Trinitarian Controversy

This is my final paper for my History of the Church class. I will miss this class, because it was so great.

Some men were neglected, some were ignored but many were tortured and killed. Such was the climate of the Roman world in the days leading up to Constantine’s conversion in 312. Before this time, Christians could not happily and openly walk the streets within their empire for fear of persecution and death. After this time, their lives were forever altered as the first “Christian Emperor” existed and they were allowed a freedom they had never experienced before. Now, instead of worrying about life and death, they turned their attention to what had been subtly building itself as time allowed: the deeper theological issues of the faith. The debates grew, the disagreements came to the forefront and finally, the topic of the “Trinity” was to be discussed. The debates were focused on the individual persons of the godhead and were only later lumped into this singular term. Though these debates were important, they were marred from the beginning of Christianity’s wide acceptance. Constantine’s conversion allowed Christianity to be accepted universally, however, he was ineffective and detrimental in developing the Orthodox view of the Trinity.
To begin this debate, the forerunners of the controversy need to be noted: Tertullian being the most influential. Though the Trinitarian Controversy officially embodied the fourth century, Tertullian’s understanding and definition of the Trinity formulated more than 100 years earlier. In that time, he was able to look beyond the current debates and have a greater impact than his contemporaries. “While Greek Christians squabbled over the divinity of Christ and His relation to the Father, Tertullian sought to unify the faith and clarify the orthodox position.” (Curtis, Lang and Petersen, 1991, 24) What is troubling is that Tertullian was able to settle the debate regarding the Trinity, and yet the debate raged on. “Tradition says that he joined the Montanist ‘New Prophecy’ church in Carthage.” (Roger Olson, 1999, 91) By defecting, he negated anything he had written or said in the eyes of the Eastern Church. While there was not a formal schism between the East and the West, one was forming. Tertullian further prevented his voice to be heard by the East by writing primarily in Latin. Though he joined this group and left the “Great Church,” this group was largely separatists, not heretics. (Douglas and Comfort, 1992, 665) This allowed his voice to be heard and influence to be felt later on, but his opinion was neglected before this. Yet, it was his opinion, which held so much value from the beginning:
He drew upon Stoicism and Roman law for his language, and taught that God was one being (substantia) but three concrete individuals (personae). The Son and the Sprit did not issue from the Father by a division of his being, but as extensions from his being like rays from the sun. (Tim Dowley, 1995, 113)

His use of legal terminology helped fight a heresy known as modalism, which “Claims that there is one person who appears to us in three different forms.” (Wayne Grudem, 1994, 242) The most common recipient of Tertullian’s attacks was Praxeas: “Apparently Praxeas taught that there is only one personal identity in God and that this singular identity could be manifested either as the Father or as the Son or as the Holy Spirit.” (Olson 1999, 95) Through this debate, he was able to lay out the orthodox conclusion regarding who God was and whether there were three gods or one god with three identities and how that functioned. At the Council of Chalcedon, the Church as a whole began to hear his voice. In this final fight over the Trinity and person of Jesus Christ (at least in terms of ecumenical councils): “Tertullian’s writings on the person of Christ lay in the background of the discussion and the new statement of faith.” (Olson, 1999, 231) The outcome was that “The ancient faith of Tertullian was accepted in the East.” (Olson, 1999, 232) More than 200 years after his death, Tertullian was heard. Though there were many factors that prohibited this final unification within the Church on this doctrine, Constantine was one of the definitive speed bumps. As the West accepted Tertullian’s Trinitarian Theology early on, it might be assumed that unity would have been reached at some point. The issue lies with Constantine’s attempts to force unity without the entire Church being willing to hear Tertullian. He was not alone in regards to being an early developer of the Trinitarian debate; Origen brought many cards and thoughts to the table as well.
Origen’s legacy was one that baffles the mind. His thought, works and understanding were well beyond any of his contemporaries and were occasionally as dizzying as Vizzini in The Princess Bride. As is noted: “The diversity of his thought and writings easily gained for him the reputation as the father of orthodoxy as well as the father of heresy.” (Curtis, Lang and Petersen, 1991, 28) Because of many a historian’s inability to delineate his theology, he was also put into the “unheard” category, at least publicly; many theologians and thinkers still quietly adopted some of his views. Therefore, his influence proved to be greater than his dizzying intellect. “Yet, Jerome called him the second teacher of the church after Paul.” (Douglas and Comfort, 1992, 522) In regards to the Trinitarian debate, Origen’s primary influence dealt with the person of the Logos, the Son of God. “Origen established that such language [“generated”] referred to an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. His doctrine that the Son was eternally being generated was an important step forward.” (Dowley, 1995, 111) The importance of this thought and understanding cannot be emphasized enough. His developing this proved its importance in many ways, one being the emphasis of the Logos’ divinity. “Origen never tired of affirming and asserting in no uncertain terms the absolute divinity of the Logos who became Jesus Christ as eternal and equal with God the Father.” (Olson, 1999, 108) From here, Origen’s confusing logic enters and introduces a concept called “subordinationism.” To some, Origen vehemently denied the subordinate role of the Son, while to others he unabashedly affirmed this belief. Wayne Grudem attributes this thought to him by saying: “The early church father Origen advocated a form of subordinationism by holding that the Son was inferior to the Father in being, and that the Son eternally derives his being from the Father.” (Grudem, 1994, 245) While Roger Olson declares:
This is ironic since Arius... claimed Origen as the source of his subordinationism of the Son in which he declared, “there was when the Son was not.” Anyone who reads Origen carefully cannot miss his strong declarations of the eternity of the Logos, the Son, with the Father. (Olson, 1999, 110)

In truth, it seems likely that Origen refuted subordinationism while his work was unfortunately used to debate his own view. As both sides to the debate regarding the Son claimed Origen as their source, it is now important to look at the true Trinitarian Controversy as it led up to the Council of Nicea, where Constantine intervened and forever altered the course of Christendom.
Arius was the father of Arianism, which chiefly declared that God created the Logos, and the Logos was eternally subordinate to God. (Roger Olson, 1999, 142) What lies behind this statement is a long-held philosophical thought that God is immutable, unchangeable and not passionate. The way the Arians interpreted this is that God could not suffer and die on the cross; therefore God could not be in the person of Jesus Christ. They would use the Greek word “homoiousios” which means “similar.” It would be used describing the person of Jesus Christ as being of a similar substance of God, but not the same. To them, the entire salvation of man depends on this term. As stated by Olson:
First, God is by nature removed from creatureliness, and if the Logos became human in Jesus Christ, he must be a creature. Second, salvation is a process of being joined with God by grace and free will, and if Jesus communicates salvation to us, it must be something he accomplished by grace and free will in a manner that we can emulate; and if he was God, then salvation would not be something we could accomplish. (Olson, 1999, 147)

Jesus had to be human. If this were not so, man (a human) would not be able to be like Jesus and would therefore be unable to achieve salvation.
To rebut Arianism came two men: Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius of Alexandria. These men largely agreed in regards to why Arianism is heretical. They also held to the philosophy that God is immutable, unchangeable and not passionate. (Olson, 1999, 143) Looking deeper into the issue, it is important to note word choice. As the Arians utilized the word “homoiousios,” these men used the word “homoousios,” which means “same.” Their stance was that the Logos and God were of the same substance, not just similar substance. There is an obvious and great difference between what amounts to one English letter. According to their argument, if “similar” were used instead of “same”, then God would have to have changed. As stated earlier, both sides of this debate had the same premise for their argument. As “The A’s” used this, they argued that for God to create the Logos, He would then change from not being a Father to being a Father. “Alexander turned the tables on Arius and charged that he in effect denied the immutability of the Father by saying that he was not always Father but only became so by creating a son.” (Olson, 1999, 148) Again, Athanasius’ argument is virtually identical: “The heart of the argument is that if the Father is God, then the Son must be God as well, for otherwise the Father would have changed in becoming Father.” (Olson, 1999, 168) Like Arianism, the second part of their argument also had ramifications in salvation. To “The A’s”, salvation was only possible through divinity. “For only if Jesus Christ is God are we saved.” (Olson, 1999, 150) This brings to light the aspect of the Logos that Arianism is quick to deny: He is fully divine. Athanasius argued this point well (and correctly) in equating the ability to “undo sin” with divinity. “Only God can undo sin and bring a creature to share in the divine nature.” (Olson, 1999, 169) Both of these arguments may be seen as just different from Arianism’s point view, but which one can be declared truth? Alexander’s use of the Gospel of John and apostolic writings gives him (and thus Athanasius) the upper hand. In this, he states how John 1 speaks of the Logos being “’in the beginning with God’ and the agent of God in all creation.” (Olson, 1999, 148)
This debate was finally “settled” at the Council of Nicea. At this council, the Son was determined to be homoousios with God, of “one substance.” (Olson, 1999, 154) Constantine’s conversion opened up the Christian world and thought to him and he therefore meddled. To him: “[he] recognized that the explosive issue had to be defused. So in 325, he called for a council to meet at Nicea...” (Bruce Shelley, 2008, 101) That the issue needed to be defused is not argued, Constantine’s involvement was the error. This set precedence for him to have control what was acceptable doctrine within the Church. From this he excommunicated and reinstated many bishops, depending on who had his ear at the time. Constantine’s control of the Christian councils and decisions set the stage for power struggles within the hierarchy of the Church. This precedence allowed the empress to fight and excommunicate John Chrysostom when he preached against her. Theodosius also called upon this precedence when he called the Council of Constantinople in order to further determine orthodoxy in regards to the Trinitarian debate.
At the Council of Constantinople, Christ’s humanity was affirmed as well as the person of the Holy Spirit was further explained. (Shelley, 2008, 114) The chief players in this council were a trio known as “The Cappadocian Fathers.” What these men (consisting of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa) did, was simply clarify the issue, putting it into more concise terms while reconfirming what the Nicene Creed stated. In regards to the Trinity as a whole, they stated, “God is one ousia and three hypostases.” (Olson, 1999, 175) This means that God is one person but three substances. They also stated that: “we confess one God not in number, but in nature.” (Olson, 1999, 184) Specifically focusing upon the persons of the Trinity, Gregory of Nazianzus:
Gave ontological status to relations. The Father’s unique identity within the one divine being is his relatedness to Son and Holy Spirit as their begetter and source of procession. The Son’s unique identity is as the one who is eternally generated from the Father as his express image and agent. The Holy Spirit’s unique identity is as the one who eternally proceeds from the Father as his wisdom and power. (Olson, 1999, 187)

He explained the relationship between the persons of the godhead, which gave credence to the largely forgotten person of the Holy Spirit. As a result of his writings, along with Basil the Great’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s and the Council of Constantinople, the Nicene Creed was affirmed with minimal additions apart from an article about the Holy Spirit. With this, the third person of the Trinity was explained.
In truth, the Trinitarian debate lives on to this day. People still question the Holy Spirit’s role in the life of the Church; they still debate whether Jesus was just a good man, or God Himself. Nothing Constantine or Theodosius or any Church father did could bring this debate to a close. Realistically, Constantine did almost as much harm as he helped. By attempting to control the Church and its decisions, he possibly pushed the explanation of orthodoxy out by a century. At a minimum, he brought great confusion to the issue. What is known is that Tertullian and Origen laid the groundwork for Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocian Fathers to espouse concise language from their writings in order to come up with what is known as the Nicene Creed (post-Constantinople with the Western twist, of course), which has brought hope and clarity to many throughout the ages.