Article published in The Watchtower 01/04/1992 In its numbers from 1 November 1991 and 1 February 1992, the Watchtower has shown that neither Jesus nor his disciples, nor the Apostolic Fathers of the late first and early second century of our era have taught the doctrine of Trinidad. What about the clergy of the late second century? NEAR
the mid to late second century AD saw the emergence of so-called ecclesiastical apologists today. They have written to defend Christianity they knew cons hostile philosophies in vogue in the Roman world at the time. The beginning of their work coincides with the end of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and continued after them.
Among the apologists who wrote in Greek include Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian was an apologist who written in Latin. Have they taught in modern Christendom Trinity: three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in a co-equal Godhead, each one true God, though there are not three Gods but one God?
"The Son is subordinate"
In A Short History of the Early Church (Eng.), H. Boer explains the idea of teaching apologists:
"Justin taught that before the creation of the world, God was alone and there was no Son. (...) When God took the desire to create the world, (...) he fathered another being Divine to create the world for him. This divine being was called (...) son because he was born, he was called Logos because it was derived from reason or the Spirit of God. (...)
"Justin and other apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. It is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. Subordinationism theology calls this relationship the Son to the Father. The Son is subordinate, that is to say, secondary to the Father, the Father and dependent on it caused. The apologists were subordinatianistes1. "
In The training of Christian dogma (German), Martin Werner discusses the earliest understanding of the relationship of the Son of God:
" This relationship was understood unequivocally as a 'subordination', c ' that is to say, in the sense of a subordination of Christ to God. Whatever the place where the New Testament the relationship of Jesus to God the Father, is examined, (...) it is conceived as a subordinate and is represented categorically as such. Subordinationism and most conclusive of the New Testament, as the story synopsis, was Jesus himself (...). This original position, firm and manifest as it was, was able to survive for long. 'All the great theologians anténicéens described the subordination of the Logos God.2. "
Consistent with this, R. Hanson writes in Search of Christian doctrine of God (Eng.):
"Before the outbreak of the Arian controversy [fourth century], there is no theologian in the Eastern and Western Church, which a way or another, do not look at the Son as subordinate to Père3. "
Alvan Lamson, The Church in the first three centuries (Eng.) adds that evidence relating to the teachings of the church authorities before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD):
"The Fathers anténicéens generally, if not uniformly affirmed the inferiority of the Son (...). They regarded the Son as distinct from the Father, which shows that they claim its inferiority in plain terms. (...) They considered separate subordonné4. "
Similarly, here is what Robert Grant said of the Gods and apologists in the one God (Eng.):
" The Christology of the apologies, like that of New Testament is essentially subordinationism. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. (...) What we find in these ancient authors is not a doctrine of the Trinity (...). Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinatianiste5. "
The Trinity of Christianity teaches that the Son is equal with God the Father in eternity, power, position and wisdom. The apologists, meanwhile, said that the Son is not equal to God the Father. They regarded the Son as subordinate. This is not the teaching of the Trinity.
Faithful to the teaching
first century Apologists and other early Church Fathers were largely faithful to what the Christians of the first century were taught about the relationship of Father and Son. Notice how this is expressed in the training of Christian dogma:
"During the Christian era primitive, there was no sign of a problem or controversy of any Trinitarian kind as those over later produced violent conflicts within the Church. The reason probably lies in the fact that in early Christianity, Christ was a being belonging (...) the angelic world of high heaven, which was created and chosen by God for this task: introducing, at the end of the ages, the Kingdom of (...) Dieu6. "
In addition, regarding the teaching of the Fathers the early church, an encyclopedia (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) made this observation:
"In the mind of the primitive Church, the tendency when speaking of God the Father is the first design, not as the Father of Jesus Christ, but as the source of all being. Therefore, God the Father is, so to speak, God by excellence. To Him belong epithets such as without origin, immortal, immutable, ineffable, invisible and unbegotten. It is He who made all things, including the very substance of all creation, from scratch. (...)
"This would seem to suggest that only the Father is, strictly speaking, God and the Son and Spirit are only secondarily. Amount of statements made at the time seem to go in this primitive sens7. "
Although this encyclopedia continues minimizing these truths and by claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted to the primitive age, the facts belie this claim. Consider the words of the famous Catholic theologian, Cardinal John Newman:
"Finally Agree that all dogmas which our Lord is the subject were, by the power of reason and with a perfect agreement, confessed by the Primitive Church (.. .). But surely it is otherwise with the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense we can say that there is a consensus in favor of the first theologians (...).
"The symbols of the early days make no mention of Catholic doctrine, they speak, it is true, a Trinity, but that the three persons are one, co-eternal, equal, all uncreated, all powerful, all incomprehensible, it is not established, and could never be concluded from these first symboles8. "
What Justin has taught
One of the earliest apologists was Justin, who lived about 110 to and 165 AD. None of his writings which have survived only reported three co-equal persons in one God.
For example, the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic version, Proverbs 8:22-30 says Jesus before he was a man: "Yahweh created me, the first fruits of his work before his most old. (...) When the depths were no, I was brought forth (...). Before the hills was I brought forth (...). I was [the] sides [of God] as the prime contractor. "Dealing with these verses, Justin said in his Dialogue with Trypho:
" The verb shows that the Father [the] absolutely has begotten before all creatures, and the digitally generated differs from the generating; anyone who avouerait9. "
Since the Son is begotten of God, the Son Justin means by" God. " He says in his First Apology, "The Father of the universe has a Son, who is the Word, the firstborn of God, and Dieu10. "The Bible, too, uses the title" God "about the Son of God. In Isaiah 9:6, it is called "Mighty God". But in the Bible, angels, humans, false gods and Satan are also called "gods". (Angels: Psalm 8:5, 2:6 See Hebrews, 7. Humans: Psalm 82:6. False gods: Exodus 12:12, 1 Corinthians 8:5. Satan 2 Corinthians 4:4.) In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word translated "God" Él, simply means "Fort" or "Almighty". Its equivalent in the Greek Scriptures is theos.
Moreover, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 9:6 shows that there is a clear distinction between the Son and God. The Son is called "Mighty God" Él gibbor, not "God Almighty". The latter translates the Hebrew word Él Shadday and applies only to Jehovah God.
note, however, that if he calls the Son "God", Justin never says that the Son belongs to a group of three equal persons, each of which is God, so that the three are one God. Instead, he says in his Dialogue with Trypho:
"There is one God and Lord [Jesus into his life prehuman] below the Creator of all things [God Almighty], he [the Son] is also called angel because he [the Son] announces to all that men want to announce the Creator of all things, above which there is no other God. (...)
"[The Son] is other than the God who made all things, I mean for the number and not [other] for pensée11."
be found in his First Apology, Chapter 6 an interesting passage where he presents a defense against charges of atheism against Christians by the pagans. He writes:
"We worship, we love [God] (...) the Son came from him, which gave us these teachings, and the host of other good angels who escort and like him, and the Spirit prophétique12. "
A translator of this passage, Bernhard Lohse, has commented: "As if not enough, in this enumeration, to speak of angels as beings that Christians venerate and love, Justin does not hesitate to cite the angels before the Holy Esprit13. - See also Development of Doctrine chrétienne14.
Thus, while Justin seems to have departed from the pure teaching the Bible on the question of who should be the object of worship of Christians, it is clear he did not consider the Son to be equal with the Father, nor is it regarded the angels as His equal. Regarding Justin, we quote again the Church of the first three centuries of Lamson:
"Justin watched the Son of God as distinct and inferior to him separately, not in the modern sense, as belonging to a group of three hypostasis, or person, (...) but distinct about the essence and nature, having a real existence, substantial individual separate from God, from whom he kept all his powers and titles; being placed under him in all things and subject to his will. The Father is supreme, the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power, the Son is the one who receives it. The Father is the origin, the Son, as a minister or instrument executed. In numbers, they are two, but they agree, or are one, in thought, for the Son is always the will of the Father who emporte15. "
Moreover, nowhere says that Justin 'Holy Spirit is a person equal to the Father and the Son. Therefore, in any way we can honestly say that Justin taught Trinity of modern Christianity. What
Clement taught
Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215 AD) calls, too, the Son "God." He even calls it "Creator", a term never used in the Bible about Jesus. Did he say that the Son was equal at every point of the Almighty Creator? No. Clement was probably thinking John 1:3, which says the Son: "All things came into existence by his entremise16." In his creative work, God the Son has served as an officer. - Colossians 1:15-17. Clement calls
the supreme God "the God and Father of our Lord Jésus17" and said that "the Lord is the son of Créateur18. He also said: "The God of the universe is only one, good, fair, creative, and son [is] in the Père19." He then writes that the Son is a God above him.
Clement speaks of God as "first and only giver of life eternal, the Son, who received Him [God], we donne20. It is clear that He who gave life to the origin is greater than that, so to speak, forward. Clement said that is why God is first, and le plus haut21”. En outre, il dit que le Fils “est le plus proche de Celui-là seul qui est le Tout-Puissant” et que le Fils “ordonne toutes choses en accord avec la volonté du Père22”. Maintes fois, Clément montre la suprématie du Dieu Tout-Puissant sur le Fils.
Sur Clément d’Alexandrie, on lit dans L’Église des trois premiers siècles:
“Nous pourrions citer nombre de passages de Clément dans lesquels l’infériorité du Fils est distinctement affirmée. (...)
“Nous sommes étonnés que l’on puisse lire Clément en lui accordant une attention ordinaire et imaginer un seul instant qu’il considérait the Son as being numerically identical to the Father, one with Him. His nature and less dependent, as far as we seem, is everywhere recognized. Clement believed that God and the Son were numerically distinct, in other words, two beings: one supreme subordonné23 the other. "
Moreover, we can repeat: even if Clement sometimes seems to go beyond what the Bible says about Jesus, he nowhere speaks of a Trinity of three equal persons in one God. Apologists such as Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus, who lived between the time of Justin and the Clement, had similar views. Lamson said they "were not Trinitarian better than Justin himself, that is to say they did not believe in three [people] and undivided co-equal: they taught a doctrine totally inconsistent with this croyance24 ".
Theology of Tertullian
Tertullian (ca. 160-230 AD) was the first to use the Latin word Trinitas. As noted by Henry Chadwick, Tertullian suggested that God is a substance consisting of three personnes25 '. This does not mean, however, he thought three co-equal and co-eternal. Nevertheless, his ideas were later used as a basis to authors who worked on what became the doctrine of the Trinity. The design had
Tertullian the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the Trinity of Christianity, because it was subordinationism. He regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. In Against Hermogenes, he wrote:
"This is so that men might well believe that there is nothing that has arisen and has had a beginning, except God. (...) How can we suppose that there was anything, except Father, who is older than the Son of God, His Word and unique first-born and hence there is something nobler than him. (...) This [God] who did not need a Creator to give him the good life has a rank higher than [the Son] who had a auteur26. "
In Similarly, in Against Praxeas, it shows that the Son is different from the God Almighty and it is subordinate. He said:
"The Father is the entire substance. The Son is the derivation and the part of all this, as he says himself: 'My Father is greater than me. " (...) The Father is except the Son, in that it is greater than the Son in the sense that the generator is different than that resulted in this sense that the sender is different than that sent, in the sense that it produces is different than that produit27. "
In Against Hermogenes, Tertullian also says there was a time when the Son did not exist as a person, which shows that he did not regard the Son as an eternal in the sense that God is éternel28. Cardinal Newman said: "Tertullian must be regarded as heterodox on the doctrine of the eternal existence of Our Seigneur29." On Tertullian, Lamson says
"This reason, or Logos, as the Greeks called it, was thereafter, according to what Tertullian believed, converted to the Word or Son, that is to say a be real, having existed from all eternity only as an attribute of the Father. Tertullian has, however, assigned a rank subordinate to the Father (...).
"If we are judged by any explanation of the Trinity received today, it would be futile to try to save the conviction of Tertullian [heretical]. He would not stand a moment in examen30. " No
Trinidad
If you read all that has been written apologists, you would find that, although they deviated in some respects the teachings of the Bible, none of them has taught that the Father, son and Holy Spirit are co-equal in eternity, power, position and wisdom.
This is true for other authors of the second and third centuries, as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian and Novatian. While some have gone so far as to the Father and the Son as equal in some areas, in other respects they held subordinate to the Son God the Father. And none of them has even thought that the holy spirit was equal to the Father and the Son. For example, Origen (ca. 185-254 AD) said that the Son of God is "the Firstborn of all creation" and that the Scriptures "The recognition as the oldest of all the works of création31.
An objective reading of these authorities of the early church shows that the doctrine of the Trinity taught by Christianity did not exist in their time. As can be read in The Church of the first three centuries
"The doctrine of the Trinity which is widespread in our time (...) finds no support in the language of Justin and this observation can be extended to all the Fathers anténicéens, that is to say all Christian writers during the three centuries after the birth of Jesus. They speak, indeed, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or prophetic, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense that the 'now recognize the Trinity. Exactly the opposite they do. The doctrine of the Trinity as explained that these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. What we say can be proved in the same way as any other facts from the history of ideas humaines32. "
In fact, Tertullian before we do not even speak of the Trinity. And the Trinity "heterodox" Tertullian was very different from belief today. Therefore, how the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood in our time, did it get? Was it the Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325 AD? We look these issues in an upcoming issue of The Watchtower, this will be the fourth part of this series.
Bibliography:
1. A Short History of the Early Church, Harry Boer, 1976, page 110.
2. Die Entstehung christlichen Dogmas of Martin Werner, 1957, p. 125.
3. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, R. Hanson, 1988, page 64.
4. The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, 1869, pages 70, 71.
5. Gods and the One God, Robert Grant, 1986, pages 109, 156, 160.
6. Die Entstehung christlichen Dogmas of, pages 122, 125.
7. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1982, Volume 2 page 513.
8. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Cardinal John Newman, translated by L. Boyeldieu of Auvigny (Development of Christian Doctrine), pages 11-13.
9. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 129 (Desclée de Brouwer, collection "Ichthys" on page 333).
10. First Apology, Chapter 63 (Desclée de Brouwer, collection "Ichthys" on page 92).
11. Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56, pages 214, 215.
12. First Apology, Chapter 6, page 36.
13. Epochen der Dogmengeschichte Bernhard Lohse, according to the English translation of Ernest Stoeffler, 1963, 2nd paperback edition, 1980, p. 43.
14. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 20.
15. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 73, 74, 76.
16. The Educator, Book I, Chapter 11, Part 97, 3 (Editions du Cerf, introduction and notes by H.-I. Marrou, translated by Marguerite Harl, page 283).
17. Ibid., Book I, Chapter 8, Part 72, 2 (page 239).
18. Ibid., Part 73, 1 (page 241).
19. Ibid., Part 74, 1 (page 241).
20. What is the rich who will be saved? Chapter 6.
21. Ibid. Chapter 7.
22. The Stromata, Chapter 2.
23. The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, 1869, pages 124, 125.
24. Ibid., P. 95.
25. The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, 1980 edition, page 89.
26. Cons Hermogenes, Chapter 18.
27. Praxeas cons, Chapter 9.
28. Cons Hermogenes, Chapter 3.
29. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pages 19, 20.
30. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 108, 109.
31. Celsus cons.
32. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 75, 76.
0 comments:
Post a Comment