Christianity
strengthened among the Greek speaking people who were philosophically and
intellectually minded people. Such a philosophical and intellectual mind
struggled to understand the revelation of Trinity. Further complexity added by
the polytheistic belief of the Greek speaking world. It means several Greek
speaking Christians struggled to understand the exclusive claims of the one God
of Christianity with three personalities. They asked the question like: How one
who created can become a man? How Jesus could be a man and same time God? What
is the relationship between God and Jesus?
1. Trinitarian
Controversies
1.1 Monarchianism
There
are two kinds of Monarchianism.
1.1.1.Dynamic Monarchianism or Adoptionism
There
were two groups of dynamic Monarchianists with various interpretations.
(a)The
first group led by Theodotus. He proposed (in CE 180) that Jesus was a mere man
born of virgin Mary according to the will of God and that he was so holy so that Holy Spirit whom he called Christ descended
on him at his baptism so that he became the Christ, who then worked miracles .
He was not God, not divine in his nature but because he had possessed by the
divine Christ. Therefore God was adopted him as Son of God (Boer 1976,110-112;
Hrangkhuma 1996,73).
(b)
The second group led by Paul of Samosate, bishop of Antioch (CE 260-272). He
taught that the Logos was one attribute of God which inspired Moses and the prophets.
Jesus was merely a man, but he was filled with the Logos, and the power of God.
By means of the Logos, Jesus was united to God, not one with God in substance,
but moral, yet inseparable. By means of this union, Jesus rose again from the
dead. God them granted him a kind of delegated or adopted authority (Hrangkhuma
1996,74).
It is known as Dynamic Monarchianism the one God (monos meaning one, plus arche meaning rule, government by one)
reveals himself as a divine energy or power in Jesus. (Boer 1976, 112)
1.1.2. Modalistic Monarchianism
Praxeas,
Neotus and Sabellius were the advocates of this view. According to this, God
revealed in three modes; but Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person, not
three distinct person. In the revelation process, God manifested in Father in
the older times; then as the Son and lastly as the Holy Spirit (Boer 1976, 112;
Hrangkhuma 1996, 74)
It
is known as modelistic monarchianism
because the government by one takes place by different modes of revelation of
the on God (Boer 1976, 112).
The
Monarchians were wrong in their excessive zeal in emphasizing the unity of God
in opposition to any attempt to conceive of God as three separate
personalities. They were concerned with an assertion of monotheism but ended up
with an ancient form of Unitarianism, which denied the real deity of Christ.
Their problem was how to relate Christ to God. ( Cairns 1954,99-101)
1.2 Arianism
In
318 or 319, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria discussed with his presbyters about
‘the unity of the trinity.’ However, one of his presbyters named Arius could not
agree with teachings of Alexander. Arius taught that Christ was not existed
from eternity but had a beginning, and there was a time when he was not.
According to him, Christ was made out of nothing and through him everything
made. But Christ was of a different substance from the Father, and therefore
subordinate to Father. He was divine because of his obedience to the Father and
virtue of his life. But he was not coequal or co-eternal with the Father. He
was neither part of God nor of any lower essence (Hrangkhuma 1996, 100)
The
view of Alexander was that Christ existed from all eternity with the Father,
and was of the same substance with the Father, but had a distinct personality. Alexander
called a synod in Alexandria and where the teachings of Arius condemned (Ibid). The controversy between Arius and Alexander
became severe and created division among the churches and bishops. Eventually,
Constantine intervened in the issue and called the Council of Nicaea.
1.2.1The Council of Nicaea 325
Three
views were put forth at the council. (Cairns 1954,142-145; Hrangkhuma
1996,99-102)
(a) Arius, who was backed by
Eusebius of Nicomedia (not Eusebius of Caesarea) and a minority of those
present, insisted that Christ had not existed from all eternity but had a
beginning by the creative act of God. Arius believed that Christ was of a
different (heteros) essence or
substance from the Father. Because of the virtue of His life and His obedience
to God’s will, Christ was to be considered divine. But Arius believed that
Christ was being created out of nothing, subordinate to Father, and of
different essence from the Father. He was not co-equal, or consubstantial with
the Father. To Arius He was divine but not deity.
(b) Athanacius (ca. 296-373)
became the chief exponent of what became the orthodox view. His wealthy parents
had provided for his theological education in the famous catechetical school of
Alexandria. His work De Incarnatione
presented his idea of the doctrine of Christ. At the council this young man,
about thirty years, the secretary of Alexander insisted that Christ had existed
from all eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homooousios) as the Father, though He
was a distinct personality. He insisted on these things because he believed
that if Christ were less than he had stated Him to be, He could not be Saviour
of humankind. The question of human’s eternal salvation was involved in the
relationship of the Father and the Son according to Athanacius. He held that
Christ was coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father.
(c)The largest party
was led by the gentile scholar and church historian Eusebius of Caeseria. He proposed his view to make compromise
between Arius and Athanacius. He taught that Christ was not created out of
nothing as Arius has insisted but that He was begotten by the Father before
time in eternity. Christ was of a like (homoi)
or similar essence to the Father. His creed became a basis of the creed that
was finally accepted in Nicaea. Nicene Creed differed from Eusebius in its
insistence on the unity of essence or substance of the Father and the Son.
Orthodoxy
gained a temporary victory at Nicaea by the assertion of the eternity of Christ
and the identity of His substance with that of the Father. Teaching of Arius
was condemned in the council and a creed was developed which was known as
Nicene Creed and the creed acknowledges that Son is homoousios-consubstantial with the Father.
In
344-5 another Synod was gathered in Antioch and brought out a fresh edition of
Nicene Creed with elaborative explanations.
1.3Macedonianism
Macedonius, bishop of
Constantinople between 341 and 360, most likely taught that the Holy Spirit was
“a minister and a servant” on a level with the angels and that, the Holy Spirit
was a creature subordinate to the Father and the Son. This was a denial of the
true deity of the Holy Spirit and was as harmful to the concept of Holy Spirit
as the views of Arius to the conception of Christ. The ecumenical council of Constantinople
condemned these views in 381. When the creed of Constantinople (Nicene Creed)
was recited at the third council of Tolento in 589, the words “and the Son”
were added to the statement “that proceeded from the Father,” which is
concerned with the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Father and the
Son. The Western churches since then have insisted on the true deity and the
personality of the Holy Spirit as coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with
the Father and the Son. (Hrangkhuma 1996, 103).
2. Apologists
The Apologists
were a group of early church fathers who defended Christianity from the false
charges of the state and the pagan populace. They were learned scholars and
philosophers and usually were converts from a non-Christian background. Their
main work was to write to the emperor and rulers to convince them that the
Christians did not deserve persecution and to prove the innocence of the
Christians, they argued that Christianity was the oldest and best religion and
philosophy. (Hrangkhuma 1996, 56). They also developed a positive, constructive
approach by showing that in contrast to Christianity, Judaism, pagan religions,
and state worship were foolish and sinful.
Their
writings, known as apologies, made a rational appeal to the pagan leaders and
aimed to create an intelligent understanding of Christianity and to remove
legal disabilities from it. One of their major arguments was that since the
false charges could not be substantiated, the Christians were entitled to civil
tolerance under the laws of Roman state.
These
men, writing as philosophers than theologians, stressed the priority of
Christianity as the oldest religion and philosophy because such writings as the
Pentateuch predated the Trojan wars and because whatever truth could be found
in Greek thought was borrowed from Christianity or Judaism. Much was made of
the pure life of Christ, His miracles, and the fulfillment of Old Testament
prophesies concerning Him as proofs of the fact that Christianity was the
highest philosophy. Most of these writers were trained in the Greek philosophy
before they accept Christ. That is why they looked upon Greek philosophy as a
means to lead men to Christ
2.1 Eastern
Apologists
a) Aristides
Between
140 and 150 Aristides, a Christian philosopher of the city of Athens, directed
an apology to the Emperor Antonius Pius. J. Rendal Harris discovered a complete
Syrian version of this work in 1889 in the Monastery of Saint Catherine on
Mount Sinai. The first fourteen chapters contrast Christian worship to
Chalcedon, Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish worship to prove the superiority of the
Christian form of worship. The last there chapters give a clear picture of
early Christian customs and ethics. He tried to convince the emperor that the
Christians suffered persecutions unjustly, and appealed to the emperor to look
into the matter with an eye of justice. (Hrangkhuma 1996, 56)
b)Justin
Martyr (ca.100-165)
He was the foremost apologist of the
second century. Born of pagan parents near the biblical town of Shechem, he
early became a wandering philosopher in search of truth. He tried Stoic
philosophy, the noble idealism of Plato, Aristotle’s ideas. However, he was fed
up with the exorbitant fees demanded by the Aristotle’s successors. One day
when he was walking along the seashore an old man directed him to the
Scriptures as the true philosophy. Here Justin found the peace that his heart
was craving for. Then he opened a Christian school in Rome.
Shortly after 150, Justin Martyr addressed
his First Apology to Emperor Antonius
Pius and his adopted sons. In it, he urged the emperors to examine the charges
against the Christians (chapters 1-3) and to free them from liabilities if they
were innocent. He proved that Christians were not atheists or idolaters (4-13).
The major section of the work (14-60) is devoted to morals, dogmas, and founder
of Christianity. He sought to show that Christ’s superior life and morality had
been foretold in the Old Testament prophesies. Persecution and error he
attributed to the work of demons. The last chapters (61-67) are given over to
an exposition of the worship of the Christians. He argued that since
examination would show that Christians were blameless concerning the charges
against them, they should have freedom from persecution.
The Second
Apology was an appendix to the First Apology. In this, Justin cited the
cruelty and injustice to Christians and after a comparison of Christ and
Socrates, pointed out that the good in people is due to Christ.
In the Dialogue
with Trypho, Justin endeavored to convince the Jews of the Messiahship of
Jesus Christ. The first eight chapters of the work are autobiographical. This
gives information concerning the life of Justin. The largest section
(chs.9-142) is a development of three ideas: the relation of the decline of old
covenant to the rise of gospel; the linking of the Logos, Christ with God; and
the calling of the Gentiles as the people of God. To him Christ was the
fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies.
c) Tatian (ca. 110-180),
Tatian,
the widely travelled eastern scholar who was a pupil of Justin in Rome, wrote
the work known as Address to the Greeks
after the middle of the second century. It is a denunciation of the Greek
pretentions to cultural leadership couched in apologetic form. Tatian argued
that Christianity is superior to Greek religion and thought, Christians should
be given fair treatment. The second section of the book is devoted to a
comparison of Christian teachings with Greek mythology and philosophy. In the
next section he asserted that Christianity is far more ancient than Greek
thought and religion because Moses antedated the Trojan wars.
d)
Athenagorus
Athenagorus,
a professor in Athens, had been converted by reading the Scriptures. About 177
he wrote the work called Supplications
for the Christians. After stating the charges against the Christians in the
introductory chapters, he refuted the charge of atheism made against the
Christians by showing that the pagan gods are merely human creations. The pagan
gods are guilty of the same immoralities as their human followers. Christians
are not guilty of incest or of eating their children in sacrificial feasts. He
concluded in the final chapter that the emperor should grant them clemency.
e)
Theophilus of Antioch
Theophilus also
was converted by reading of the Scriptures. He wrote the Apology to Autolycus. Autolycus was apparently a learned pagan
magistrate whom Theophilus hoped to win to Christianity by rational arguments.
In the first book Theophilus discussed the nature and superiority of God. In
the second he compared the weaknesses of the pagan religion to Christianity. In
the final book he answered the objections of Autolycus to the Christian faith.
He was the first to use the word trias
in reference to the Trinity.
2.2 Western
Apologists
The
Western apologetic writers laid a great emphasis on the distinctiveness and
finality of Christianity than they did on the similarities between the
Christian faith and the pagan religions.
a) Tertullian
Tertullian
(ca. 160-225) was the outstanding apologist of the Western church. He was born
to the home of Roman centurion on duty in Carthage. Trained in both Greek and
Latin, he was at home in the classics. He became a proficient lawyer and taught
public speaking and practiced law in Rome, where he was converted to
Christianity at about thirty years of age. He was the first famous Latin
theologian who used effectively the Latin language for theological writings. He
was a fiery, passionate, witty and controversial man. He joined Montanism about
AD. 200.
He
was the first Christian writer who stated the doctrine of Trinity clearly. This
is the reason why the Western Church was not disturbed much by the Trinitarian
controversy which for many years plagued the Eastern Church with bitter
controversy. Tertullian believed that the Son is of the same substance with the
Father.
In
the Apology, addressed to the Roman
governor of his province, he refuted the old charges against the Christians and
argued that they were loyal citizens of the empire. He pointed out that
persecution is a failure any way because the Christians multiply every time the
authorities try to down them by persecution. He argued that the state was
persecuting the church on dubious legal grounds. The associations, doctrines,
and morals of the Christians were of a higher calibre than those of their pagan
neighbours. That is why there was no justification for persecuting Christians.
Regarding
fall of man, he believed that the likeness of God in man is his soul which is
not so much extinguished as clouded by the fall.
b)
Minucius Felix
Minucius
Felix, about 200, wrote a dialogue called Octavius. This is an apology designed
to win his friend Caecilius to the Christian faith from paganism.
Apologies are
valuable for us for the light they throw on Christian thought in the middle of
the second century. They were intended for the stoppage of persecution. But
this result did not accomplish soon. (Cairns 1954,106-107).
3.The Polemicists
While the
apologists of the second century sought to give a rational explanation and
justification of Christianity to the authorities, the polemicists of the late
second and early third centuries endeavoured to meet the challenge of false
teachings by heretics with an aggressive condemnation of these false teachings
and the false teachers.
The apologists,
who had been newly converted from paganism, wrote concerning the external
threat to the safety of the church, namely, persecution. The polemicists, who had
a background of Christian culture, were concerned with heresy, an internal
threat to the peace and purity of the church. The polemicists unlike
apologists, laid much stress on the Old Testament prophesy. They emphasized the
New Testament as the source for Christian doctrine. The apologists sought to
condemn by argument the false teachings they opposed. (Cairns 1954,118)
3.1 Irenaeus, the
Anti-Gnostic Polemicist
Irenaeus
was born in Smyrna, had been influenced by Polycarp’s preaching while Polycarp
was bishop of Smyrna. Irenaeus went to Gaul, where he became a bishop before
180. He was a successful missionary bishop, but his greatest work was done in
the field of polemical writing against Gnosticism.
His
work Adversus Haereses, an attempt to
refute Gnostic doctrines by use of the Scriptures and the development of the
body of related tradition, was written about 185. Book 1, which is primarily historical, is our best source of
knowledge concerning the teaching of the Gnostics. It is a philosophical
polemic against Valentinian, the leader of the Roman school of Gnosticism. In Book 2, Irenaeus insisted on
the unity of God in opposition to the Gnostic idea of the demiurge as distinct
from God. Gnosticism is refuted by the Scriptures and relevant tradition in Book 3; Marcion is condemned in Book 4 by the citation of the words of
Christ that are in opposition to Marcion’s position. The final book is a
vindication of the doctrine of the Resurrection, which the Gnostics opposed,
because according to their views, it associates the evil material body with
spirit. (Cairns 1954,119)
It
is noteworthy that in Book 3 Irenaeus emphasized the organic unity of the
church through the apostolic succession of leaders from Christ and a rule of
faith. He was conscious of the unity that could be achieved by a closely knit
church and felt that such a church could easily resist flattery of heretical
ideas and their teachers. (Cairns 1954,119)
In his teachings
he accepted New Testament as equal authority with the Old Testament. He
strongly insisted on the full and perfect humanity of Jesus Christ over against
the teachings of Gnostics. He taught that Christ was the second Adam and just
as through the unity with the first Adam man fell, through unity with the
second Adam, man can be saved. The Church is the sole repository of the truth.
The unbroken succession of bishops guarantees that the faith is identical with
that of the apostles. He strongly believed in the imminence of the coming of
Jesus Christ and the establishment of the kingdom on earth for his millennial
reign. Ireaneus is the first noted Greek for his millennial reign.
3.2 Bishop
of Hippo
He
was an able polemicist, a good preacher, a fine Episcopal administrator, a good
theologian and creator of a Christian philosophy of history. He converted in
380 while reading Romans 13:11-13. In 393, he started a monastic school of his
own at Hippo in North Africa. In 395, he was elected as Bishop of Hippo.
He
produced many theological writings; the most famous ones are The Confessions and The City of God. He trained many church leaders. In his writings,
he deals mainly the following points:
1.
The personal relationship of an individual with God can be obtained only
through faith.
2.
The sinful nature of humans, inheriting Adam’s sin and guilt. Therefore, humans
have no real ability to do God’s will. The ability comes from God’s grace
appropriated by faith.
3.
Infant baptism should be practised. Since babies were also born in sin, baptism
should be administered to them, also to wash away their inborn original sin.
4. Salvation
is God’s grace, wholly undeserved, and free, received by men and woman through faith
alone.
5.
The visible Catholic Church is the only place in which people can be saved and
its sacraments are necessary for salvation.
6.
He was the greatest and most influential opponent of Pelagianism and Donatism. (Hrangkhuma
1996, 112)