Thoughts on the Trinity

A Response to “The Doctrine of the Trinity Achieved in 381” by R.P.C. Hanson

To most modern Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity is an assumption. The most basic of Christian doctrine starts with this unique understanding that God is One, yet three. In reading our Bibles we read such passages as I Peter 1:2, and rejoice with him the fact that God operates in a Triune way. It must be realized, however, that Peter did not understand that God was of one substance, three persons, and equal in power and glory. Not that Peter would have disagreed with this, rather it was not even in his mind to sort these issues out. This task was left to a later era, whose major thinkers responded to the challenge and developed for us an understanding of who God is. The question is whether this development is a valid doctrine or rather a later unneeded elaboration on the revelation we had been given. In his article “The doctrine of the Trinity Achieved in 381”, the Rev. Professor R.P.C. Hanson looks at the history of the developing doctrine of the Trinity and seeks to answer the question whether the efforts to formulate this doctrine in such a precise way was worth the time and effort. He does this by first looking at the history of the 4^th century itself, then by seeking to understand what was the impetus to work out such a doctrine. He finishes by examining the discoveries and usefulness of the theologians of the fourth century. In this paper I will briefly review his thoughts, and add my own reflections of his analysis.

Hanson begins by relating the traditional story of the development of the Trinity. This story essentially is the classic good against evil, in which the hero vanquishes the villain thereby saving the orthodox faith. The hero in this story is Athanasius, and the villain is Arius, with their respective followers carrying on the battle after their death. The difficulty with this telling is that it “is now recognized by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty.” [1] There was no orthodox understanding of the Trinity at the beginning of the 4^th century, and that was the problem. In addition, the pristine picture of the early church is fallacious in that there were no clear lines, and those on the “right” side often were as out of line as those not. There were scoundrels and saints on both sides of the issue. It is a tendency to clean up history, ignoring the mess that often occurs in real life. There were politics, regional differences, and a confusion of terminology which led to a major controversy within the Church as a whole. It was a battle which was raised for most of the century.

What then was the source of this battle? It was not the typical response towards heresy which states that there were those who sought to undermine the Church and her doctrine. Rather it was the fact that there was no doctrine of God which to undermine. Having developed out of Judaism there was a strong emphasis on Monotheism, yet there was also the prevalent, and demanding, view that Jesus was divine, to be worshipped and prayed to as God. The question of how to resolve this dilemma was undertaken in a Greek environment, in which philosophy reigned and which demanded a rational account of belief. The need to create a clear Christian doctrine of God, both for evangelism and worship, came to a crisis point. The early developments of the thought were marred by numerous errors. Yet, these were not heretics, per se, but rather men who genuinely sought an understanding of what the revelation of Christ really meant for their understanding of God. The result of this struggle resulted in a doctrine which affirmed both the Oneness of God, and which made sense of the person and work of Christ to which was also bound the Holy Spirit.

The interesting fact is that the situation has not changed all that much over the course of time. While the modern church has a cemented understanding of the Trinity, there are still issues which having not been thoroughly dealt with, causing controversy and enmity within the Body of Christ. Our modern wrestlings with the doctrines of baptism, the role of the Holy Spirit, and especially the doctrine of Scripture have caused misunderstandings because there is not a firmly established doctrine. Unfortunately, the Church of today is no longer a whole, but rather in its differences is more likely to separate than work out a balanced doctrine. The ability to convene a council to form a set statement is not an option. The regional, political, and philosophical differences which caused conflict in the 4^th century are now so strong as to prevent substantial dialogue. There are, however, still vitriolic attacks made and assumptions about the eternal damnation of those disagreed with asserted, but no central authority to encourage a settled doctrine for future generations. The value of doing so is tremendous. We must understand that those with different opinions may be just as devoted to Christ as we are and that those who agree with us may not be.

The study of this “doctrinal journey” [2] is a very valuable undertaking. By presenting us the story of the development of the Trinity, Hanson helps us to understand the dynamics and atmosphere of the early Church. He helps correct some of the historical fallacies which are propagated, and in doing so helps us have a better grasp on what the drive behind the evolvement of Trinitarian understanding entailed. In this he is very successful. The struggle to not only fight against error, but also gain understanding of what to believe makes sense of the length and bitterness of the battle over this doctrine. The Bible does not give us a complete systematic understanding of who God is. He is presented to us, and we are challenged to discover who he is in greater depth. This gradual formation of the understanding of God as Trinity forced many to examine God in greater detail, and in doing so grow in relationship with him. This journey of discovery, and the great benefits which resulted from it give us the impetus as well to continue to seek wisdom and understanding about the God we serve. In doing this we must use the language of our era, so as to communicate the reality of God and the Church in a way which is rational and understandable for modern listeners. The journey of development is not a one time trip, but rather a continuous challenge for thinkers of every era to address Christianity with the questions prominent in their own era. In discovering the answers to these different questions we will be able to relate the faith in a practical way for evangelism as well as adding to the wealth of knowledge about the God we serve. He yearns for us to seek him, to wrestle with who he is, and rewards our efforts by allowing us the great honor of knowing better the richness of the Triune God.

[1] ‘Doctrine of the Trinity’, 42

[2] Doctrine, 41