The mysterious Trinity
« The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God » 1. This is how the most mysterious doctrine of Christendom, namely the Trinity, was defined centuries ago. Why do we say mysterious? Well, already because no one knows exactly who the author is. Second, and most importantly, because no one knows exactly how to explain it. Mathematically, it could be formulated by the expression 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. But whether it is expressed with words or with numbers, it inevitably leads to the same question: how can one be both three and one? Is that not contrary to logic and common sense? Since the doctrine of the Trinity is described as fundamental by the three religions of Christianity, would it not be normal to expect from the latter, and in particular, from the oldest of them, the Catholic Church, convincing clarifications about it?
This is what a Catholic encyclopedia, which can be described as a referent, teaches us: « It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation » 2. It is clear from this information that the mysterious character of the Trinity is due to its ‘presupposed’ origin — in other words, uncertain. This is confirmed by a biblical dictionary which adds that « the concept (…) of the Trinity has developed through progressive revelation » 3. Is it therefore reasonable to expect a coherent explanation? Note what the Catholic encyclopedia says: « The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains ‘hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness’ (Constitution, “De fide. cath.”, iv).» 4 In short, in the best case, a mystery is a clarification… which remains obscure! Seen from this angle, it is better understood why the doctrine of the Trinity is defined as an absolute mystery, « a mystery (mysterium absolutum) in the strict sense » according to the expression of theologians Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler 5. A mystery that has no other use than to keep in the shadows the image that we can make of the true God.
Without being able to enlighten us directly, our reference encyclopedia nevertheless underlines an interesting point: « When the fact of revelation (…) is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason [a dogma so mysterious] has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament » 6. There are many Protestant denominations, which, although they mostly support the doctrine of the Trinity, paradoxically recognize its non-biblical character. That is how it reads: « The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in a sense equal God Himself. (…) All this underlines the point that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the Church » 7. But the words of some authors are sometimes very ambiguous: « One does not find in the N[ew] T[estament] the trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit within a divine unity, the mystery of the three in one, yet one does find there the data that serve as the foundation of this later dogmatic formulation » 8. What, then, are these « data which serve as the foundation » for the mysterious dogma of the Trinity?
Most biblical reference works cite a variable number of passages that are supposed to prove the validity of the Trinity. But only three of them return almost systematically. Let us give once again to a Catholic work the precedence of introducing them: « In the New Testament (NT), the oldest evidence of this revelation [of the dogma of the Trinity] is in the Pauline Epistles, especially 2 Cor 13:13, and 1 Cor 12:4-6. In the Gospels, (…) the only direct statement of Trinitarian revelation is the baptismal formula of Mt 28:19 » 9. How would you like to determine together whether these three biblical texts, put forward by the defenders of the Trinity, really show a God in three persons — the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit — who « are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent » ? 10 For this demonstration, we will use for each text both a Catholic translation (in brown) and a Protestant translation (in red). Ready?
Matthew 28:19
« Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit » (RSV)
« Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit » (NIV)
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
« There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone » (NAB)
« There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit gives them. There are different ways of serving, but the same Lord is served. There are different abilities to perform service, but the same God gives ability to all for their particular service » (GNT)
2 Corinthians 13:13[14]
« May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all » (NLT)
« I pray that the Lord Jesus Christ will bless you and be kind to you! May God bless you with his love, and may the Holy Spirit join all your hearts together » (CEV)
When we read these three biblical passages, what do we remember? What do we do to three people who make one? That these people are from all eternity and never had a beginning? That they are all three all-powerful, none inferior or superior to the others? None of this in truth. At most we can subscribe to what the authors of the monumental Cyclopedia said about Matthew’s aforementioned passage: « This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity » 11. But recognize that this remark is also valid for the other two texts. Therefore, if we rely on the biblical rule that « a matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses » (Deuteronomy 19:15, BSB), we note that each of the three references put forward by the advocates of the Trinity is in fact a witness, not of the validity of the doctrine concerned, but of truths that have always been recognized, namely, that the Father — Jehovah God — is the first source or origin of all things; that the Son — Jesus Christ — is the agent in charge of accomplishing the works or creations of the Father; finally, that the Holy Spirit — who, rightly, has no name — is the instrument by which these works are produced. The question therefore arises: since it is manifest that « the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament », how is it that it occupies such an important place in the churches of Christendom?
« Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ »
Colossians 2:8, NFC
While the Trinitarians refer in vain to two letters of Paul to the Corinthians to support their doctrine, the above warning, contained in the apostle’s letter to the Colossians, tells us the probable origin of the mysterious dogma. It is a first-hand testimony offered to us by this former Pharisee converted to Christianity who, better than anyone, knew the role that Greek « philosophy » had played in the elaboration of « human traditions » of Judaism. The primary purpose of his warning was to discourage Colossian Christians from returning to the practices of a corrupt Torah. However, as a major theme of a canonical letter, it is certain that this warning also announces the influence that a certain « empty, deceitful philosophy.» would have in subsequent theological debates. What teaching was particularly the object of speculation in the early days of Christianity? Let us look again at our reference encyclopedia:
« The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in [all] ecclesiastical writing. Among the apologists we may note [that] Justin [and] Clement of Alexandria professes [t]he doctrine » 12. A few pages earlier, the same article explained: « The word [Greek] trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. (…) Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (…). In the next century, the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen » 13. All the authors cited here, who are historically associated with the development of Trinitarian dogma, were nourished by the philosophy of the Greek Plato. Thus, after studying « philosophy diligently », Justin converted himself « to Christianity (…) what he considered the true philosophy, still wearing his philosopher’s gown to indicate that he had attained to the truth » 14 by drawing inspiration from him of « different systems, especially from Stoicism and Platonism » 15. The same philosophical sources led Theophilus to produce « a strange amalgam of Hellenistic and Jewish thought » 16. Likewise, « the influence of Greek philosophy contributed greatly to (…) Clement’s (…) spirituality, and to his desire to fashion an authentically Christian gnosis » by « introducing philosophy to its role as ‘the servant of theology‘ » 17. For his part, Tertullian « was thoroughly familiar (…) with all the great philosophical systems of the Graeco-Roman world » 18. Finally, Origen, who « followed the philosophy courses given by Ammonius Saccas, the father of neo-Platonism (…), acquired a considerable philosophical education, which he used in his teaching (…), a mystical platonism mixed with much stoicism and a little aristotelism » 19. That’s self-explanatory, don’t you think?
Therefore, we must admit that « the first Christian philosophers, the Fathers of the Church, were imbued with Greek ideas and took over from the circumambient neo-Platonism the commingling of philosophy and religion » 20 to construct the doctrine of a God in three persons. But it took a few more centuries for the creed of the Trinity, as quoted in the introduction, to be formally defined. History teaches us that it is a layman — in this case Emperor Constantine — who, having become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire, had the formidable privilege of deciding between defenders and opponents of the Trinity. Still referring to notions borrowed from Greek philosophy, the former maintained that the Father and the Son — Jehovah God and Jesus Christ — were « of the same substance », while the latter affirmed that they were rather « of similar substance.» Let us admit that, for the uninitiated, the difference was not obvious! At the Council of Nicaea in 325, Constantine took the side of the Trinitarians, a position not followed by his immediate successors. Then, at the end of the Council of Constantinople in 381, to which no opponent of the Trinitarian dogma had been entitled to sit, Emperor Theodosius I accepted the Holy Spirit as the ‘third member’ of divinity. He immediately promulgated that « all who » manifested their « disagreement with the communion of faith [in the Trinity] » would be considered « notorious heretics.» The opponents of the dogma were thus struck by an ostracism — still very much alive today — which would evolve in the Middle Ages towards a brutal and cruel persecution of many dissenting confessions.
While it is evident that the doctrine of the Trinity is, within Christianity, the source of many theological controversies, it is also the principal cause of friction with the representatives of Judaism and Islam, the other two monotheistic religions, who do not understand his departure from common ancestral truths. In 1986, the Catholic theologian Hans Küng, a former Vatican councillor, wrote: « But even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. They do not see why faith in one God, the faith in Abraham, which both Moses and Jesus, and finally, Muhammad, clung so firmly to, is not abandoned when (…) Christians simultaneously accept three persons in God. Why, after all, should one differantiate between nature and person in God? It is well known that the distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who (…) find it all a word game. (…) What are all the dialectical artifices for? Isn’t God absolutely simple? (…) Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness? » 21.
Indeed, what is the point of enveloping, « so to speak, by a kind of darkness » the image of the one and only God, Jehovah, when sincere believers, from the three religions inherited from Abraham, attest that the « revelation » of the « mystery » it’s actually within everyone’s reach. Each of them can bear witness that the central doctrine of Christendom is « a modification of [original] Christian monotheism » 22 and thus an enemy of God who revealed himself to Moses. After His personal name was described as ineffable by the Jews, it is today all His person who undergoes the same treatment. Therefore, it is important that the truth be restored about Him. Read, better, agree to study the Bible. You will learn more about the admirable qualities of the God who inspired it, than the theologians of Christendom will ever teach you about this « dogma so mysterious » — which they are supposed to understand but not explain — that is the Trinity!
References
| 1 | George H. Joyce, « The Blessed Trinity », The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 1912, p. 95. |
| 2 | Ibid., p. 96. |
| 3 | Jerry M. Henry, « Trinity », Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 2003, p. 3114. |
| 4 | George H. Joyce, « The Blessed Trinity », The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 1912, p. 106. |
| 5 | Karl Rahner, Herbert Vorgrimler, « Trinity », Dictionary of Theology, 1981, p. 514. |
| 6 | George H. Joyce, « The Blessed Trinity », The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 1912, p. 96. |
| 7 | Johannes Schneider, « God », The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, 1985, p. 84. |
| 8 | Jouette M. Bassler, « God », Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, 1992, p. 1055. |
| 9 | C. Draina, « Trinity, Holy (In the Bible) », New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 14, 2003, pp. 201-202. |
| 10 | George H. Joyce, « The Blessed Trinity », The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 1912, p. 95. |
| 11 | John McClintock, James M. Strong, « Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature », Tome X, 1981, p. 552. |
| 12 | George H. Joyce, « The Blessed Trinity », The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 1912, pp. 102-103. |
| 13 | Ibid., p. 95. |
| 14 | Gottlieb Nathanael Bonwetsch, « Justin Martyr », The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 6, 1953, p. 282. |
| 15 | Jules Lebreton, « St. Justin Martyr », The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, 1910, p. 1270. |
| 16 | M. Whittaker, « Theophilus of Antioch », New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, 2003, p. 933. |
| 17 | T. O. Fiaich, « Clement of Alexandria », New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 2003, p. 798. |
| 18 | W. Le Saint, « Tertullian », New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, 2003, p. 836. |
| 19 | H. Crouzel, « Origen and Origenism », New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, 2003, pp. 653, 656. |
| 20 | Maurice De Wulf, « Philosophy », The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 12, 1911, p. 1372. |
| 21 | Hans Küng, « Christianity and the World Religions », 1986, p. 113. |
| 22 | Otto Kirn, « Trinity, Doctrine of the », The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 12, 1950, p. 18. |