The pedigree of the doctrine of the Trinity may be parodied as "out of Greek philosophy, sired by wishful thinking". There is a grain of truth in this, but the more serious question is how any thinking 21st century theologian supports a dogma based on a 1st century world view discredited 500 years ago?
From a personal point of view, I had a strong faith as a child and as a young person read the scriptures with understanding. As Luther said, the scriptures are their own interpreter, and my faith was Trinitarian, seeing God revealed in creation, in Jesus Christ and in the holy spirit. My faith was evidence-based and had no need of prescriptive dogma. When later I explored the Nicene and Athanasian creeds and the Council of Chalcedon’s addition, I discovered their inherent illogicality and self-contradiction. I also discovered the theologian’s get-out clause – "it’s a heavenly mystery, so don’t expect to understand it in earthly language and concepts." Indeed much about God is a mystery. We can’t explain how God created the universe, but our conviction is that he did. We can’t explain how Jesus of Nazareth was filled with "the whole fullness of God" (Colossians 1:19), but the gospels clearly proclaim this. We have no explanation of how the Holy Spirit touches and transforms people, but we have the evidence before our eyes daily.
The origins of the doctrine of the Trinity as a dogma are political, rather than religious; the Roman Emperor Constantine demanded a resolution of the differences across the Church and assembled the Council of Nicea in 325 CE for the purpose. It is very significant that the majority of the Church did not accept the solution immediately and it took 100 years with a major adjustment at Chalcedon in 381CE for it to be widely embraced.
Traditional support for the doctrine comes from an interpretation of scripture that presupposes the doctrine is correct. But still criticism continues today. Davis (1999), lists a dozen current issues with the doctrine of the Trinity. These include serious questions as to its relevance to faith, the difficulty of reconciling Jesus as God with Jesus the man dying on the cross, how the Triple Godhead works in practice, the difference between the Western and Eastern Church’s view of the holy spirit’s source and various problems of engagement with science, linguistics and sociology. Present-day debate seems to involve the dynamics of the relationships within the triadic Godhead, with the "Social Trinity" having a high profile.
The classic answer is that it grew out of the baptismal formula of dedication "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". But how did the Church come to extrapolate this simple formula into a complex doctrine? The first stage was to resolve the question of the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship with God. How did St. Paul’s "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" become "God was Christ reconciling the world to himself"?
One reason is the early Church’s experience. The oldest record of Christian thought is St. Paul’s’ letters to the early churches, dating from 50CE. Paul emphasises the risen Christ; the resurrection proves that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, God’s agent to bring His kingdom into being. He reflects the early Church’s experience, which led them to identify Jesus with Yahweh, so clearly brought out in Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s dramatic narrative displays Jesus doing things that the Old Testament shows God doing.
Another factor is Jesus’ teaching and actions. They might be the key to understanding how the idea of his divinity grew over three centuries. Jesus’ own understanding of his relationship with God should be very significant. He called God "Daddy" (Aramaic "abba"). This was not remarkable in 1st century Judaism. It seems very intimate and personal, but it is not more so than the English or Welsh usage of "thee" or "ti" to address God. Much has been built on the apparent special relationship between God and Jesus as father to son; e.g. "I and my father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the father". But my heavenly father and I are one i.e. of one mind over many things. I am made in God’s image according to the book of Genesis; therefore, "who has seen me has seen the father" applies to all mankind. And if Jesus was God’s only son, why did he teach his disciples to pray "Our father in heaven"?
Jesus appears to refer to himself as "Son of man", usually simply a synonym for "man"; this is also an epithet applied to a human figure in Daniel 7. He appears in heaven and is enthroned next to God. Daniel 7 is figurative, representational. A man "in heaven" does not represent a god, rather someone having a close encounter with God. The throne is indicative of political and military power, necessary for the liberation of Palestine from the pagan Greeks. The conclusion is that Jesus is hinting that he is or may be the Messiah.
"Son of God" is an epithet applied to emperors and successful generals. It is self-evident that it does not imply all the characteristics of a God – immortality, omniscience, absolute power. It could only mean "god-like" in their achievements or administrative abilities.
Jesus dropped many hints of his relationship with God, but we need to infer a great deal of extrapolation to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity.
The main reason for its development seems to be that for three centuries leading Christian thinkers attempted to reconcile Greek philosophy and the threefold revelation of God. They used the tools of philosophy to infer "being" from "appearance". The Gnostic schools in Alexandria, Rome, etc. taught Platonic philosophy. They regarded the material world as intrinsically evil and therefore identified the God of the Old Testament as a kind of under-god (demiurge) responsible for creating an evil world. The more extreme believed that Jesus could not be human; he was a god who only appeared to be human (Docetism). This threatened the monotheism that Christianity inherited from 1st century Judaism. The reaction was an attempt to define the nature of God and Jesus Messiah in a way that preserved and emphasised Jesus’ humanity and the Father-Son relationship.
But the theologians continued to use philosophy. Platonism emphasises the abstract or universal as more important than the particular. In Alexandria, the Platonists found John’s Gospel more in line with their philosophy and accepted the idea of God becoming flesh. Aristotle’s approach emphasises the particular over the abstract. In Antioch, the followers of Aristotle began their theology with Jesus Christ as a human being, singled out by God as the vehicle for revelation.
In the 2nd century, Iraeneus, Bishop of Lyons, the first systematic theologian, was convinced that victory over Satan was of necessity won by a man, Jesus Christ in the role of the second Adam. The most popular definition from the start of the 4th century, based on scripture, came from Arius. He described the son as a second, or inferior god, standing midway between God and creatures. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the son was originated, and once had not existed.
An opposing view came from Cappadocian theologians that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit had always existed and are one substance (Greek "ousia") but three distinct persons (Greek "hypostasis"). This was Constantine’s "theological trifle" that divided the Church and led to the Nicean creed. It introduced the idea that all members of the Godhead are the same substance (Greek "homoousia"), probably originated by Paul of Samosata at Antioch.
There are endless difficulties with this definition and for fifty years, theologians struggled to make sense of it. Appolinaris of Laodicea believed that the Logos (divine word) had replaced Jesus’ soul. Unfortunately this conflicts with the Gospels, which reveal Jesus as human in every way. On the other hand, Nestorius of Antioch thought that Jesus’ humanity was essential for victory over sin to be demonstrated – one capable of sin who was nevertheless obedient. It is no big deal for God’s Logos to be obedient – he (she?) can’t help it. Nestorius used a three-layer Greek model of man’s nature to illustrate his view. Jesus was integrated God and Man at the upper level (Greek "prosopon"), but at the lower levels (Greek "physis" and "ousia") God and Man were distinct. Eutyches disagreed with both, asserting that Jesus Christ had a single nature, humanity absorbed by divinity. The union of natures occurred in the womb. Since the Council of Nicea had only resulted in further disagreement, the Council of Chalcedon (381 CE) was convened to settle the matter. The basic outcome was an assertion that Jesus Christ was fully human and fully divine. The full statement was very technical and some of the eastern churches rejected it, because it did not give God supremacy. Again, nothing was settled, but the Roman Church adopted the statement, has taught it dogmatically ever since, and passed it on to the Protestant Churches.
Compared with the large amount of thought and debate that went into the definition of Jesus Christ as fully human and fully divine, the Holy Spirit’s definition seems like a non-issue. The second stage in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity was to include the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. There were opponents of this idea, led by Eustathius of Sebaste, who rejected the idea that the Holy Spirit was a divine person. Athanasius disputed this in his "Letter to Serapion", with reference to the baptismal vows which he asserted pointed to the Spirit sharing the same divinity as Father and Son. Basil of Caesarea (ca. 375CE) pointed out that scripture said nothing to support Athanasius’ assertion. The Council of Constantinople in 380 formulated a statement that fell short of calling the Spirit "God", but afforded the same dignity and rank as Father and Son. This was not the last word on the Spirit. The formula speaks of the Father being the Spirit’s source. By the 9th century, the Roman Church had allowed the idea of both Father and Son being the Spirit’s source to creep in – known as the "filioque" (="and the Son") clause. The eventual outcome of this unwarranted addition was schism between the Eastern Churches and the Roman Church that continues today.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can now understand what the scriptures "really" mean. Taking the Nicene presuppositions back into scriptures, we perceive a "hidden" Trinitarian agenda behind them that transcends the simple threefold view of God’s revelation. The Old Testament itself has a wealth of material portraying God as creator. St. Paul stresses the fact (Romans 1:18-20) that God is revealed and known through the natural world. John’s Gospel points to Jesus Christ as the word made flesh – of course, "he" created the world; Genesis chapter 1 shows God creating by word alone, "Let there be…". Also, the Old Testament looks to God for salvation in terms of the preservation of the nation of Israel rather than individual salvation from sin. However, there is a connection between salvation and corporate sin. The time of national disaster – defeat by Babylon and exile – were a time when salvation was withdrawn because of corporate (national) sin. St. Paul looks to Jesus Christ for individual salvation – of course he would if he thought Jesus was God. The Holy Spirit appears in the Old Testament in connection with kingship and prophecy, where God empowers individuals to bring about his plan for the nation of Israel. St. Paul recognises the Holy Spirit as the power within Jesus Christ to bring his kingdom into being and also as a gift to the Church, to enable its growth and unity.
There are questions begging to be asked about this approach to understanding. The first is whether the 1st century statement of faith "Jesus is Lord" really meant, "Jesus is Yahweh". The obvious meaning is "Lord and Master" in the human sense. The honest answer is that we simply don’t know and the 4th century creed confuses the issue. The second question is whether the things Jesus did were God at work in the flesh, because of the parallels in the Old Testament where God was at work, but not in the flesh. The acid test surely is when others do similar things, e.g. St. Peter or St. Paul, do we describe them as God in the flesh and if not why not? The honest answer is that in their case it is God at work through a human agency, and this principle could equally be applied to Jesus of Nazareth. The third question is whether the things Jesus said quoting the words ascribed to wisdom (i.e. God) in the Old Testament force us to identify Jesus as God. The test of this is when I use the same quotations in my sermons, does this make me God? I think not. The honest answer is that such quotations actually prove nothing. The final question is, did the early Church worship Jesus as Jesus, as God almighty or as God revealed through Jesus? The honest answer is that we know Gnostics worshipped him as God, because they believed he was in some mystic way. For the majority, we will never know.
The present-day supporters of the Nicene Creed also have proof texts that purport to show that the New Testament portrays Jesus as pre-existent God. (Romans 8:3, 2 Corinthians 8:9, Galatians 4:4, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:16-17). Unfortunately, most of these are grammatically obscure needing a "Nicene" form of Greek grammar to clarify matters. For example, Philippians 2:6 is conventionally taken to indicate Jesus Christ’s pre-existence in the form of God, but the Greek is capable of a quite different interpretation, which explicitly denies he was in the form of God. Viz.: "Jesus, not existing in the form of God, deemed it grasping to be equal to God" (unlike Adam, implied). It all hinges on the peculiarities of Greek grammar, in particular the position of the word "not" with respect to the verb it qualifies. Similarly, Colossians 1:16-17 is taken to refer to Jesus Christ as the creator, but the usual interpretation of a phrase or pronoun is by reference to the previous noun. Viz.: "…in the image of God the invisible firstborn of all creation. Whatever in him (i.e. God) were created…".
The reality is that prior to the 4th century the doctrine of the Trinity did not exist and we have no idea what the majority of the faithful believed about the nature of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. What confuses us is the diversity of opinion amongst the theologians and philosophers. In the context of Greek culture it would have been easy for the man or woman in the congregation to accept the idea of a pre-existent god coming down to earth in the form of a man, doing what he had to do and returning to heaven. Their three-tier worldview is built into the Gospels, into Paul’s theology and hence is fundamental to the doctrine of the Trinity. Although Copernicus and Galileo had shattered the three-tier worldview by the 15th century, no theologian seems to have seriously considered this an issue until Bultmann’s 1941 lecture "New Testament and Mythology". He said that the Kerygma (proclamation) in the New Testament is expressed through myth; we cannot discard the myth without destroying the Gospel. The problem is that the New Testament represents the "other world" of God in material and spatial terms and regards the universe as three-layered – hell, earth, heaven. Also it recognises demons as responsible for mental disorders and spiritual powers in control of the earth-heaven interface. In the 20th/21st centuries we cannot accept this representation of reality because it conflicts with the observations of scientific investigation. To quote Bultmann, "It is no longer possible for anyone to hold the New Testament world view". Bultmann’s solution is to "demythologise" the Gospels. "The real purpose of myth is not to present an objective picture of the world as it is, but to express man’s understanding of himself in the world in which he lives. Myth should be interpreted not cosmologically, but anthropologically or … existentially." Bultmann’s definition of Myth has been shown to be deficient, but the debate he began continues. For the same reasons, we need to demythologise the creeds, because they are unbelievable in terms of modern knowledge.
It seems that there are three very serious problems with the doctrine of the Trinity. First it attempts to use the tools of Greek philosophy to infer "being" from "appearance" and in consequence contains wild speculation and inconsistencies. Second, it does not accord at all well with scripture unless a post-Nicene interpretation is applied. Finally, it is based on an incorrect worldview. This scientific generation demands a creed that is evidence-based. It deserves doctrine that accords with a 21st century worldview and a demythologised Gospel. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity fulfils none of these criteria. Isn’t it time to move on?
Bibliography:
Armstrong K,1993, "A History of God"
Davis et al. S T, 1999 "The Trinity"
Marshall I H, 1997 "New Testament Interpretation"
McGrath A E, 2001, "Christian Theology"
Wainwright A W, 1962, "The Trinity in the New Testament"
Young F, 1991, "The Making of the Creeds"