Controversy of the Trinity

Christological controversy paved the way for Trinitarian debates. The Trinitarian controversy can not be isolated from basic issues that surround the Christological arguments. The crucial moment that ignited the controversy of the Trinity slowly occurred when a realization and deeper reflections concerning the concept of God was reconsidered. In the development of Christian theology, those bishops who had signed the Nicene Creed after the crucial debate with the Arians, became doubtful to the concept of homoousios--the Son as “of the same substance” with the Father. Many of them understood the Son, not as of the same substance but, as of similar substance (homoiousios) as the eternal, unchanging Father. By implication, it led to an existence of two separate beings. This was not perceived before as of significant value to create controversy in the future. But this idea was unacceptable to Athanasius, the main defender of homoousios position. The Son is of the very same substance as the Father; and for him, to accept the concept of homoiousios is an abandonment of the Nicene Creed.[1]

Upon the emergence of the Trinitarian controversy, there is a clear tension between reason and revelation for in the first place, revelation was not clear in relation to the Trinitarian concept. The Bible simply assumes the concept of the Trinity. But theological reflections require a clearer explanation rather than just abstract assumption.

In the light of these tension, the challenge for Athanasius was to intellectually explain the manner of sameness of the Father and of the Son as of the very same substance and yet not identical. With consideration to the significance of the Scripture as a norm for theological correctness, added to the complexity is the implications of the concept in relation to the Holy Spirit which implies that was spoken concerning the Son and the Father must be said of the Holy Spirit also. The Trinitarian issues are not isolated cases to be discussed, but complex inter-related and inter-connected parts to the whole. Placher notes that there was an extremely important role of the Holy Spirit in the early church that was evidently manifested and yet early theologians paid little attention to it. It is a tension where the Spirit is silent concerning the structure of Christian theology with reference to himself. It was only in 200 AD that a clear citation of the Spirit as “God” was made by Tertullian. No Greek Christian writing openly mentioned the Spirit as “God” until the late 4 ca. The Nicene Creed made no ample commentary on the faith on the Holy Spirit and his status in the Godhead. The Trinitarian debate is grounded mainly upon the baptismal formula which conceded the authority of the Scripture and the liturgy.[2]

Suffice it to say that neither Scriptural revelation nor creeds are enough to pacify the intellectual and integral interest of theologians to delve into the truth. The coherence and intellectual clarity of Christian theology is such a demand that no early theologians refused to pass by. Such is a continuous challenge for modern theologians also.

The solution to the Trinitarian controversy was meager. Placher focused the intellectual solution upon the three Cappadocian theologians namely brothers Basil and Gregory of Nyssa and their friend, Gregory of Nazianzus. Basil was mainly organizer-leader and his brother Gregory is more of a poet-dreamer. Gregory of Nazianzusis is the great orator among the three. They are responsible in saving the concept of homoousios by making a terminological plumbline to the distinction of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. With reference to Origen, the Cappadocians argued that “God was one ousia but three hypostaseis.”[3] In the understanding of Nicene Creed and Athanasius, ousia and hypostasis are synonyms, but the Cappadocians dissected the difference between ousia and hypostasis. Ousia mainly refers to the Godhead and the hypostases to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Using the hypostaseis concept on God is a special case for it does not mean three divine beings that are inclined to disagree to another. The three divine hypostaseis are always acting imperfect harmony. Only in the three hypostaseis the divine ousia takes form or could ever take. The oneness of ousia can never be understood clearly apart from the threeness of the hypostaseis. The threeness is not contradictory to the oneness of the Godhead. There are no three separate Gods.[4]
If there is one tension that must be added here, aside from the tensions referred by Placher, is the tension between language and meaning. This is basically a hermeneutic challenge of the early theologians. They are faced with a dilemma to express in finite mortal words the infinite reality of the all-embracing reality. By their definition, a certain meaning is added to it, but it could be possibly understood in the other way through a different perspective that could create more controversy rather than just a desire to clarify an abstract idea. Meaning can be understood according to the context it is used or according to what the words intend. Meaning may mean that which is a matter of discernment and ability to explain.

An example can be cited, however, in the explanations of the Greek-speaking Cappadocians, where Platonic assumptions are basically present. The deep influence came from the understanding the universal form as more real than the particular. Reliance upon particular words makes the problem more complicated since it is hard to express their Trinitarian concept in other language but Greek. Like in Latin, the literal translation of hypostasis is substantia for both terms mean “that which stands under.” Thus, in Latin understanding, three hypostaseis means three substantiae. And as a result, both camps, the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking Christians decided that they were just using different words to articulate the same thing [Or are they?]. Only, the Greek-speaking Christians began with emphasis on the threeness of Godhead, while Latin-speaking Christians started their Trinitarian discussions with the unity of one God. The Latin camp struggled also with explaining the use of three persona in the Trinitarian doctrine. The word persona can mean a character in a play or the mask the actor wore. Extremely, Latin Trinitarianism is inclined towards treating the personae as only masks or roles, rejecting any real distinctions at all and the Greek Christians towards three Gods.[5]

But nonetheless, the distinct tension that contributed to their differences in understanding and emphases was mainly shaped by their theological stand point in perspective. Something like looking an object inside the tube from both polar ends where one side is perceived much clearer than the side as one claim. But the other side sees a different side.

Added to this, Augustine was concerned with the theories expressing the things which cannot be uttered. In the eyes of the skeptics, the doctrine of Trinity is a preferred target to implicate the logical incoherence of Christianity. Three does not simply mean one (or vice versa) in their common and logical understanding. Mysterious formula does not seem to fit in their common sense understanding. Moreover, fourth-century theologians were trying to keep away from conclusions they thought seriously erroneous. They tried to maintain their doctrine in agreement with the Scripture. Any attempt that delineates from the revealed Scripture was a dangerous path to take. And with reference to the New Testament, there is an established interpretation of the distinction between the Father and the Son. This theory was denied by Sabellianism. On the other hand, the Arians also leapt towards two divinities--putting Christ as a lesser begotten divinity. But Placher seems to imply that by avoiding both Sabellianism and Arianism, Christian theology eventually moved towards an idea like the dogma of the Trinity.[6]

Cultural Engagement

Trinitarian concept can pave the way for Asian understanding of God as a community. Filipinos, for example are highly-relational and community-based people. It is personally perceived by this student that an Asian modification of Trinity in relation to its significance to the communal orientation of the people can be better understood as the eternal and dynamic communion of the Godhead as a relational and communal being. So far, no established evangelical attempt has been made yet in any Filipino context.

Questions

1. Can you think of other models to the doctrine of Trinity which will clarify practical insights than philosophical abstraction?

2. What makes the concept of Trinity significant to the Christian faith and community?

3. It seems that the early foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the baptismal formula. Does the lack of explicit explanations from Scripture may mean an explanation to be taken from other theological resources like reason, history, and human experience?

[1] William C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1983), 75-76.

[2] Ibid., 76.

[3] Ibid., 77.

[4] Ibid., 78.

[5] Ibid., 78-79.

[6] Ibid., 79.