SOME ERRORS TO AVOID

Stuart Olyott

We have mentioned that throughout church history many people have attempted to explain the doctrine of the Trinity in a way which is easy to understand. Sometimes they have tried to state it in a way which makes it more easy to believe. But again and again they have not truly represented what the Scriptures actually teach. They have repeatedly ended up with a doctrine of the Trinity which is not the Bible's doctrine.

As we seek to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity in the modern world, the same danger threatens us. Therefore it seems wise to include at this point a brief survey of the main errors into which people have fallen. This means that we ourselves can take the necessary steps to avoid falling into the same traps. Basically, errors have fallen into three main groups. We noted this, in passing, in chapter 6, but will spend more time on it now. Each group is an attack upon one of the basic ingredients of the doctrine of the Trinity, and leads to the truth being compromised, perverted or denied.

This is the failure to hold that there is but one God only. The Jews held tenaciously to the unity of God, and this emphasis was carried over into the Christian church. It has been very rare for those who claim to be Christians to lose sight of this truth. But occasionally tritheists have walked briefly onto the stage of history. Two of the most famous were John Ascusnages of Constantinople, and Philoponus of Alexandria, who lived towards the end of the sixth century. They held that there are three gods, who are all of the same sort, and yet distinct and separate from each other. Greater than their error is that of the modern sect of the Mormons, who do not limit the number to three, and who hold that there are many gods. A belief in many gods is called 'polytheism'.

If we remember and hold to the truth of chapter 2, we shall fall into neither tritheism nor polytheism. And yet it is probably true to say that many Christians, in their heart of hearts, tend to think of God more in terms of His three-ness than His oneness. They think of Him more easily as Three than as One-in-Three and Three-in-One. Such people are never likely to become tritheists in the strict sense. But they nurse an error in their hearts which keeps them from thinking of God as they should. This must inevitably mean that their worship of God, and their prayer life, are not what they should be.

This is the failure to hold that there are three Persons who are equally God. In addition to the errors which sprang up in history, there are today a growing number of individuals, movements and cults which are monarchian. They speak of the Son and the Holy Spirit as being God in a lesser sense than the Father. Frequently they speak of the Son and the Holy Spirit as not being God at all! The battles in this area are by no means over! We must insist that the Lord Jesus Christ is God in the same sense as is the Father, and is coequal and coeternal with Him. And we must do the same concerning the Holy Spirit.

We first find error in this area in the early second century. At that time there arose the Gnostics, who held that God was one essence, and one Person, and that from Him emanated lesser divine beings, by which He maintained contact with the world. These are called 'aeons', and Christ was one of the greatest. At the same time there existed the sect of the Ebionites, which declared that Christ was a mere man, and that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal divine influence. The same belief was held by the Socinians who were prominent in Europe during the sixteenth century, and is held by the Unitarians, who continue to the present day. During the last century, when the Bible was being attacked and the miracles denied, the same beliefs found their way into almost all of the major denominations. There are still large numbers of 'liberal' or 'modernist' ministers who believe in this way.

One of the greatest threats to the truth about God came in the early fourth century from Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria. He maintained that God was but one eternal Person, who, before anything else was made, created in His own image His highest creature. This was His only begotten Son. Arius held that the Son was divine in a secondary sense. But He was not eternally the Son of God, and was certainly not God in the same sense as was the Father. It was by the Son that everything else was made, and it was He who, much later, became a man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The first and greatest creature created by the Son of God was the Holy Spirit. He was divine in a lesser sense still.

For a considerable time it looked as if the teachings of Arius would conquer the church world-wide. Athanasius alone stood against him, appealing both to the truths of the Word of God, and the beliefs of the early Christians. Mercifully, truth won the day. Yet Arianism has never died a final death, and has re-emerged in history from time to time. Those who call themselves 'Jehovah's Witnesses' are a modern form of Arian, although, unlike Arius, they do not believe the Holy Spirit to be a divine Person in any sense. We must ever be on our guard against the errors which they, and others, are still spreading.

It is unlikely that Arius would have had so much influence if it had not been for Origen (A.D. 185-255). The latter unwittingly prepared the ground for Arianism by one of his ideas which was widely received. He held that the Son was a glorious and divine person, and yet that He was not God in quite the same sense as the Father. The Holy Spirit was God in a lesser sense still. He thus sowed the thought that there were ranks within the Godhead, and this made it easier for Arius to go a step further. This sort of view came later to be known as semi-Arianism, and it was forcefully put forward at the Council of Nicaea by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Some of the semi-Arians agreed with Arius that the Holy Spirit was the first creature of the Son, but a majority held Him to be a mere divine energy or influence.

Origen's error, in turn, was probably due in part to the teaching of Tertullian (approximately A.D. 160-240). Although he coined the word 'Trinity', his teaching did not succeed in avoiding the impression that the Son was God in a lesser sense than the Father. His error was very small when compared with what followed. But it shows to us the importance of being exact in what we say On this subject of the Trinity. His error, and the other errors mentioned in this section, can be avoided if we remember and hold to the truths set out in chapters 3-5 and 7-8 of this book. Why not also memorize Colossians 2:9 and Acts 5:3-4?

This is the failure to hold that the three Persons of the Godhead are distinguished by their personal properties. Even the Arians still kept some idea of there being three Persons in the Godhead. But sometimes there have arisen those who sacrifice this idea entirely. They are so caught up with the truth that God is One that they fall into the error of denying that there are three distinct Persons who are God. According to their view, God is but one Person, who, like an actor, plays three different parts. He appears successively as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. While He plays the part of one, the others do not exist. Because God is thought of as merely appearing in different modes, this view is called 'modalism'.

Modalism has arisen in a number of different forms, and appears to have been first held by Praxeas of Asia Minor at the beginning of the third century. But its most famous proponent was Sabellius, a presbyter from Ptolemais, who lived about the middle of the third century. For this reason this error is frequently termed 'Sabellianism'. He held that the one divine Person who existed eternally carried the title of God the Father. When He created the universe, and later came among us as a Man, He carried the title of God the Son. And now, when He acts directly in the lives of men and women, He carries the title of God the Holy Spirit. This teaching means that it was actually God the Father who suffered on the cross, and so sometimes Sabellians are also known as 'Patripassians' ('those who teach that the Father suffered').

This error has come to life again several times in the last few centuries, particularly in the writings of various European philosophers who had experienced some sort of Christian influence. It is not very widespread today. But it still exists. For instance, in trying to explain the Trinity to others, Christians often point out that the chemical H20 can appear as either ice, water or steam. But the illustration perverts the truth. For a start it carries nothing of the truth that God is a personal Spirit. But its most serious error is that it gives the impression that the Trinity is nothing more than the same God merely appearing in three different forms. We said earlier that the Trinity is without analogy, and that we must never try to illustrate it. It must now be plain why this is so.

Sometimes Sabellianism is found in a Christian's prayers. Often he begins by praying to God the Father, but shortly afterwards thanks Him for dying for him on the cross. He thus falls into the mistake of saying of the Father what can be said only of the Son. He may then proceed to thank Him for His indwelling presence–something which can properly be said only of the Holy Spirit. Fortunately God does not listen to our words, but looks on our hearts, and the mediation of Christ guarantees that our prayers are presented in heaven without fault. And yet it is always dangerous to have wrong views of God, and if such prayers are public they may sometimes be positively harmful to those who hear them. The way to combat Sabellianism is to remember, and hold to, the truths contained in chapters 6 and 10 of this book; and particularly to call to mind the narrative of our Lord's baptism in Matthew 3:13-17, where all three Persons of the Godhead are manifested at the same time.