teaches the Son is con-substantial with the Father. As discussed earlier in this series, the begettal language found in the NT signifies a beginning point for the existence of the Son and therefore negates the co-eternal conclusions of Trinitarianism. The scriptures nowhere teach the eternal begettal or generation of the Son as Trinitarianism teaches.
The primary issue we are dealing with in this entire examination of the nature of God is the question of how are we to understand the logos of God. If the logos of God can be shown to be the eternally existing Son, then Trinitarianism may have a case. If this cannot be shown, and we instead see the logos of God as His wisdom, understanding and general cognitive function manifested in and through what He does, then Trinitarianism becomes a mute point.
As discussed earlier in this series, the Greek word logos appears 330 times in the NT narrative. By context, it can be seen over and over again to refer to the expression of thought and speech. Only in John 1:1 and 1:14 is there any hint of logos pre-existing as its own hypostasis. We have previously discussed the different ways these two passages have been interpreted. If we are to conclude that logos in these two passages is the eternally existing Son, then we have to conclude that logos is being used here by John in a totally different manner than what is found throughout the NT narrative, including the rest of John’s writings. What justification is there for this complete departure from the way logos is used in the rest of the NT?
We briefly discussed earlier in this series how the phrase “and the word was with God” can be seen as God’s purpose, knowledge and wisdom being with God. Job 12:13 was referenced where Job speaks of God by saying, “With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding.” We see wisdom and understanding personified in the OT. Personification is not attributing actual personhood to something. It is simply giving something personality in a figurative sense.
Proverbs 8:1: Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice?
Proverbs 8:27-31: I (wisdom) was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I (wisdom) was the craftsman at his side. I (wisdom) was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.
Are we to believe that the wisdom and understanding spoken of here is actually a person called the Son who is part of a Trinitarian Godhead? When scripture tells us it is by wisdom, understanding and knowledge God creates, is there reason to believe this wisdom, understanding and knowledge expressed by God is actually a person called the Son who is a dynamic of a Triune God?
Proverbs 3:19-20: By wisdom the LORD (YHWH) laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew.
In the Apocrypha book of Wisdom is found a prayer of Solomon that speaks of God creating through His word.
Wisdom 9:1-4: God of my fathers, LORD (YHWH) of mercy. you who have made all things by your word And in your wisdom have established man to rule the creatures produced by you, To govern the world in holiness and justice, and to render judgment in integrity of heart: Give me Wisdom, the attendant at your throne.
Here the author reflects on God in His wisdom doing certain things and that wisdom is attendant at the very throne of God. Does this mean that wisdom is a person of a Godhead made up of Father, Son and Spirit? Are wisdom, understanding and knowledge attributes of God resident in a dynamic of a Triune God called the Son through whom God then facilitates all creation? Or are these attributes dynamics of the cognitive makeup of God just as they are attributes of the cognitive makeup of man only with God at an extremely higher level?
Job 12:13: To God belong wisdom and power; counsel and understanding are his.
Psalm 104:24: How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.
Proverbs 2:6: For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Jeremiah 10:12: But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.
In looking at these scriptures and others like them, we see nothing to suggest that God’s word, wisdom, understanding and knowledge are facilitated through a pre-existent dynamic of God called the Son. All these attributes appear as the direct expression of the cognitive function of God. It is by and through this expression that all creation has occurred including the creation of a Son in the womb of Mary who fulfilled God’s purpose to provide a Savior for mankind.
There is no doubt this Son was a unique and special person to whom God gave great power and authority. There is no doubt that upon completion of His earthly ministry; this Son was elevated to the highest level of glory, power and authority in the universe next to the God Himself. There is no doubt this Son is worthy of great worship. None of this, however, necessitates this Son having preexisted as the word/wisdom of God. The word of God became flesh in the same manner as the word of God becomes all else. The one God brings things into existence through His logos and his power. All things have been made by the logos of God as Apostle John writes. This includes the one who became flesh and dwelled among us.