The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Torrance on Athanasius and the Trinity

For those who are interested in the patristic understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I commend this article: “The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity According to St Athanasius.”

I have a particular fondness for this essay, not just because of its content but because I am partially responsible for its publication in the ATR. I had a telephone conversation with the new editor of the ATR, and I suggested to him that the journal needed to include a wider theological viewpoints. He asked me whom I would like to see published, and I said T. F. Torrance, and I mentioned that I had enjoyed a correspondence with TFT for several years. He then asked me to contact TFT and ask him to submit a piece, which I did. Within a month I received the text for this essay, which I immediately forwarded to the editor, and it was published in the ATR within the year. :slight_smile:

The theology of Athanasius, which was nurtured and adopted by the Roman papacy, must be seen though the eyes of the historical Athanasius, not as the ideological champion he is often depicted as. Athanasius was probably the most infamous person of the 4th century. He was known as the violent “Black Dwarf”. Athanasius spent 17 years of his life in exile as a criminal, as he was banned from the empire by four different emperors. Athanasius turned christian violence and crime into an art form. Most fans of Athanasius gloss-over Athanasius the man. He was the 4th century version of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. He worked at the behest of the Roman bishops, and he was not afraid to get his hands dirty. The ‘T’ trinity should not be understood in a vacuum; everything is relative.

How I Came to Learn About the Deity from:
The Dialogue With Trypho by Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165)

The Begetting of the Son before Creation:
When, as a young man, I read in the New Testament the expression, “The only-begotten Son”, I assumed that the expression denoted the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary. Having been taught that God is a Trinity of three divine Persons, whose existence is from “eternity past” to “eternity future”, it never occurred to me that the begetting of the Son was an event at the beginning of time, before all creation and before all ages.

I used to wonder how it was possible to determine what Jesus and His apostles really meant. For there are hundreds of sects and denominations of Christendom, those in each claiming to believe the Bible in its entirety, and yet interpreting what they read in various, and even contradictory ways. How could I ever know who, if anybody, was right? I began to think that if I could read some of the early Christian writings after the days of the apostles, they would be in a better position, culturally, linguistically, and spiritually, to understand what Christ and His apostles meant, than individuals and groups who came into existence two millennia later.

In The Dialogue With Trypho, Justin describes his talks with Trypho, a Jew, and a number of Trypho’s companions. Justin explained that Jesus was the Messiah, that He had appeared to Abraham and others, that his birth and death had been predicted by the prophets, that Jesus had been generated (or “begotten”) by the Father as an event before creation, and as He was the only one who had been begotten in that way, He was in fact divine as was His Father. Justin also taught that Jesus shared the name “Yahweh” with His Father, quoting Genesis 19:24 which speaks of two “Yahwehs”, one on earth who rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah from one in heaven.

Justin used the analogy of lighting a small fire from a larger one. The smaller one is of the same substance as the larger one, and the larger one is in no way diminished from having lit the smaller one. Thus the Son of God, having been begotten by God, is of the same “substance” as God, and the Father is in no way diminished from having begotten Him.

Justin spent a great deal of his time trying to convince Trypho and the other Jews that Jesus the Messiah, was another divine Individual just like the Father, and that He had frequently appeared to the saints of old. For example, Justin stated that of the three angels who appeared to Abraham, Christ was the one who remained behind and was addressed by Abraham as “Yahweh”.

Both Justin and Trypho spoke of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Trypho, a Jew, when using the term “Holy Spirit” did not have in mind another divine Person. For He believed in a single divine Person only, namely “Yahweh”. At no time did Justin suggest that the Holy Spirit was a third divine Individual. Indeed, at one point, he asked Trypho an amazing question:

“Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called Lord and God in the scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Messiah, who by so many scriptures was proved to you to have become man?”

And Trypho replied, “How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?”

Here would have been the perfect occasion for Justin to have introduced the Holy Spirit as a third divine Individual. But he didn’t. He just said the following:

“I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago.”

Justin sometimes referred to the Holy Spirit “speaking from the Person of the Father” or “speaking from the Person of the Son.” This caused me to wonder whether the Holy Spirit was the very Persons of the Father and the Son, extending throughout the world, and speaking to people.

After I realized that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus was begotten as a single act “before all created things”, and that he didn’t teach that the Holy Spirit was a third divine Individual, I began to look at the scriptures to see whether they said the same thing. Justin and other second century Christian writers taught that Proverbs 8:22-31 was a record of the begetting of the Son and His activities in the beginning. He is called “Wisdom” in that record, and it was believed that Christ was the personification of wisdom, and that “Wisdom” was actually one of His names. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 1:30 that “Christ has been made wisdom to us from God”, a statement which could refer to his generation in the beginning as recorded in Proverbs 8.

The apostle John records Jesus as having said, “I emerged out of the Father and have come into the cosmos…” That sounds a lot like a statement about his having been generated (begotten) from the Father ---- the little fire that came out from the greater one.

Concerning the Holy Spirit, I notice that Jesus said to His disciples:

Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. John 14:23

If Jesus and His Father make their home within us, is that not the Holy Spirit?

In John 14:16, 14:18, 15:26, and 16:7, John refers to the Holy Spirit as “The Paraclete” [advocate, encourager (literally “one who is called to one’s side”). For example John 14:18

[quote]
But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26)

The same apostle states that Jesus is the Paraclete:

My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1)

The Spirit of God is not a mere “force” as some claim. Rather the Spirit is personal ---- the very Persons of the Father and the Son. Indeed, Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:17 that the Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit! So why is a third divine Individual supposed?

Even the Nicene Creed in its original form as set out in 325 A.D. did not assign the Holy Spirit as “the Third Person of the Trinity”. All that was stated in that creed was, “We believe in the Holy Spirit.”

Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send it to you. (John 16:7)

If the Spirit is a Third Divine Person, why could He not come to the apostles until Jesus departed from this life? But if Jesus was sending His very Person to them, it was necessary for Him to die first. For while He lived as a human being, His person was confined to His body. But after His death, His spirit could be extended anywhere in the Universe!

You will point out to me, perhaps, that John 16:7 says, “I will send him to you” not “it”. Yes, the word has been so translated perhaps because the Spirit is assumed to be a Third Divine Person. The Greek pronoun is the masculine accusative singular, but that doesn’t necessarily mean “him”.
In Greek, a pronoun’s number and gender must agree with that of its antecedent. In this case, its antecedent is “Counselor”, a word which is masculine singular in Greek. So whether or not “it” or “him” is meant, the pronoun must be masculine singular. Actually the word in question is not a personal pronoun but the demonstrative pronoun “ekeinos” [that one].

Actually, Augustus Strong points out in his volume Systematic Theology that in John 16:14, the masculine pronoun “ekeinos” is used in John 16:14 with the neuter antecedent “pneuma” [spirit]. For Strong, this is proof the Holy Spirit is a person. It is possible that John, was not careful in making the pronoun agree in gender with its antecedent according to the rules of Greek grammar. Yet, even if Strong is right, the “he” does not prove that the Holy Spirit is a third Person. I have no difficulty with the idea of referring to the Spirit as “he”. If my personality were not limited to my body, and I could extend it to you and speak with you, would you not say “he” [Paidion] spoke with me today even though I was not bodily present? So the writers of the New Testament may be using “he” for the spirit of the Father, or the spirit of the Son. The Father and the Son share the same spirit, just as they share the same name “Yahweh”. They share all things. So even though the Father and the Son both dwell within us, they share One Spirit, which we may call either “it” or “he.”

Hi Paidion,

This is a wonderful post. Thank you for taking the time to include the evolution of your thinking. This first part of your journey (quoted above) almost exactly mimics my own experience and reasoning. This journey appears on the outset to be very tedious and time consuming, so I have noticed that not many have taken this path. Most people’s understanding of patristic literature is a postcard variety of taking snippets with long discussions about the person, without ever systematically analyzing the great wealth of material first-hand; especially neglected is the 2nd century, which is strange. It is like the 2nd century holds some superstitious fear over people, like “the dark forest”; people don’t enter out of fear of not returning. :laughing: Perhaps the legends may be true…

There were many latter theologians who borrowed from Justin’s analogy. I think that the parable of the flame may be of 1st century (apostolic) origin for it to have been so widely memorialized. It is perhaps the original archetypal description of the Father-Son union.

Justin was following the Septuagint for his insights of “Yahweh”. There was nothing particularly new in what Justin said; every christian was able to verify that “Yahweh” was a shared name in the bible common to all. It was the pharisee scribes and masoretes who personified ‘Yahweh’ to be uniquely owned by the Father.

This is where understanding Justin gets tricky; and also why you and I might slightly read Justin differently. IMO, (contrary to your own) this was not the best time for Justin to mention the divinity of the Holy Spirit - this was the worst time. Trypho could not even stand for the Son to be worshipped; so why would Justin further alienate Trypho by mentioning the Holy Spirit as divine? This was a deliberate tact of Justin to win Trypho over one small step at a time. You would have it that the silence of Justin is evidence for a contrary belief. Justin has already intimated that the Divinity is identified by three who share the divine name; as you have acknowledged above with “Yahweh”. Justin also mentions in his First Apology that the Holy Spirit is worshipped along with the Father and Son.

both him (the Father), and the Son…, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore.”
Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter VI

The above interpretation, relative to the Son, is classical Arianism: “There was a time when the Son was not.” Arians, however, included the Holy Spirit as Divine - so your view here is probably more unorthodox than Arians; but I think on this matter your view is quite acceptable within the schema of early church dogmatics. The 4th century, of course, completely rejected your premise; but as you have said; the earlier church fathers shared at least a semi-Arian view of scripture. I don’t have any problem with the idea you argue from Proverbs.

IMO, this is flimsy evidence to support your conclusions. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit sometimes share the same title, as per your example of “Yahweh”. If there is any evidence to support your claims; this is not it.

This is again just sensationalism. It does not prove your contention, and in fact it shows that you are willing to grasp at straws to argue your case. The silence of the Holy Spirit in the Nicene formula was an example of their shortsighted fixation over whether or not Jesus was homousious (of the same essence) with the Father - to the neglect of the Holy Spirit. This cannot be used to argue that the Nicene fathers identified with your hypothesis - to the contrary - they heartily rejected your hypothesis.

The rest of your reasoning is weak, IMO, so I will not go into wordplay as a proof. The greater flaw in your hypothesis about the Holy Spirit is the absence of witnesses who support your claim. You can only point to the silence of Justin in Trypho as your evidence. This idea you present of the Holy Spirit is denied by other 2nd and 3rd century witnesses; such as Hermas; Athenagoras; Iranaeus; Tertullian; Origen; Novatian, etc, and more poignantly, it is denied elsewhere by Justin Martyr.

I have no interest in whitewashing St Athanasius of his sins, but I must challenge your tendentious portrayal of the man. You claim that “Athanasius turned christian violence and crime into an art form.” What is your evidence for this? What authorities are you relying on? Or are you simply taking the testimonies of his enemies at face-value?

These kinds of ad hominem attacks on our fathers in Christ are unseemly. For all of his faults and sins, we who are followers of Christ owe St Athanasius the Apostolic more than we know.

I would recommend the book by Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church. It has a lot of details regarding Athanasius, and how he was viewed pro and con by 4th century persons - almost all of whom were regarded as his friends (theologically).

amazon.com/Hilary-Poitiers-Conscience-Fourth-Century-University/dp/0853235724

Sorry, Akimel, but I find your ill-researched adoration of Athanasius unseemly.

Sorry, but I feel the opposite way. Athanasius was the beginning of the end of the organic apostolic church. I think Athanasius should be seen as the villain for what he was; and the church needs to undo the falsehoods and institutional developments that Athanasius was instrumental in developing. His theology, IMO, should be completely expunged from church history. The 4th century was a disgusting era of the church - akin to the time of Jezebel and Ahab, or Manasseh. It is because the institutional church was born at this time that heroes were required and forced on us by wholesale ignorance. I have read many of the writings of the first 5 centuries, and I know from my personal encounter that the church had fallen away in the 4th century, and this information is covered-up by those who took over management of the church as the new caretakers. Athanasius belongs to the new management which replaced the apostolic church. I am not supportive of the counterfeit - I would have all people return to their apostolic roots. All christians are indebted to the apostles; not to the state-church which usurped the apostles. You owe your allegiance to Christ - not to any man-made institution in league with the state. Christ alone is King of Kings, Lord of Lords.

Stefcui, your disagreement with the theology of Athanasius is irrelevant. You have charged Athanasius with immorality, even criminality; yet you have provided no evidence for these charges, just as Athanasius’s enemies once did, when they falsely accused him of murder before imperial authority (the alleged victim was later discovered to be quite alive). You have failed to mention that Alexandria was well known, long before the fourth century, for its violence and rioting, nor have you mentioned that anti-imperial sentiment was exceptionally strong in Egypt. Finally, you have failed to mention that Athanasius was beloved by a large proportion of the Coptic population, who welcomed him home as a hero after each of his exiles. Whatever one might think of his theological convictions, and however disappointed one might be that he “won the day” against his Arian opponents, he was a great, albeit controversial, man—controversial in the same way that Abraham Lincoln was controversial. One either loved Lincoln or hated him. Neutrality of opinion was rarely an option.

For a brief survey of Athanasius’s life, see the Introduction of Khaled Anatolios’s book Athanasius. Anatolios devotes a several pages to the conflicting historical judgments about Athanasius’s character.

As patristics scholar and theologian Andrew Louth writes, “We should be very cautious in drawing large conclusions about a figure as strange to us as a fourth-century Coptic patriarch.”

Paidion,

St Justin Marty is an interesting theologian, in my opinion, because he was the first Christian theologian who attempted to interpret the new Christian religion to the pagan world. But what I find most interesting about Justin, though, is his appropriation of the Hellenistic understanding of divinity by which to speak of Christ as divine Logos. Here we find the divine located within the continuum of being, with God the Father at the highest, most distant point. The Logos is needed to mediate between the inaccessible Father and the created world. As John Behr writes: Justin “shares the common philosophical presupposition of his day that as God is so totally transcendent to created reality he needs an intermediary, his Word, to act for him and to mediate between himself and creation” (The Road to Nicaea, p. 103). The Logos can only fulfill this function if he is less “divine” than God. Hence Justin’s description of the Logos as “another God and Lord besides the Maker of all” (Dial. 56.4).

St Irenaeus, Justin’s contemporary, criticized this kind of subordination for soteriological reasons, as Behr explains: “For Irenaeus, such subordination would destroy the whole economy: if God himself has not become visible in his Son, Jesus Christ, then no real communion between God and man has been established” (p. 104).

Another way of identifying the critical weakness of Justin this: he failed to appropriate the “exclusive monotheism” of Judaism. Perhaps this explains why he was unable, unlike Irenaeus, to speak of a creatio ex nihilo.

Hi Akimel (or Fr Aidan Kimel?),

Anyone who is even crudely familiar with the life of Athanasius will know that he was exiled 5 times by 4 different emperors over a very long period of time. Athanasius was imprisoned on criminal charges against the state. He was imprisoned first by Constantine, “a friend”. After he was released from prison, Conatantine’s son, Constantius II, had again banished Athanasius. Athanasius had continually disregarded the emperors orders and returned to his see in Egypt. Constantius II had then ordered that Athanasius be put to death if Athanasius disobeyed him another time. Pope Julius I had fought hard to have Athanasius released, but councils were either bias heavily for or heavily against Athanasius. Another of Constantine’s sons, Constans, worked with Pope Julius I and had Athanasius released, but shortly after Athanasius had provoked the emperor again and was again banished by Constantius II. Athanasius’ response to the emperor was to label the emperor the precursor to the antichrist. Athanasius had incited the Egyptian crowds toward civil disobedience and mutiny. Emperor Julian, who was not a christian, but had deliberately released christian prisoners who were ideologically at war with each other, insisted that this was with the exception of Athanasius. 2 years later, emperor Valens also imprisoned Athanasius.

From WIKI:

No one in the 4th century was as recognized for their criminality as was Athanasius. There were charges of defiling an altar, practicing magic, being a political agitator, selling Church grain that had been meant to feed the poor for his own personal gain (withheld grain shipments to Constantinople as a protest), and for suppressing dissent through provoking violence and murder. For these crimes Athanasius was found guilty by a council of bishops as well as the investigation of the emperors. Athanasius was later exonerated once the papacy had full imperial backing, as they started to re-write history which placed Athanasius, and other criminals who sided with the Roman clergy, in a positive light. This was an ideological war which was being fought, and the winner of that war was the Roman clergy. They soon after had strengthened the demands on all churches to become subservient to the pope, which is the true motive behind the Nicene doctrines which Athanasius championed.

This was a weakness of the Egyptians that Athanasius had exploited. It was for this very reason that Athanasius was considered so dangerous. Soon after this the Egyptians had destroyed the great library of Alexandria and had pulled the limbs off of the female academic, Hypatia. Over 10,000 followers of Origen were slaughtered in the blood-fest which followed. These were extremely viscous times which the church leaders of Egypt had become responsible for. Athanasius had become the worst political agitator, followed by Cyril. The Roman clergy was using these christian militants in Egypt (and elsewhere) to gain leverage with the emperor, which they soon received in the Edict of Thessalonica. Egyptian and Roman clergy are specifically named in that legal document.

This was a criminal population who were akin to the hooligans of the UK. You seem to pick pieces of history out while having no understanding of the context. It is because of this widespread ignorance that the church has been able to get away with such crimes and clandestine activities, and good people have been sent in as ignorant pawns to defend the honor of a corrupt system. I believe your intentions are good, Akimel, but you are trying to defend the monster that the church became under this new management.

Forget about the 4th century church and return to the apostles - the true founders of our faith. The Orthodox church has made heroes of these 4th century men because their faith is largely derivative of their theology. This theology was baked in poisonous times, and the very best of saints were tainted. Basil, for instance, feigning illness to get Gregory Nazianzen to come to Ceasarea to vote for him as the new prelate. Gregory also mentions many of these diabolical 4th century poisons in Oration 2, which you surely are familiar with. I do understand that your faith is built on this 4th century foundation, and you will not easily be moved from this sandy soil. That is your prerogative. But I do encourage you to seek to identify firstly with the Apostles, and then with those who were taught by the apostles of the 2nd century. As you have noted to Paidion, Justin Martyr did not agree with Athanasius, or the Cappadocian Fathers. In fact, show me any of the earlier fathers who did? The 4th century dogma went away from the apostolic roots, which your adoration of the 4th century saints refuses to let you see this. That is the danger that the 4th century traditions hold on us: they are a forced blindness.

Steve