Six Myths About Christianity – Part 9
Posted By Brett on April 10, 2010
Continuing my review of the November Watchtower article “Exposed: Six Myths About Christianity,” I’d like to remind my readers that the full text of the Watchtower article is in blue with my comments in black.
MYTH 4: GOD IS A TRINITY
History
What is the origin of the myth? “The impression could arise that the trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th century invention. In a sense, this is true . . The formulation ‘one God in three persons was not solidly established certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life, and its profession of faith until late in the 4th century.” -New Catholic Encylopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.
In the above quotation there are words like, “impression could arise” and “in a sense” which should lead one to recognize that the position of the author is different from that of the Watchtower Society. The online Catholic Encyclopedia says, “In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic Church and professed by her members.”http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
It is misleading to quote as a supporting source someone who concludes the exact opposite.
The council of Nicea met on 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” Encyclopedia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.
First, what shall we make the the Jehovah’s Witnesses position?
Since this section proposes to explore the origins of a “myth,” it is worth asking the same kind of question regarding the belief of the Jehovah Witnesses. Let’s assume for the time being that the doctrine of the Trinity developed in 325. What’s the alternative? The Jehovah Witnesses would like you to believe that Jesus is not the Second Person of the Trinity, but is instead the archangel Michael. But where can this be found in history? If it is a mark against the doctrine of the Trinity that it did not develop until AD 325, what does that say for the Jehovah Witness position that has zero support from any of the Ante-Nicean fathers?
Why the double standard?
Its like two sets of parents in a custody battle over which of them are the real parents. One set of parents is able to provide album after album of pictures of the boy in their home as early as 2 months old. The second set of parents has nothing but a newspaper clipping of the man after he was fully grown. Is there really any room to point the finger back to the the Nicean Fathers and say, “Ha! You don’t have anything earlier” when the alternative has nothing?
Second, the gap-filled quote job presents a very skewed picture of history
Christianity had grown to the point that the schisms which existed were significant enough that it began to affect the stability of the nation. As it ruler, Constantine called a council to resolve this controversy. It is worth pointing out that “Constantine was personally involved in the “Donatus” controversy in 313 AD, 12 years before Nicea! The council of Nicea was Constantine’s, second major involvement in doctrinal disputes.”
Moving on to the council of Nicea, “Although Constantine did put forth the Nicene creed term “hoinoousios” (of one substance), it is universally recognized that Ossius (a bishop and Constantine’s spiritual adviser) was the one who told Constantine to suggest the term be in the creed.”
“The records of the Council make it clear that Ossius, not Constantine, presided (Eusebius’ vague reference to “several presidents” cannot stand against the records of the Council itself). Constantine was present and did intervene; he promised the Council of Nicaea his support and protection, which he gave it; it might well not have been held but for him.” http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/pope-silvester-and-council-of-nicaea.html
The quote given by the Watchtower has a couple of ellipse in it (. . . ) indicating some material was left out of the quote. Usually an author will use ellipse to exclude irrelevant material so as to more concisely make his point. But in this case the Jehovah Witness publication left out material that went against the point they wanted to make. They want to give every impression that Constantine strong armed the decision and forced the Trinity down the throats of all the poor bishops. But in the material that the Watchtower left out, it says that Constantine “personally proposed (no doubt on Ossius’ prompting) the crucial formula.” The author of this encyclopedia article says that there is no doubt that the crucial formulation actually came from the presiding bishop Ossius, and that Constantine went along with it. Leaving that bit of information out radically changes their case. Why the misleading partial quotes?
Also, the term upon which there was so much dissension was the term “homousius.” It means “consubstantial,” or “of the same substance.” For some necessary background, Sabellius was a third century priest who taught that there was one God who played different roles. Thus God wore his “Father” hat in the OT, then he took that off and donned his “Son” mask in the NT, and now he plays the part of the Holy Spirit.
So here is the problem, the majority of those at Nicea believed that Jesus was God but that he was a distinct person from the Father. The council was convened in order to address the claims of Arius that Jesus was a creature. Arius was willing to say that Jesus was a god but not the God. It was suggested that Jesus be described as having the same substance as the Father. This would sufficiently refute Arius’s notion that Jesus was merely a god. But it could be misconstrued to communicate that Jesus and the Father were actually just different masks that God put on (Sabellianism). Thus there was a lot of argument over what the precise wording of the creed should be. It is not that they disagreed that Jesus was God, rather they disagreed over how that should best be phrased.The majority of people who disliked the creed (but who eventually signed it) were firm believers in the deity of Christ. The two exceptions were the friends of Arius.
I’ll look at some of the early church fathers themselves in the next installment.
Comments