SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES: IS THE TRINITY AN ESSENTIAL OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH? - PART 1

 

The Plains of Heaven by John Martin

In introducing this series, I tried to say that I'm dealing with issues that are second and third tier issues, not those of utmost importance. But is the Trinity a first tier issue? 

One thing that made me feel good about my thinking is to hear something I had thought about in dealing with a theological issue stated by a respected theologian. In this case, I'm referring to a concept that James White, author of the excellent "The Forgotten Trinity" mentioned. This thought is represented by a triangle, but not what you think it stands for. One of the sides is labeled "Only one God." The second side is labeled "Jesus Is God." Finally, the third is "Three Persons, One God". 

Allow me to say that the Trinity is a simple concept to say but difficult to comprehend. Any attempt to illustrate it - such as H20 being ice, water, steam, or an egg being yolk, white, and shell - fails in at least one point  Does that weaken this doctrine? I. Don't. Think. So. We are talking about God. Of course, dealing with God and His nature should be expected beyond our fallible mortal paygrade. To be able to comprehend God is lowering Him to our level.

Anybody disagree that the Bible teaches Monotheism as an essential belief? If you're not a Trinitarian, let me give a fact that some are either unconsciously or consciously ignoring: All Trinitarians believe Monotheism is an essential belief. Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods, but one God in three persons. Any other "god" deserves the quotation marks. 

Most Trinity deniers have one target they attack - the Deity of Christ. Some say He was just a man, while others say He was a spiritual being such as an archangel. But the deity of Christ is not only taught throughout the New Testament (Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralytic, which only God could do in Matthew 9:1-7; saying "Before Abraham was I Am" in John 8:58; Jesus accepting worship which the disciples and angels didn't and Herod did and died as a result), but in the Old Testament there are appearances of God to Jacob, Samson's parents, and Gideon; since no one saw God (John 1:18) and God is Spirit, it is logical that these were pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus Christ.

There is another group of Trinity rejecters that affirm that Jesus is God. But they don't believe in three persons to the one God. Rather, they believe Jesus is God and that He sometimes take the role of the Father, sometimes that of the Son, and yet other times as the Spirit; this belief is called Modalism or Sabellianism. Now, while Scripture makes the case of Monotheism and Christ's Deity are essential, does it state that believing one God in three Persons is a salvation requirement? While most Trinitarians believe it is, others are open to Modalists being considered believers. One problem, though, is that most Modalists also believe their view is an essential tenet of faith.

I do believe the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity (see Matthew 3:5-7; 28:19). Main reason - it's a uniquely Christian doctrine. There are triads, but no other religion teaches in a Trinity, or maybe better called a Tri-Unity. There are religions, though, that are Monotheistic but not Christian.  

Some claim that the pope originated Trinitarianism. Uh, at that time there was not an official pope - that happed a couple of centuries later with Leo the Great. More often, Constantine is blamed for starting a new religion to control the people, but why then did he not hold on to emperor worship? Plus, the originator of the term "Trinity" was Tertullian, a century before Nicea. 

One other point - Under Trinitarianism, God had fellowship between the Three Persons before man was created. God didn't need us for fellowship, nor were the created angels sufficient for fellowship. To me, the Trinity makes perfect sense.

BOOK REVIEW - SUPERHEROES CAN'T SAVE YOU: EPIC EXAMPLES OF HISTORIC HERESIES BY TODD MILES

 

Who says Christian apologetics can't be fun?

Todd Miles (professor at Western Seminary in Portland, OR) has given a useful and relevant understanding of who Christ is in his book Superheroes Can't Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies. He looks at seven incorrect views of who Jesus Christ is through history (he refers to them as bad ideas about Jesus) and compares these distortions with various superheroes. The result is a fun, readable book that helps us understand doctrine.

Each chapter follows this format:

1. Introduction to the superhero and autobiographical insights
2. The heresy (or false teaching or "bad idea about Jesus"
3. Who follows this heresy today? (In this section, he'll mention particular groups that hold to that teaching but also ways that someone may be slipping into a particular trap of thinking that isn't accurate.
4. What does the Bible say?
5. Why does it matter?

When I was younger, I considered the three most important aspects of theology to be Bibliology (the Inspiration of the Bible), Christology (who Jesus is) and Soteriology (the teaching on salvation). While I consider all three (and also all other areas of theology) important still, I'm at the point of believing Christology is the most important. Of course, you need a solid Bibliology to have a solid Christology, and if you have a proper Christology, you will by default realize our salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Thus, this book is helpful in identifying a Biblically consistent Christology.
I highly recommend this book both as a student of the Word (I considered calling myself a theologian - it sounds more intellectual and intimidating, even though "theologian" and "student of the Word" are the same thing) and as a comic book fan.

A HYMN WRITING APOLOGIST FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF JERUSALEM - A LOOK AT EPHREM THE SYRIAN

 

Jesus commanded His disciples to make disciples of all nations, to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, and to be His witnesses to the uttermost parts of the world. Yet we consider Christianity a Western religion, not reaching into Africa and Asia until the modern mission movement. Did the apostles fail to obey and ignored the lands to the East, or is our perception a bit off?

In this series (we're in part 9 of 13), I've been following Bryan Litfin's book Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction. The first edition included ten people from the first 500 years of the church, and the second edition added two more. One of these is Ephrem the Syrian. I had never heard of him before the second edition. My loss.

Litfin mentions that the Christianity that traveled East was more Jewish than the Western form. Some of it was orthodox, some wasn't. Also, in Edessa in Mesopotamia, there were other false teachings. Ephrem recognized that both the Eastern church he was a part of and the Western church were the same faith, serving the same Savior, and fought against the heresies of Ebionism (a Judaizing movement), Arianism (denying that Jesus was God in the flesh), Marcionism, and Manicheism (a form of Gnosticism). Ephrem's theology was so strong, it was praised by church leaders in the West, such as Augustine's contemporary Jerome.

One technique of the false groups like Arianism and Manicheism was to set their hereitical teachings to music. Ephrem decided the best way to fight fire was with fire, so he wrote hymns both to refute error and to proclaim truth. This helped him earn the nickname "the Harp of the Holy Spirit."

A topic for debate today is a woman's role in the church, particularly if women can preach. In Ephrem's day, there was no such debate - the answer was an across-the-board "No." However, Ephrem saw no prohibition on women singing. So he organized women's choirs, so the sisters can sing.

Have there been hymns or other Christian songs that have had an impact on you? Do you see music being used to defend the faith and teach doctrine much this day? If not, should it? (See Colossians 3:16)

 

ALONE AGAINST THE WORLD? - A LOOK AT ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

 When I started reading Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin, I already had a pair of favorite Church Fathers. In both cases, Litfin confirmed my positive impression. One was Tertullian, who we looked at three days ago. The other is Athanasius.

Before I look at my hero, though, let me paint the picture. The second edition of this book has 12 chapters, and we've now entered the second half. However, the game is completely changed. At least four of the six were ushered into eternity by a cruel pagan Roman government; we don't know about the other two, but even if they weren't martyrs, their lives were touched by persecution. 

But then, a game-changer took place. The Emperor who was set out to exterminate Christianity was replaced by a successor who at least gave lip service to being a Christian. Clergy men who physically bore the marks of the Great Persecution of Diocletian (e.g. missing eyes, lack of use of hands) were a few years later dining as honored guests of Constantine.

Was Constantine a hero, a villain, or merely an important figure in Church History? Good question, but do you see his name mentioned in the title of this blog? Do you see an artist's representation of him above? No? That's because the focus is on Athansius.

As said, the above artwork is an artist's impression, as it is with all the other church fathers. I gave up trying to find photos or videos of them. In the case of Athanasius, the artist seemed to be unaware of his nickname, "The Black Dwarf." Would Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman be a good actor to play him? Maybe, but they might be too tall. 

Of course, heroes stand out more when you have a villain, and in this case it was a gentleman named Arius. The area of disagreement? Whether Jesus was God Incarnate or a lesser, created being. Minor topic? Not to Athanasius. Rather, the "Black Dwarf" considered Christ's deity to be crucial in our salvation. 

Constantine called a council at Nicea to resolve this issue, which was when he dined with the bishops as I mentioned above. The overwhelming number of bishops agreed with the Nicean Creed, ex-communicating and condemning Arius. (Some have suggested one of the bishops - St. Nicholas, no less - punched Arius in the nose; Litfin considers this to be a legend that probably didn't happen.) And thus, Arianism was defeated.

Guess again. One thing I've noticed about false teaching is that when proven to be in error, the false teachers regroup and try again to get acceptance of their views. This happened here. Constantine's idea of the Council was to come to a conclusion, have the two sides shake hands, and get along. Thus, the Arians managed to get Constantine to be more conciliatory, and when Athanasius would not re-instate Arius, the Emperor exiled him. In fact, Athanasius was exiled a total of five times by three different Caesars. In fact, while Constantine was apparently neutral, his successor Constantius was pro-Arian, and the heresy grew (even though Arius himself passed on due to an explosive intestinal disorder).

However, Athanasius was no more likely to cave in than the Arians. He fought long and hard for Trinitariansm, even if he seemed to be fightin alone. Almost 1500 years later, John Wesley urged William Wiberforce to keep his fight against slavery going, as Athanasius contrta mundum (Athanasius against the world). 

He wasn't alone. Athanasius had help from a trio of church fathers known as the Three Capodocians (Gregory of Naziananzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa). Then, pro-Nicene Theodosius became Caesar and convened the Great Council of Constantinople which affirmed Trinitarianism as orthodoxy (though Athanasius had passed on eight years before then).

Litfin has interesting ways of comparing the church fathers with other people. He likened Tertullian to a stubborn cowboy. In the case of Athanasius, Litfin used the story of Hans Brinker keeping his finger in the dike to illustrate how the "Black Dwarf" stemmed the flood of Arianism.

Do you have the same zeal to stand up against false teaching, even if it's you against the world?