The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine
It is no mere coincidence that at this very time (the
2 TERTULLIAN “was the founder of Latin theology. .... It is his use of the words ‘trinity’ and ‘substance’ for the essence of the Godhead and his developments of that doctrine [for use by Christendom, that is,] in Against Praxeas (ch. 2-3) [written about 215 A. D.] that stands as his greatest contribution to Christian theology.” - Cairns, pp. 122-123. “...he became a Montanist about 202 A. D.” - Cairns, p. 117.
And he remained a Montanist for the rest of his life. The same Roman Church which adopted the “Christian” trinity (starting in 325 A. D. at the Council of Nicaea) also “in 381 [A. D.] declared that the Montanists should be looked upon as pagans.” - Cairns, p. 111.[80] So here we have (as the great influence of Neo-Platonism is really beginning) Tertullian, “a celebrated Christian Church writer ... one of the noted fathers of the Church”;[81]"one of the greatest of the Church Fathers"[82] who belonged to a religious cult (Montanists) which “developed fanatical misinterpretations of scripture."[83] And while a member of that religion (which came to be condemned as pagan[84] by the Church) he allegedly became “the first [about 215 A. D.] to state the theological doctrine of the Trinity” - Cairns, p. 122.
3 We need to understand that even Tertullian’s development of a multiple-person God in the 3rd century A.D. (if that’s actually what he intended)[84] was still not the “orthodox” trinity doctrine that was finally developed and adopted by “the Church” and which is still accepted by nearly all Christendom today! [85, 86,87, 88]
Among other things Tertullian wrote: “The Father is ... greater [than the Son],” and “There was a time when the Son was not .... Before all things, God was alone.” In fact, the Catholic workTrinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity explains that, even though later writers used some of Tertullian’sterminology to describe the Trinity, it appears that Tertullian did not use them in that sense: “hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from [Tertullian’s] usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”
{Tertullian} therefore proposed to say that God is ‘one substance {substantia in Latin - compares to homoousios in Greek} consisting in three persons {persona}’. The precise meaning of the Latin words substantia and persona is not easy to determine in Tertullian’s usage. {‘In Tertullian substantiacould be used in the sense of character or nature [among other things].’ - p. 90, Chadwick.} - p. 89, The Early Church, Prof. Henry Chadwick (trinitarian), 1986 ed., Dorset Press, New York.
4 We find, then, that even many trinitarian historians make statements similar to this:
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Justin Martyr - died ca. 165 A. D.]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ [including, obviously, Tertullian]. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact." [26-26a]
5 Neo-Platonism is notorious for the paganisms it introduced into Christendom. The fruits of this eclectic borrowing by the early church are described by professor Douglas T. Holden:
“Christian theology has become so fused with [pagan] Greek philosophy that it has reared individuals who are a mixture of nine parts Greek thought to one part Christian thought." [90]
6 How familiar this all must sound to God and his faithful angels! God’s prophets throughout the long history of Israel’s existence were constantly condemning this very same form of idolatry in their own land among God’s chosen people.
“The actual society they knew was an uneasy accommodation of Israelite tradition to Canaanite mores and institutions, which were based on nature worship .... [God’s prophets] exposed the falsity of the Canaanized religious cult [of the Israelites] ... in which Yahweh’s name was honored while his nature was outraged. The cult was in all but name the worship of other gods because it sanctioned a way of life abominable to Yahweh."[91, 92]
7 Christendom has followed this very same broad path that leads to destruction! The Apostles valiantly and constantly fought against this syncretistic trend (as we see throughout the New Testament), but after their deaths the Church welcomed it with open arms. - 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Matt. 7:13-23.
The dominance of Rome in Church affairs from Constantine’s time onward also cemented this trend.
“Under the Roman Empire, the educated ... believed that the divine was one, but that it manifested itself in countless ways ... and that it was allowable to give to these various manifestations of the one the names of the many gods of popular belief.” -Encyclopedia Americana, 1944, v. 13, p. 395 (compare 1 Cor. 10:20 and Ex. 23:13.)
“The Romans were the greatest borrowers and most skilled adapters. Their syncretistic tendencies were accentuated by their Greek education and the influence of Greek literature.” - p. 190. And, “according to the monotheistic trend of the age, all deities of all peoples were regarded as but manifestations of the one supreme deity.” - p. 190. And, “A curious evidence of the consciousness of the unity of the divine is afforded by the amalgamation [blending] of different deities into a ‘Theos pantheus’ [‘God All-God’], or ‘Thea pantheus’[‘Goddess All-God’], which might be regarded either as an abstract conception or a new deity according to the fluidity of pagan theology. Usually one deity was chosen, prominent for his merits in the votary’s estimation, and the epithet ‘pantheus’ (‘all-God’) added to the personal name as representative of the totality of the divine. Thus we find in Latin inscriptions ‘SerapisPantheus’ ....” - p. 191, The Mystery Religions, S. Angus, Dover Publications, 1975.
8 So it was that Christendom began its adulterous love affair with a pagan-developed trinity doctrine. It was only about a hundred years from the time of Tertullian’s alleged formulation of a foundation for a trinity concept for Christendom until the Roman Church began its official embrace of it at the Coucil of Nicaea in 325 A. D., and all during this time Neo-Platonism was at its strongest, influencing ways of life and thought throughout the Empire. In fact, the pagan Emperor himself, Constantine, who convened the council and forced his final (trinitarian) decision upon the majority of Christian bishops present, had surrounded himself with Neo-Platonists!
“There was a circle of Neo-Platonist philosophers at Constantine’s court; the leading Neo-Platonist, Sopater, grew so influential that the other courtiers plotted to ruin him." [93]
9 As to the climactic act itself, the Nicene Council of 325 A. D., we need to investigate the pressures and the backgrounds of several key men to understand what really happened there. We must learn about the Emperor (Constantine), his chief “Christian” advisor (Bishop Hosius of Cordova), the trinity-pusher (Athanasius of Alexandria), the non-trinitarian defender (Arius) and the leader of the vast majority of Bishops at the Nicene Council (Eusebius of Caesarea).
It is no mere coincidence that at this very time (the
The root of the tree II
of Neo-Platonism’s “most potent phase from 200 to 550 A. D.”) the trinity doctrine began to be developed and promoted by “Christian” philosophers who wanted the entire Church to adopt it.
And he remained a Montanist for the rest of his life. The same Roman Church which adopted the “Christian” trinity (starting in 325 A. D. at the Council of Nicaea) also “in 381 [A. D.] declared that the Montanists should be looked upon as pagans.” - Cairns, p. 111.[80] So here we have (as the great influence of Neo-Platonism is really beginning) Tertullian, “a celebrated Christian Church writer ... one of the noted fathers of the Church”;[81]"one of the greatest of the Church Fathers"[82] who belonged to a religious cult (Montanists) which “developed fanatical misinterpretations of scripture."[83] And while a member of that religion (which came to be condemned as pagan[84] by the Church) he allegedly became “the first [about 215 A. D.] to state the theological doctrine of the Trinity” - Cairns, p. 122.
3 We need to understand that even Tertullian’s development of a multiple-person God in the 3rd century A.D. (if that’s actually what he intended)[84] was still not the “orthodox” trinity doctrine that was finally developed and adopted by “the Church” and which is still accepted by nearly all Christendom today! [85, 86,87, 88]
Among other things Tertullian wrote: “The Father is ... greater [than the Son],” and “There was a time when the Son was not .... Before all things, God was alone.” In fact, the Catholic workTrinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity explains that, even though later writers used some of Tertullian’sterminology to describe the Trinity, it appears that Tertullian did not use them in that sense: “hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from [Tertullian’s] usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”
{Tertullian} therefore proposed to say that God is ‘one substance {substantia in Latin - compares to homoousios in Greek} consisting in three persons {persona}’. The precise meaning of the Latin words substantia and persona is not easy to determine in Tertullian’s usage. {‘In Tertullian substantiacould be used in the sense of character or nature [among other things].’ - p. 90, Chadwick.} - p. 89, The Early Church, Prof. Henry Chadwick (trinitarian), 1986 ed., Dorset Press, New York.
4 We find, then, that even many trinitarian historians make statements similar to this:
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Justin Martyr - died ca. 165 A. D.]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ [including, obviously, Tertullian]. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact." [26-26a]
5 Neo-Platonism is notorious for the paganisms it introduced into Christendom. The fruits of this eclectic borrowing by the early church are described by professor Douglas T. Holden:
“Christian theology has become so fused with [pagan] Greek philosophy that it has reared individuals who are a mixture of nine parts Greek thought to one part Christian thought." [90]
6 How familiar this all must sound to God and his faithful angels! God’s prophets throughout the long history of Israel’s existence were constantly condemning this very same form of idolatry in their own land among God’s chosen people.
“The actual society they knew was an uneasy accommodation of Israelite tradition to Canaanite mores and institutions, which were based on nature worship .... [God’s prophets] exposed the falsity of the Canaanized religious cult [of the Israelites] ... in which Yahweh’s name was honored while his nature was outraged. The cult was in all but name the worship of other gods because it sanctioned a way of life abominable to Yahweh."[91, 92]
7 Christendom has followed this very same broad path that leads to destruction! The Apostles valiantly and constantly fought against this syncretistic trend (as we see throughout the New Testament), but after their deaths the Church welcomed it with open arms. - 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Matt. 7:13-23.
The dominance of Rome in Church affairs from Constantine’s time onward also cemented this trend.
“Under the Roman Empire, the educated ... believed that the divine was one, but that it manifested itself in countless ways ... and that it was allowable to give to these various manifestations of the one the names of the many gods of popular belief.” -Encyclopedia Americana, 1944, v. 13, p. 395 (compare 1 Cor. 10:20 and Ex. 23:13.)
“The Romans were the greatest borrowers and most skilled adapters. Their syncretistic tendencies were accentuated by their Greek education and the influence of Greek literature.” - p. 190. And, “according to the monotheistic trend of the age, all deities of all peoples were regarded as but manifestations of the one supreme deity.” - p. 190. And, “A curious evidence of the consciousness of the unity of the divine is afforded by the amalgamation [blending] of different deities into a ‘Theos pantheus’ [‘God All-God’], or ‘Thea pantheus’[‘Goddess All-God’], which might be regarded either as an abstract conception or a new deity according to the fluidity of pagan theology. Usually one deity was chosen, prominent for his merits in the votary’s estimation, and the epithet ‘pantheus’ (‘all-God’) added to the personal name as representative of the totality of the divine. Thus we find in Latin inscriptions ‘SerapisPantheus’ ....” - p. 191, The Mystery Religions, S. Angus, Dover Publications, 1975.
8 So it was that Christendom began its adulterous love affair with a pagan-developed trinity doctrine. It was only about a hundred years from the time of Tertullian’s alleged formulation of a foundation for a trinity concept for Christendom until the Roman Church began its official embrace of it at the Coucil of Nicaea in 325 A. D., and all during this time Neo-Platonism was at its strongest, influencing ways of life and thought throughout the Empire. In fact, the pagan Emperor himself, Constantine, who convened the council and forced his final (trinitarian) decision upon the majority of Christian bishops present, had surrounded himself with Neo-Platonists!
“There was a circle of Neo-Platonist philosophers at Constantine’s court; the leading Neo-Platonist, Sopater, grew so influential that the other courtiers plotted to ruin him." [93]
9 As to the climactic act itself, the Nicene Council of 325 A. D., we need to investigate the pressures and the backgrounds of several key men to understand what really happened there. We must learn about the Emperor (Constantine), his chief “Christian” advisor (Bishop Hosius of Cordova), the trinity-pusher (Athanasius of Alexandria), the non-trinitarian defender (Arius) and the leader of the vast majority of Bishops at the Nicene Council (Eusebius of Caesarea).
The argument that the Trinity doctrine was developed primarily through the influence of Neo-Platonism and pagan syncretism is based on a selective and distorted reading of history. A closer examination of the theological, historical, and scriptural foundations reveals that the doctrine of the Trinity is deeply rooted in biblical revelation and early Christian tradition, not in pagan philosophy or external influences.
ReplyDeleteThe assertion that the Trinity emerged during Neo-Platonism's "most potent phase" (200–550 A.D.) ignores the fact that Trinitarian ideas predate this period and are evident in the New Testament itself. Passages like Matthew 28:19, John 1:1-14, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and Philippians 2:6 affirm the divine nature and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 107) and Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165), also articulated proto-Trinitarian ideas well before the rise of Neo-Platonism as a dominant philosophical influence.
Tertullian's contributions to Trinitarian theology, while significant, do not represent the inception of the doctrine. He provided terminology and conceptual tools, such as trinitas (Trinity) and substantia (substance), but his theology was based on the biblical witness and not on pagan sources. While it is true that Tertullian later became associated with Montanism, his earlier works, including Against Praxeas, reflect orthodox Christian thought. The Church’s later condemnation of Montanism does not invalidate his earlier contributions, which are consistent with biblical monotheism and the distinctiveness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The claim that the Trinity was "not the ‘orthodox’ doctrine" until Nicaea (325 A.D.) reflects a misunderstanding of the council’s purpose. The Nicene Creed was not the invention of a new doctrine but a formal clarification of what the Church already believed in response to the Arian controversy. Arius denied the full divinity of Christ, and the council affirmed the Son’s co-eternity and consubstantiality with the Father, reflecting the biblical teaching of Christ’s divine nature (John 10:30, John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20).
The suggestion that Neo-Platonism heavily influenced the Trinity doctrine overlooks the clear distinctions between Christian theology and Neo-Platonic philosophy. While Neo-Platonism emphasized an impersonal "One" and hierarchical emanations, Christian Trinitarianism affirms a personal, relational God who is one in essence and three in persons. Any superficial similarities are coincidental and lack theological substance.
The portrayal of Constantine as a pagan emperor who imposed a Trinitarian decision on the Church misrepresents both his role and the council's proceedings. Constantine convened the council for political unity, but he did not dictate its theological conclusions. The bishops present debated the issues based on Scripture and theological reasoning. Moreover, Constantine’s personal understanding of theology was rudimentary, and he deferred to the expertise of Christian leaders like Hosius of Cordova and Athanasius.
The accusation that early Christians borrowed from Roman syncretism and pagan triads is unfounded. Pagan triads, such as those involving Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect polytheistic systems where each deity had distinct roles and domains. In contrast, the Trinity is explicitly monotheistic, affirming one God in three persons who share the same divine essence. This fundamental difference makes any direct comparison invalid.
DeleteThe claim that the early Church engaged in syncretism akin to Israel’s idolatry in the Old Testament is contradicted by the historical record of Christian opposition to paganism. Early Christians, including the Church Fathers, faced persecution and martyrdom rather than compromise their faith by adopting pagan practices. Their theological development, including the doctrine of the Trinity, was rooted in Scripture and the apostolic tradition, not in accommodation to pagan culture.
The characterization of the Nicene Council as dominated by Neo-Platonists and trinity-pushers ignores the diversity of theological perspectives present. The council included a broad representation of Christian leaders, most of whom were concerned with upholding biblical teachings against Arian distortions. While figures like Athanasius played key roles in articulating Trinitarian theology, their arguments were based on Scripture, not philosophical speculation.
In conclusion, the development of the Trinity doctrine cannot be reduced to a product of Neo-Platonism, pagan influences, or political machinations. It emerged from the Church’s effort to faithfully interpret the biblical witness to the nature of God. Historical and theological evidence demonstrates that the doctrine of the Trinity is a uniquely Christian understanding of God, deeply rooted in Scripture and consistent with the apostolic faith. Assertions to the contrary rely on misrepresentations and a lack of engagement with the primary sources and context of early Christian theology.