APPINDEX SCHOLARLY TESTEMONY

OF TRINITY LATTER INNOVATION

(NOTE: WE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE FROM SOME MAILING GROUPS)
Although ma! T"##ta"#a$% "&a'#l! a'm#t to th& (a)t that S)"#*tu"& 'o&% ot
)ota# a a)tual )l&a"+)ut t&a)h#g o( th& T"##t!, ma! %t#ll #%#%t that th&"& !&t
"&ma#% -#th# th& .o'! o( S)"#*tu"& th& ("am&-o"/ (o" 0u%t %u)h a t&a)h#g + that #%,
.! th& )om.#at#o o( o& *a%%ag& -#th aoth&"1 o", a% %om& -oul' %ugg&%t, .! th&
)oll&)t#2& #m*l#)at#o o( %u)h %)"#*tu"&%3 A' %o, # o"'&" to a2o#' a! a))u%at#o o(
ha2#g m#%4uot&' a! o( th& %ou")&% .&lo-, #t mu%t .& %a#' that, .&(o"& o" a(t&" th&
*o"t#o -& 4uot&, a um.&" o( th&%& ha' a)tuall! %tat&' # th&#" '#%)u%%#o% o( th#%
%u.0&)t 0u%t %u)h thought%, &5*"&%%#g 0u%t %u)h a 2#&-3
O th& oth&" ha', th&"& a"& al%o ma! um.&" o( %)hola"%6h#%to"#a% -ho ha2&
#t&"*"&t&' th& '&2&lo*m&t o( %u)h &2&t% # a '#((&"&t -a!, a' th#% -oul' .& that,
o %u)h .&l#&( -a% &#th&" taught, &5*la#&' a'6o" '&(&'&' -#th# th& N&- T&%tam&t
o" .! a! o( th& &a"l! Ch"#%t#a%, .ut that th& &2&tual '&2&lo*m&t o( th#%
t&a)h#g6'o)t"#& -a% &2#'&)& o( a )o""u*t#o -h#)h ha' ta/& *la)& -#th "&ga"' to
th& t"u& t&a)h#g% o( 7&%u% a' h#% '#%)#*l&%3 Th#% -oul', o 'ou.t, &5*la# -h! #t ha'
ta/& %om& 899 !&a"% to (#' a a)tual &5*"&%%#o o( that *a"t#)ula" *&")&*t#o a'6o"
u'&"%ta'#g o( Go' + *a"t#)ula"l! a% a %tat&m&t o( (a#th (o(t& )all&' a
:)o(&%%#o;) + that #%, .! a! o( th& &a"l! Ch"#%t#a -"#t&"%, &%*&)#all! o th& *a"t o(
tho%& -ho ha' ma'& #t th&#" *u"*o%& to &#th&" &5*la# a'6o" '&(&' th& Ch"#%t#a
%!%t&m o( .&l#&(3 A' %o, l#/&-#%&, a um.&" o( %)hola"% .&lo- ha2& &5*"&%%&' th#%
*a"t#)ula" 2#&- a% -&ll3
1) Norton, Andrews (b.1786-d.1853). A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing The Doctrines of
Trinitarians, Concerning The Nature of God and The Person of Christ. Ed!"d b# E$%& Abb'! (b.181(-
d.188))* d.d* ++.d. (C&,b%d-". /%'01* S2&!!345* &1d C',6&1#7 /'8!'1. H++&%d* 9%&#* &1d C',6&1#*
1833)* 66. 38* 3(. /X(8)1 .N7 1833 : 31583-1)87).
. . . the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost bitterness and passion. They
sought on every side for objections to it. There was much in its character to which the believing Jews could hardly be
reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, explanations, and controversy, relating to uestions having their origin in
Jewish prejudices and passions. !ith regard however to this doctrine "the Trinity#, which if it had ever been taught, the
believing Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would have manifested the
most determined opposition,$with regard to this doctrine, there is not trace of any controversy. %ut, if it had ever been taught,
it must have been the main point of attac& and defense between those who assailed, and those who supported Christianity.
There is nothing ever said in its explanation. %ut it must have reuired, far more than any other doctrine, to be explained,
illustrated, and enforced' for it appears, not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the (nity of )od, but eually so with that of
the humanity of our *aviour' and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connexion with it. +t must have
been necessary, therefore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it in its relations, and carefully to guard against the
misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every side. Especially must care have been ta&en to prevent the gross mista&es
into which the )entile converts from polytheism were li&ely to fall. ,et so far from any such clearness of statement and
fullness of explanation, the whole language of the -ew Testament in relation to this subject is . . . a series of enigmas, upon
the supposition of its truth. The doctrine, then, is never defended in the -ew Testament, though unuestionably it would have
been the main object of attac&, and the main difficulty in the Christian system. +t is never explained, though no doctrine could
have been so much in need of explanation. .n the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth, the Apostles express
themselves in such a manner, that it had been their purpose to dar&en and perplex the subject, they could not have done it
more effectually. And still more, this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary article of faith' though it is now
represented by its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity.
<) Newman, John Henry (.3=>9=+'3=>?9), Ca"'#al3 An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine3 <' E'#t#o
(=%t+=>@A)3 (Lo'o: 73 Too2&!, =>@B), **3 =@+=>, @9+@<3 CT<= 3NA =>@B 6 <B+9<<=<>3
/et us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our /ord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by
the 0rimitive Church . . . %ut it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. + do not see in what sense it can be
said that there is a consensus of primitive "Church authorities# in its favour . . . the doctrine of our /ord1s divinity itself partly
implies and partly recommends the doctrine of the Trinity . . . the Creeds of that early day ma&e no mention in their letter of
the Catholic doctrine "of the Trinity# at all. They "the early Christian writings# ma&e mention indeed of a Three' but that there is
any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are .ne, that They are coeual, coeternal, all increate "uncreated#, all omnipotent,
all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them. .f course we believe that they imply it, or rather
intend it.
8) Ellis, George Edward (.3=>=@+'3=>?@)3 A Half-Century of the Unitarian Controversy, With Particular Reference to its
Origin, its Course, an its Prominent !u"#ects Among the Congregationalists of $assachusetts3 (Co%to: C"o%.!, N#)hol%, a'
Com*a!1 Cam."#'g&: M&t)al( a' Com*a!, P"#t&"% to th& U#2&"%#t!, =>AD), A**&'#5 VIII, ETh& Do)t"#& o( th& T"##t!,E
**3 @B@, @BA3 CF?>@= 3EA 6 88+9<<<B>3
The doctrinal statement of the Trinity leads off the .rthodox creeds2 no vague, inferential implication of the contents of the
doctrine is thought to be satisfactory. 3oubt about it is dangerous' a rejection of it is fatal. The doctrine is obtruded upon us
in its stiffest literal terms, though, strange to say, many of its champions affirm that they disli&e its terms, and wish that they
could express it more adeuately. 4ered certainly is no bac&wardness, no hesitation, on the part of those who, believing the
doctrine, thin& it ought to be reiterated and emphasi5ed. -ow, how comes it that Christ and his Apostles furnish us not one
single announcement of it6 +f anything can be inferred with certainty as to the belief of the Jews concerning the mode of the
3ivine existence, it is that they &new nothing of the .rthodox dogma of the Trinity. *urely then we might expect that their first
Christian teachers would have been at least as careful to declare it to them as a new revelation of truth, the basis of all
Christian doctrine, as modern Christian teachers are to demand a faith in it from their pupils. +t will not do to say that the
Apostles left other essential Christian doctrines without any direct, explicit statement of them. +t is not true. They had a
commission from their 7aster, and they discharged it. !hatever they have not taught plainly, must be pronounced to be. no
part of their teaching, however positively their successors may have taught it. 0eter, who preached to the Jews the first
Christian discourse after the Church had risen from the grave of its 8ounder, told them that 9Jesus of -a5areth,9 9whom they
had put to death,9 was 9a man approved of )od by wor&s which )od did by him,9 and that )od had raised him up. !ords
could not be more explicit. ,et not from them, and from no other words spo&en by the Apostles to the Jews, as recorded,
could they have gathered a plain statement of the Trinity. As to the )entiles, we find traces, among a school of philosophic
dreamers, of a sort of Trinitarian conception, far unli&e that, however, which Christian divines now receive, though the dogma
came into the Church by that channel. -o direct announcement of the doctrine was made by the Apostles when they
preached to )entiles, who certainly were ignorant of it, and might claim to be distinctly informed about the first fundamental
doctrine of the )ospel.
@) Lamson, Alvan (.3=D?<+'3=>B@), '3'3 %he Church of the &irst %hree Centuries3 (Lo'o: C"#t#%h a' Fo"&#g U#ta"#a
A%%o)#at#o, =>B9), **3 A<, D9, D=, DA, DB, <>@, 8@=3 CR=BA 3L8 =>B9 6 u/>=+98D@9@3
!e maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation' that it had its origin in a source
entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian *criptures' that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the
hands of the 0latoni5ing 8athers' that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the *on were
universally taught' and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible . . . The inferiority of the *on
was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante$-icene 8athers . . . That they viewed the *on as distinct from the 8ather
is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate . . .
The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin "7artyr#2 and this observation
may be extended to all the ante$-icene 8athers' that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. +t is
true, they spea& of the 8ather, *on, and prophetic or holy *pirit, but not as co$eual, not as one numerical essence, not as
Three in .ne, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as
explained by these 8athers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof
as any fact in the history of human opinions. . . .They occasionally ma&e use of a phraseology, which, in the mouth of a
modern Trinitarian, would imply a belief that the *on is of one numerical essence with the 8ather. %ut this they never thought
of asserting. The most they meant to affirm was that the *on, as begotten of )od, partoo& in some sort of the specific nature
:that is, a divine;, just as an individual of our race parta&es of the same nature or essence with the parent from whom he
sprung :that is, a human;. At the same time they taught that he was relatively inferior to the 8ather from whom he was
derived, and entitled to only inferior homage . . .!e challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note, during the first
three ages, who held this "Trinity# doctrine in the modern sense.
A) Gibbon, Edward (.3=D8D+'3=D?@)3 History of Christianity' Comprising all that Relates to the Progress of the Christian
Religion in (%he History of the Decline an &all of the Roman Empire,) an A *inication of !ome Passages in the +,th an
+-th Chapters, .ith a /ife of the Author, Preface, an 0otes "y the Eitor, 1ncluing *ariorum 0otes "y 2ui3ot, Wenc4,
$ilman, (An English Churchman,) an Other !cholars3 (N&- Go"/: P3 E)/l&", =>>8), *"&(a)&3 CR=D9 3G@ 6 8<+9898883
+f 0aganism was conuered by Christianity, it is eually true that Christianity was corrupted by 0aganism. The pure 3eism
"ftn. <# of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of =ome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. 7any
of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and ideali5ed by 0lato, were retained as being worthy of belief.
B) Harnack, Adolf von (.3=>A=+'3=?89)3 History of Dogma5 D 2ol%3 T"a%lat&' ("om th& 8"' G&"ma E'#t#o3 2ol%3 =+< ,
t"a%lat#o .! Cu)haa, N&#l (.3H+H)1 23 8, A, t"a%lat#o .! M#lla", 7am&% (.3=>AD+H)1 23 @, t"a%lat#o .! S*&#"%, E.&&I&"
C"o- (.3H+H) a' M#lla", 73 (.3H+H)1 23 B+D, t"a%lat#o .! MJG#l)h"#%t, W#ll#am (.3H+H)3 E'#t&' .! C"u)&, Al&5a'&" Calma#
(.3=>8=+'3=>??)3 (Lo'o: W#ll#am% K No"gat&, =>?B+??), 2ol3 8, *g3 =8A3 CT<= 3H88 6 <8+9=A@<93
The idea of the subordinate )od is indeed as old as the theology of the Christian Church' even the Apologists shared it, and
.rigin, with all caution, adopted and justified it in wor&ing out his doctrine of the *on.
D) Werner, Martin (.3=>>D+'3=?B@)3 %he &ormation of Christian Dogma6 An Historical !tuy of its Pro"lem5 Re.ritten
in !hortene form "y the Author from his Die Entstehung es christlichen Dogmas, an %ranslate, .ith an 1ntrouction "y
!7amuel8 27eorge8 &7reerric48 9ranon 7"5+:;<-5+:<+85 (N&- Go"/: Ha"*&", =?AD), **3 =<<, =<A3 CT<8 3W@=8 6 AD+
9=9A<>3
+n the 0rimitive Christian era "8irst Century# there was no sign of any &ind of Trinitarian problem or controversy, such as later
produced violent conflicts in the Church. The reason for this undoubtedly lay in the fact that, for 0rimitive Christianity, Christ
was . . . a being of the high celestial angel$world, who was created and chosen by )od for the tas& of bringing in, at the end
of the ages, . . .the >ingdom of )od. . . .That relationship was understood uneuivocally as being one of ?subordination@, i.e.
in the sense of the subordination of Christ to )od. !herever in the -ew Testament the relationship of Jesus to )od, the
8ather, is brought into consideration, . . . it is conceived of and represented categorically as subordination. And the most
decisive *ubordinationist of the -ew Testament, according to the *ynoptic record, was Jesus himself. . . .This original
position, firm and manifest as it was, was able to maintain itself for a long time. All the great pre$-icene theologians
represented the subordination of the /ogos to )od.
>) The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Em"racing 9i"lical, Historical, Doctrinal, an
Practical %heology an 9i"lical, %heological, an Ecclesiastical 9iography from the Earliest %imes to the Present Day, 9ase
on the %hir Eition of the Realency4lop==ie &oune "y >5 >5 Her3og, an Eite "y Al"ert Hauc4, Prepare "y $ore than
!i? Hunre !cholars an !pecialists Uner the !upervision of !amuel $acauley >ac4son @eitor-in-chiefA .ith the assistance
of Charles Cole"roo4 !herman an 2eorge William 2ilmore @associate eitorsA an 7others incluing' Her3og, >ohann >a4o"
@"5+B;,-5+BBCA6 !chaff, Philip @"5+B+:-5+B:DA6 Hauc4, Al"ert @"5+BE,-5+:+BA6 >ac4son, !amuel $acauley @"5+B,+-5+:+CA,
eitor6 !herman, Charles Cole"roo4 @"5+B-;-5+:C<A, #oint eitor6 2ilmore, 2eorge William @"5+B,B-5+:DDA, #oint eitor85 =8
2ol%3 (N&- Go"/1 Lo'o: Fu/ a' Wagall% Com*a!, =?9>+)=?=@), 2ol IF (?), *3 ?=3 CR?A 3S@8 6 9>+9<9=A<3
The doctrines of the /ogos and the Trinity received their shape from )ree& 8athers, who. . .were much influenced, directly or
indirectly, by the 0latonic philosophy. . . .That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.
?) Dictionary of the 9i"le3 Hastings, James (.3=>A<+'3=?<<), E'#to"3 R&2#%&' E'#t#o .!: G"at, F"&'&"#)/ Cl#(to
(.3=>?=+'3=?D@) a' Ro-l&!, Ha"ol' H&"! (.3=>?9+'3H)3 (N&- Go"/: S)"#.&", =?B8), **3 88D, 88>3 CS@@9 3HA =?B8 6 B<+
9<=B?D3
Considering how strongly conscious the Jews were of their monotheism, it is interesting to note that as far as the -"ew#
T"estament# evidence goes the Jewish opposition did not charge the Christians movement with tritheism or polytheism, a
common Jewish criticism later.
=9) The New Catholic Encyclopedia3 P"&*a"&' .! a &'#to"#al %ta(( at th& Cathol#) U#2&"%#t! o( Am&"#)a, Wa%h#gto,
D3C3 (N&- Go"/: M)G"a-+H#ll, =?BD+)=?>?), 2ol3 FIV (=@), *3 <?? (#tal#)% th&#"%)3 CF>@= 3N@@ =?BD 6 BB+9<<<?<3
The formulation ?one )od in three 0ersons@ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and
its profession of faith, prior to the end of the Ath century. %ut it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the
Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic 8athers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or
perspective.
==) Henderson, an (.3=?=9+'3H), U#2&"%#t! o( Gla%go-3 Encyclopeia 1nternational5 <9 2ol%3 (N&- Go"/: G"ol#&", =?B?),
:T"##t!,; *3 <<B3 AEA 3E@@D =?B>. 6 B?+9=99A93
The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles1 preaching, as this is reported in the -ew Testament.
1;) Dawe, Donald 9. (b.<-<). No Orthodo! But the Truth, A Surve! of Protestant Theolog!.
(P2+&d"+62&. ="8!,18!"% P%"88* 1(6()* 6. ;1. /X)8>5.; .D3) : 6(-1>);).
+n its finished form the Trinitarian doctrine went beyond the biblical materials in both form and content. +t was deeply
indebted, as indeed was the Christological dogma, to the philosophical and religious thought of )reco$=oman antiuity.
=8) Wilken, !obert Lo"is (.3=?8B+H)3 %he $yth of Christian 9eginnings6 HistoryFs 1mpact on 9elief5 (Ga"'& C#t!, N3G3:
Dou.l&'a!, =?D=), **3 =DD+=>83 CR=@A3< 3WA 6 D=+=<8D=<3
8rom the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the uestion of Jesus1 relation to )od . . . .Bery early
Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life and accomplishments and his =esurrection, and it was not long before he
was called *on of )od $ then )od. Even so, 4e was not )od in the sense in which the 8ather was )od $ or was 4e6 !as
he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer6 These and other uestions troubled thoughtful Christians for
almost three centuries. 3uring these years, most Christians vaguely thought of Jesus as )od' yet they did not actually thin&
of him in the same way that they thought of )od the 8ather. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him
somehow as second to )od $ divine, yes, but not fully )od. . . .!hen the controversy over the relation of Jesus to )od the
8ather bro&e out in the early fourth century, most Christians were ?subordinationists,@ i.e. they believed that Christ was )od
but not precisely the *ame way that the 8ather was )od.
=@) #oer, Harry !$ (.3H+H)3 A !hort History of the Early Church3 (G"a' Ra*#'%: E&"'ma%, )=?DB), **3 =9>+==93
CR=BA 3CB@A 6 DA+9<AD@<3
The Apostolic 8athers2 The Apostolic 8athers wrote between A.3. "CE# CD and <AD. Their discussion of the person of Jesus
Christ simply repeated the teaching of the -ew Testament. -one of the Apostolic 8athers presented a definite doctrine on
this point. +n this respect the -ew Testament, the Apostolic 8athers, and the Apostles1 Creed stand in one line.
=A) #"ckley, J$ A$ (.3H+H)3 !econ Century Orthoo?y3 (=?D>), **3 ==@+=A3
(p until the end of the second century at least, the universal Church remained united in one basic sense' they all accepted
the supremacy of the 8ather. They all regarded )od the 8ather Almighty as alone supreme, immutable, ineffable and without
beginning. . . .!ith the passing of those second century writers and leaders, the Church found itself . . . slipping slowly but
inexorably toward that point . . . where at the Council of -icaea the culmination of all this piece$meal eroding of the original
faith was reached. There, a small volatile minority, foisted its heresy upon an acuiescent majority, and with the political
authorities behind it, coerced, cajoled and intimidated those who strove to maintain the pristine purity of their faith
untarnished.
=B) %"&itt, 'on (.3H+H), U#2&"%#t! L&)tu"&" # D#2##t! a' D&a o( Emmaual Coll&g&, Cam."#'g&3 %he De"ate A"out
Christ3 (Lo'o: SCM P"&%% L#m#t&', =?D?), *3 =9>3
%ut Jewish faith in )od rules out any arrangement of this &ind "co$eual deity of Jesus with )od#. +t was held that )od, the
)od of +srael, is absolutely sole in his power, cannot be divided or co$eually shared. The -ew Testament writers never
uestioned this principle nor thin& of themselves as possibly infringing upon it. They never distinguish co$eual persons
within one )od' the idea was unthin&able. +t was also unthin&able to say Jesus was identical with one )od. *o it was very
difficult to see how they could have entertained the ideas of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.
=D) %he %rinitarian Controversy3 F"om th& %&"#&%: !ources of Early Christian %hought3 !"sch, William G$ (.3H+H), D#"&)to"
o( th& Comm#%%#o o( Fa#th a' O"'&", Nat#oal Cou)#l o( Chu")h&% o( Ch"#%t # th& U3S3A3, t"a%lato" a' &'#to"3
(Ph#la'&l*h#a: Fo"t"&%% P"&%%, )=?>9), #t"o'u)t#o, **3 <, 83 CT=9? 3TD@ 6 D?+99>>>?3
-o doctrine of the Trinity in the -icene sense is present in the -ew Testament . . . .There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the
strict sense in the "writings of the# Apostolic 8athers, but the trinitarian formulas are apparent. The witness of this collection of
writings to a Christian doctrine of )od is slight and provides no advance in synthesis or theological construction beyond the
biblical materials.
18) Hanson, Anthony Tyrell (b.<-<) &1d H&18'1* R42&%d P&!%45 C%'8+&1d (b.1(16-d.<).
Reasona"le Belief, A Surve! of the Christian Faith# (N"0 Y'%57 T'%'1!'7 M"+b'3%1". O?@'%d A1B"%8!#
P%"88* 1(8>)* 42&6!"% B - CT2" H'+# T%1!#*D 8"4!'1 ( - CT2" D'4!%1" '@ !2" T%1!#*D 83b8"4!'1 & -
CT2" D"B"+'6,"1! '@ !2" D'4!%1" '@ !2" T%1!#*D 66. 17)* 175. /T77 .H;6) : 8>-)>)81.
"The adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of# a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three
hundred years. . . .it would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the 4oly Trinity as having been achieved by any other way. .
. .The Arian controversy in the fourth century tested, shoo& and altered "the# doctrinal tradition of the *onE/ogos. This was a
long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church wor&ed out for themselves, and then tried to
impose on others, their answers to the uestion, ?4ow divine is Jesus Christ6@ +t is uite misleading to represent this
controversy "of the Trinity# as a contest between self$confident, well$defined orthodoxy on the one hand and blind, perverse
heresy on the other. At the beginning of the controversy nobody &new the right, most satisfactory answer. This is one reason
why the controversy lasted more than sixty years and gradually involved every conceivable authority' general councils,
0opes, Emperors, bishops alone or in parties, and the faithful at large :who tended to ma&e their contribution in the for of
riots;. +f ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one.
=?) Lindbeck, George A$ (.3H+H), P"o(&%%o" o( H#%to"#)al Th&olog!, Gal& U#2&"%#t!3 %he 0ature of Doctrine' Religion an
%heology in a Post /i"eral Age3 =%t E'#t#o3 (Ph#la'&l*h#a: W&%tm#%t&" P"&%%, )=?>@), *3 ?<3 CT=? 3LAA =?>@ 6 >8+9<D88<3
+n order to argue successfully for the unconditionality and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to
ma&e a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were
formulated on the other. . . .*ome of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as ?substance@, ?person@, and ?in
two natures@ are post biblical novelties. +f these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly
conditional, dependent on the late 4ellenistic milieu.
<9) Grant, !obert Mc("een (.3=?=D+'3H)3 2os an the One 2o3 =%t &'3 (Ph#la'&l*h#a: W&%tm#%t&" P"&%%, )=?>B), **3
=9?, =AB, =B93 CLD>A 3GB? =?>B 6 >A+9==@@83
The Christology of the apologies, li&e that of the -ew Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The *on is always
subordinate to the 8ather, who is the one )od of the .ld Testament . . .!hat we find in these early authors, then, is not a
doctrine of the Trinity . . . %efore -icaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist.
<=) %he Eermans 9i"le Dictionary3 Myers, Allen %$ (.3=?@A+'3H), "&2#%#o &'#to"3 7oh W3 S#m*%o, 7oh W3, 7"3
(.3H+H)3 3 3L&t al3M, a%%o)#at& &'#to"%3 T"a%lat#o o(: 9i#"else Encyclopeie3 R&2#%&' E'#t#o o( =?DA3 (G"a' Ra*#'%, M#)h#ga:
E&"'ma%, =?>D), *3 =9<93 CS@@9 3GDB=8 =?>D 6 >D+9=8<8?3
Triadic formulas in the -ew Testament are often regarded as implying a developed doctrine of the trinity, but this is to read too
much into them. < Cor"inthians# <F2A$G' F Cor"inthians# <H2<A are implicitly subbordinationist since they use the formula ?/ord
:i.e., Christ;$*pirit$)od,@ differentiating the first two from )od.
<<) Hanson, !ichard )atrick %rosland (.3=?=B+'3H), Cathol#) H#%to"#a3 %he !earch for the Christian Doctrine
of 2o'%the Arian Controversy D+B-DB+3 (E'#.u"gh: T3 K T3 Cla"/, )=?>>), **3 5#5, B@, <D@3 CT=8A9 3H8B =?>> 6
>?+=A=??93
!ith the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and !est, accepted some form of subordinationism at least
up the year HII' subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted
orthodoxy. . . .There is no theologian in the Eastern or !estern church before the outbrea& of the Arian controversy, who does
not in some sense regard the son as subordinate to the 8ather. . . .7any. . .could not. . .abandon completely a
subordinationism that had been hallowed by long tradition.
*
=
It mu%t .& *o#t&' out that th& -o"/ o( -h#)h -& 4uot& -a% ta/& ("om th#% -o"/:
Gibbon, Edward (.3=D8D+'3=D?@)3 %he History of the Decline an &all of the Roman Empire3 N&- E'#t#o3 =< 2ol%3 (Lo'o: W3 St"aha L&t)3M =D>8+=D?9)3
DG8== 3G@< 6 9@+988?83 Pl&a%& /&&* # m#' that, .&)au%& G#..oJ% -o"/ -a% o"#g#all! *u.l#%h&' # th& =D99$%, # o"'&" to a**"&)#at& th& -a! # -h#)h h& -oul'
ha2& u%&' th#% t&"m, #t #% #m*o"tat to )o%#'&" th& m&a#g a%%o)#at&' -#th #t% u%& 'u"#g th& t#m& *&"#o' # -h#)h h& -"ot&3 Oth&"-#%&, a))o"'#g to th& =?== &'#t#o
o( th& E)!)lo*&'#a C"#ta#)a, th#% t&"m, (#"%t a' (o"&mo%t, ha' th#% %#m*l& m&a#g: EDEISM (Lat3 '&u%, go'), %t"#)tl! th& .&l#&( # o& %u*"&m& Go'3E
(htt*:66<=3=?==&)!)lo*&'#a3o"g6D6DE6DEISM3htm)