The Homoians: Proto-Protestants of the Post-Nicene Era

‘Homoian’ is a term used for those who subscribed to the articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity formulated by the ecumenical councils of Arminium and Seleucia, which were held in 359 AD in an attempt to resolve the ongoing doctrinal controversies of the fourth century. Their theology and practice is marked by several noteworthy traits shared in common with later Protestantism:

1) The translation of the Bible into the vernacular: Ulfilas, the ‘missionary to the Goths’, a prominent Homoian, translated nearly the entirety of the holy scriptures into the ancient Gothic tongue. Martin Luther was not the first to translate the scriptures into a vernacular German language for use by the people.

2) Sola scriptura: The ancient Homoians repeatedly appealed to scripture as the authoritative source of doctrinal knowledge; not merely as one source of many, or one on equal footings with councils, but as the ultimate and only ordinary source from which legitimate Christian doctrine and practice could be known. Bishop Maximinus makes clear, for example, that the Homoians held the council of Arminium to be authoritative as a subordinate authority to the holy scriptures. “I wanted the decree of the Council of Ariminum to be present, not to excuse myself, but to show the authority of those fathers who handed on to us in accord with the divine scriptures the faith which they learned from the divine scriptures.” (Debate with Augustine)

3) That scripture can offer a corrective to errors made by ecumenical councils and popes: This really falls under sola scriptura as well, but it is such a noteworthy point that it really deserves special emphasis. The Homoian councils of Arminium and Seleucia ruled that while the fathers as the council if Nicea thirty-four years earlier had intended the extra-biblical language of ‘co-essentiality’ to have a biblical meaning, the introduction of such ambiguous, ill-understood, and extra-scriptural language had proved too problematic to retain it as dogma. The mistake of the first ecumenical council would be rectified on a scriptural basis:

“But the word ‘substance,’ which was too simply inserted by the Fathers, and, not being understood by the people, was a cause of scandal through its not being found in the Scriptures, it has seemed good to us to remove, and that for the future no mention whatever be permitted of the ‘substance’ of the Father and the Son. Nor must one ‘essence’ be named in relation to the person of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call Him and teach; but all the heresies, both those already condemned, and any, if such there be, which have risen against the document thus put forth, let them be anathema.” (Council of Arminium)

And so we see that a concern of the Homoians was that the church’s dogma be simple enough to be easily understood by the average Christian, as the ancient rule of faith was, and that it not be allowed to become so complicated and esoteric by the introduction of difficult philosophical terms that the average Christian could have no meaningful comprehension of the church’s doctrine.

It is noteworthy here that the fact that the language of Nicea is foreign to scripture is cited as a major aspect of why it should be removed, and replaced with a confession that was indisputably biblical. According to the Homoians, such vague expressions as those of Nicea, when they are ill-understood, need not be retained, even though the have the authority of an ecumenical council behind them. The endorsement of an ecumenical council was not enough to put the ‘homoousian’ articulation of the Trinity beyond question; when the language became a problem, it could be jettisoned, because a council was not enough to make the matter indisputable. Scripture was the standard, and since the problematic terminology was not given in the scriptures, it need not be retained when it had outlived its usefulness. Such an attitude towards the dogmas of councils clearly prefigures that of later Protestantism.

While the issue of the Pope’s opinion does not seem to have factored as heavily into these fourth-century disputes as it would in the Reformation, its noteworthy that the Homoian councils of Arminium and Seleucia just as much implied that the Papacy had erred, as it did the council of Nicea. The papacy had strongly supported the Nicene articulation of the Trinity, and the Pope at the time adamantly refused to assent to the decisions of these Homoian ecumenical councils. Yet the Homoians did not see a problem with disagreeing with the Bishop of Rome; scripture was the authority, and the Pope’s opinion could safely be disregarded when it contradicted the scriptures and the best interest of the church. In this way too, the ancient Homoians prefigured later Protestantism.

4) The Homoians ended up separated from the ecclesiastical hierarchies of the Roman churches by no fault of their own: Like later Protestantism, the Homoian position was eventually condemned by a later council, that held in Constantinople in 381, which, despite being local rather than ecumenical in representation, is remembered by many as an ecumenical council. Those bishops within the church hierarchies that fell within the bounds of the Roman Empire who disagreed with the new Emperor Theodosius I’s effectively unilateral doctrinal decisions, were unceremoniously ejected from their episcopates, and replaced by others who would comply with the Emperor’s wishes. Those Homoians who found themselves within the expansive bounds of the Roman Empire found themselves forced to continue on apart from the Imperial hierarchy and the papacy, continuing to meet together for centuries to come in houses and private settings, living as a persecuted minority. Outside the bounds of the Empire, the established churches of the Vandals, Goths, Gepids, and other Germanic peoples continued to be Homoian. For centuries these often existed side-by-side with Roman churches, as these tribes conquered and settled the territories formerly belonging to the Western Roman Empire. Like later Protestantism, the institutional split between Homoians and the Roman churches occurred because the Roman churches wrongly excommunicated them, forcing them to continue on without the fellowship of the Roman hierarchy.

All in all its interesting to consider the many similarities that the Homoians had with Protestantism. This is especially so when we consider the reactive influence that these Homoian traits may have had on the development of the Roman Catholic church; the church that Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers faced was not one that had never dealt with these things in the past, which had never considered such a way of looking at the authority of scripture and councils, etc, but one which had already effectively rejected the Protestant positions on some of the most central issues of the Reformation (such as sola scriptura) some thousand years prior to the Protestant Reformation. It is a shame that Protestantism, instead of examining the theology of their Homoian forefathers, and recognizing it as biblical, have generally remained mostly ignorant of this history, and have generally looked at it from the perspective of the Roman Catholic church, rather than with sympathy for their fourth-century counterparts.

Numerical Vs Generic Unity of Substance

Semi-modalism is built upon a twisting of the Nicene concept of co-essentiality. In the Nicene era and its creed, for multiple persons to be co-essential meant that nothing more than that they, as truly distinct rational individual beings (that is, persons) shared a common nature or species. A common analogy used by the Nicene fathers to capture their meaning, for example, is of three men being co-essential, in that they, while remaining three distinct individuals, share a common and identical human nature. Although there are three men, there is only one nature between them, human nature. Such was the original meaning of co-essentiality.

For example, Athanasius said:

“Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming those who have said that the Son was coessential with the Father, and yet let us examine the very term ‘Coessential,’ in itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at all, and whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son. For you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of essence, but of habits, and qualities; for in the case of essences we speak, not of likeness, but of identity. Man, for instance, is said to be like man, not in essence, but according to habit and character; for in essence men are of one nature. And again, man is not said to be unlike dog, but to be of different nature. Accordingly while the former [men] are of one nature and coessential, the latter are different in both.”

Hilary of Poitiers likewise clarified:

“Since, however, we have frequently to mention the words essence and substance, we must determine the meaning of essence, lest in discussing facts we prove ignorant of the signification of our words. Essence is a reality which is, or the reality of those things from which it is, and which subsists inasmuch as it is permanent. Now we can speak of the essence, or nature, or genus, or substance of anything. And the strict reason why the word essence is employed is because it is always. But this is identical with substance, because a thing which is, necessarily subsists in itself, and whatever thus subsists possesses unquestionably a permanent genus, nature or substance. When, therefore, we say that essence signifies nature, or genus, or substance, we mean the essence of that thing which permanently exists in the nature, genus, or substance.

And Basil of Caesarea wrote:

“The distinction between οὐσία [essence] and ὑπόστασις [person] is the same as that between the general and the particular ; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.” (Letter 236)”

This understanding of co-essentiality is likewise required by the council of Chalcedon:

“our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood”

Its clear, then, that the original intent of declaring that the Father, Son, and Spirit share one essence was not to make Them out to all be one person, one individual being, but simply to declare that They shared a common nature or species. This meaning changed, however, and was not kept clear as time went on; the Western churches going to far as to eventually formally change the meaning of co-essentiality in the 4th Lateran council in 1215.  Rather than indicating a generic unity of sharing one nature, now co-essentiality was defined as teaching that the unity the persons shared was of being one single numerically individual reality, one rational individual being- that is, in reality, one person. The ‘essence’ was no longer viewed as a nature, but a single subsistent ‘supreme reality’.

“We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately. Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds.” (From Canon 2)

This teaching is a drastic departure from the faith of the early church, and represents the culmination of what many in the Nicene era had feared might result from the introduction of ‘essence’ speculation into the church’s dogma. A council of fathers gathered in Antioch in 345 had specified their belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit were not “one supreme reality”, that is, one person, one individual rational being, but rather, three:

“Nor again, in confessing three realities and three persons, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three; since we acknowledge the self-complete and unbegotten and unbegun and invisible God to be one only, the God and Father (John 20:17) of the Only-begotten, who alone has being from Himself, and alone vouchsafes this to all others bountifully.” (Macrostich)

Later in the same creed they went on to condemn the very view the 4th Lateran would later make dogma for the Roman churches:

“And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take the three names of one and the same reality and person, we justly proscribe from the Church, because they suppose the illimitable and impassible Father to be also limitable and passable through His becoming man. For such are they whom Romans call Patripassians, and we Sabellians. For we acknowledge that the Father who sent, remained in the peculiar state of His unchangeable Godhead, and that Christ who was sent fulfilled the economy of the Incarnation.”

But one need not wait until the fourth century to find fathers who clearly taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit were not one numerically individual thing, one person. Second century father Justin Martyr, one of the earliest and best of the fathers, clearly understood the Father and Son to be numerically distinct persons, two distinct rational individual beings, not merely two names of or modes of one and the same reality:

“When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God.” (Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter 29)

“And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.” (Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter 128)

“You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.” (Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter 129)

It is clear also, that Justin did not speak of merely his own opinion in these matters, but as an apologist, spoke on behalf of the Christians of his time; and anyone who wishes to, may read his contemporary fathers, and see their agreement.

Semi-modalism, then, in proclaiming the the persons of the Trinity are numerically one substance, one individual, is clearly at odds with both the original dogmatic conception of co-essentiality held by the Nicene fathers, which proclaimed co-essentiality to mean nothing more than a mere generic unity of nature between really distinct individuals, as well as being at odds with the faith of the ante-nicene fathers, going back as close to the apostles as we can find.

For a look at how this semi-modalistic conception of the Trinity is opposed to scripture itself, and the very fundamental tenets of the Christian faith it teaches, see here.

Questions on the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed

The so-called Athanasian Creed, not authored by Athanasius, but by an anonymous medieval author, gives a long summary of Augustinian trinitarian dogma. It was not the product of, nor received the official sanction of, any of the supposed ‘7 ecumenical councils’. It reads as follows:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

 

Questions:

1) Does not the teaching that ‘in the Trinity, none is greater or less than another’, contradict the Lord’s own statement, “My Father is greater than I”?

2) If the response to this is that the statement “My Father is greater than I” must be understood in a nuanced way, so that in once sense the Father is greater than the Son, and in another They are equal, then is the creed not convicted of being too broad in its statement, and in error, since it does not make any such distinction in that place?

3) Does not declaring that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal contradict the scriptures which say “God is the head of Christ”, and all the passages in the Old and New Testaments in which the Father is said to be the God of the Son, and that the Son acts according to the will of the Father, and can do nothing apart from the Father?

4) Does not declaring that the Son and Holy Spirit are ‘Almighty’ (Ruler over all) together with the Father clearly contradict the scriptures, which only call the Father “God Almighty”, and declare Him alone to be the Head and God of all things, even of His Son and Spirit?

5) Can something which contradicts the scriptures be fairly made to be standard which one must assent to be saved?

6) Does not saying that the Holy Spirit is ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ go beyond what can be proven from the scriptures?

7) Does not saying that the persons of the Trinity share one metaphysical nature go beyond what can be proven from the scriptures?

8) Can something which cannot be either proven nor disproven by the scriptures rightly be set up as a dogmatic standard which on must assent to in order to be saved?

9) Is it in the authority of any earthly man to set up, apart from the scriptures, or against the scriptures, their own opinions as a standard which others must consent to in order to be saved?

10) Does not the Athanasian Creed contradict the creed of the councils of Arminium and Seleucia, which have the approval of an ecumenical council?

11) How can a creed which contradicts the decision of an ecumenical council be counted as the catholic faith?

12) Since the so-called Athanasian creed includes the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but from the Father and the Son, which the churches of East reject, how can the doctrine it teaches be counted catholic, or universal?

13) How can a creed which declares an equality of authority between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by declaring Them to each be equally ‘Almighty’, be said to teach the catholic faith, when this notion contradicts the teaching of the ante-nicenes, who taught that there is a divine monarchy, with the Father, as the one God, at its head? How can a doctrine be called ‘catholic’ or universal, which could not find acceptance among the churches in the first three centuries after the apostles?

14) Does not the creed break with older trinitarian standards when it applies the title of the Son “one Lord”, and the title of the Father “one God” both to the Trinity as a whole instead of those persons individually?

15) How can a creed teaching Chalcedonian christology, which would be neither acceptable to the Gothic and Vandal Homoian churches, the ‘Nestorian’ Oriental Orthodox churches, nor the Coptic Miaphysite churches, be considered to teach the catholic faith? Or what is universal, or catholic, about doctrines which the whole church is not in agreement upon?

16) Is not the language of the Creed that there “the Father is ‘x’, the Son is ‘x’, the Spirit is ‘x’, yet there are not three ‘x’s, but one ‘x'” manifestly paradoxical?

17) Does not such paradoxical language, which is unintelligible to most, constitute a needless stumbling block to the simple and less-educated?

18) If a creed’s use is to express belief, then is it not requisite that for a creed to be useful, it must be believed?

19) How can people be said to believe what they do not understand the meaning of? Merely giving assent to a series of words which one does not comprehend the significance of can hardly be counted as belief, can it?

20) If then the creed, by being needlessly paradoxical and confusing, is unintelligible to the masses, is it not necessarily a useless creed, since it does not make known the actual beliefs of most who are compelled to give assent to it? And if it does accurately represent the beliefs of an elite few, since it fails to meaningfully communicate that view to the masses, is it not also useless on that count?

21) Finally, how can a creed which contains so so many propositions which are contradictory to the scriptures, and so many propositions which are highly controversial among the churches, and rejected by many of them, and which is so confused, paradoxical, and incoherent in what it says, put itself on such a high and lofty pedestal as to say that anyone who holds a different opinion than what it says, or does not think the same way, shall be damned, and is no Christian? Is it not the greatest hubris to put such a creed on the same level with scripture, in making it a standard which must be believed to be saved, although it contains many things not found in the scriptures?

Thoughts and Questions on the Councils of Arminium and Seleucia

-The joint councils of Arminium and Seleucia met in 359 to resolve the ongoing trinitarian debates of the fourth century. The council of Nicea had succeeded in largely nullifying the threat of Arianism, but also, by introducing highly philosophical, extra-biblical, controversial language of ‘ousia’, ‘being’, or ‘substance’, had continued to be a source of controversy to the churches of the Roman empire.

-The joint councils of Arminium and Seleucia were called by emperor Constantius to settle the ongoing debates that divided the church. These councils were intended to be ecumenical, and their decision was one. They met in separate locations sheerly for the convenience of the bishops attending. The council of Arminium alone was said to have included 330 bishops, making it larger than Nicea, and over twice as large as the first council of Constantinople.

-The decision of these councils, with the approval of the emperor, was to remove all language of ‘ousia’ from the church’s dogma, and to ban extra-biblical speculation on what the metaphysical relation of the Son’s nature to that of the Father is. The Son was to be described as “like to the Father Who begat Him, according to the scriptures”, and after a brief creed, their decision included this statement: “But the name of ‘essence,’ which was set down by the fathers in simplicity, and, being unknown by the people, caused offense, because the Scriptures do not contain it, it has seemed good to abolish, and for the future to make no mention of it at all; since the divine scriptures have made no mention of the essence of Father and Son. For neither ought ‘subsistence’ to be named concerning Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But we say that the Son is like the Father, as the divine Scriptures say and teach; and all the heresies, both those which have been already condemned, and whatever are of modern date, being contrary to this published statement, be they anathema.”

-Although the council proscribed all previously condemned heresies, and thus that of Arius as well, it has been slandered by the Romans and homoousians as an Arian council, and a victory of Arianism.

Questions:

1) Were not the councils of Arminium and Seleucia faithful to the instruction of the apostle Paul in holding fast to “the pattern of sound words” given in the scriptures?

2) Do not the councils of Arminium and Seleucia constitute a valid second ecumenical council?

3) How can a decision which maintained the anathemas of previous councils against Arianism, and thus continued to proscribe Arians from communion, be Arian? How can the continued excommunication of Arians represent a victory of that heresy?

4) If, as the Romans and homoousians have so been inclined to say, the councils pronounced a sentence in favor of Arianism, did not the churches err in their official teachings?

5) Is a refusal to call the Son ‘homoousias’ with the Father not damnable heresy, as the official decisions of later councils say?

6) If the church then supposedly erred in its official teachings in rejecting the word ‘homoousias’, in a damnable way, did the churches of the Roman empire not, according to that view, go apostate in 359? How can churches not be said to go apostate, if they embrace damnable heresy as their official teaching?

7) If the church then erred, as the homoousians are inclined to say, why then do the Eastern Orthodox, the Romans, the Coptics, and the other ancient communions hold that the church cannot err in its official teaching, since it is guided by the Spirit to be free from error?

8) If it be argued that the pressure of the Roman government on the church is what secured the decision of these councils, and thus they are invalid, why can it not equally be argued that the decisions of Nicea and Constantinople may likewise be disregarded on that same basis, since in both the Emperors were intimately involved?

9) If it will be argued in defense of the councils of Nicea and Constantinople that since the churches could not be compelled to compromise their faith in the face of three hundred years of open and brutal persecutions, therefore they surely would not have bent to the will of the emperors against the true sentiments of the churches, and so the involvement of the emperors in these councils cannot be said to invalidate their decisions, must not the same argument be equally valid when applied to the councils of Arminium and Seleucia?

10) If the churches of the fourth century believed, by way of an apostolic tradition, that ecumenical councils cannot err, as the Eastern Orthodox hold, why then were such a great multitude of bishops from both the eastern and western reaches of the Roman Empire willing to declare that Nicea had erred in introducing the term ‘homoousias’ into the church’s dogma? Does not such a decision manifestly testify that the ancient churches held no such sentiment about ecumenical councils?

11) If the approval of the Pope of Rome were known by the churches to be necessary for the decision of a council to be legitimate, as the papists claim, why then did the churches of the Roman empire give their acceptance to the decision of the councils of Arminium and Seleucia, which the Pope refused to consent to, and was therefore deposed?

12) Is it not conducive to the peace and unity of the churches to impose nothing on them beyond what can be proven from the scriptures, as the councils of Arminium and Seleucia sought to do?

13) If it is to be counted as a great sin to charge the churches with having apostatized, as some count it, are not those then who, while accepting the 7 so-called ecumenical councils, denounce those of Arminium  and Seleucia as Arian, guilty of the same supposed impiety they charge others with, since they must regard the churches as having apostatized for over twenty years following the councils of Arminium and Seleucia?

14) Is it not manifestly an impossible position to say that the church cannot err in its official teaching, when at Nicea, the church officially taught that the Son is ‘homoousias’ with the Father, and yet also officially taught at the councils of Arminium and Seleucia that it is improper to teach that the Son is ‘homoousias’ with the Father, and banned such speculation? Likewise is it not a manifest contradiction when the church officially taught at Arminium and Seleucia that Nicea had erred in introducing ‘homoousias’, while about twenty years later the churches officially taught that Nicea was correct in doing so, and made ‘homoousias’ a dogmatic standard again? How can two mutually exclusive positions be officially taught by the churches at different times, and it not require that in at least one of those decisions, the churches erred?

15) Are not those churches which hold sola scriptura, while requiring a dogmatic confession of ‘homoousias’ from their members, manifestly acting in self-contradiction?

16) Did not the Homoians who held to the decision of the councils of Arminium and Seleucia faithfully hold and teach a form of sola scriptura some one thousand years before the Protestant Reformation, and apply that principle more consistently than the latter?

17) According to the standard of the holy scriptures alone, can there be any insufficiency ascribed to describing the Son as “like the Father as the scriptures say and teach”?

18) If the Son is homoousias with the Father, and does by virtue of His divine nativity before the ages share one and the same metaphysical nature and essence with the Father, is He not “like the Father”? For He is another person from the Father; begotten, not unbegotten; Son, not Father. And so He cannot be said to be the same person, nor a completely identical person, but a like person.

19) Is not the confession of the Son being “like the Father, according to the scriptures”, without any mention of metaphysical nature, a more scriptural confession than describing the Son as homoousias?

20) Is it not better suited to the capacity of the simple and less-educated to describe the Son as being like the Father, as the scriptures teach, than to demand that the simple must learn platonic or aristotelian metaphysics to be good Christians?

21) Is it not better suited to the teaching of scripture, that while the Son is the exact representation of the Father’s person, the brightness of His glory, Who has life in Himself as He has life in Himself, Who is eternal and before all creation with the Father, through Whom all creation was made, and is the Image of the invisible God, and so not invisible as His Father is, to simply describe the Son as being “like the Father, according to the scriptures”, than to demand a philosophical confession which seems to contradict that the Son is from eternity the visible Image of the invisible God?

22) Has not the historic teaching of most, if not all homoousians, such as Hilary and Augustine, been that since the Son is of the same divine metaphysical nature as the Father, He must according to that nature be invisible?

23) And is not such teaching manifestly contradictory not only to the plain sense of the scriptures, but to the ecclesiastical tradition of the ante-nicene church, which taught that the Son, as the Angel of the Lord, was visible in His pre-incarnate nature? Did not those same ante-nicenes argue for the identity of the Angel of the Lord being the Son on the very basis of there being a difference between the Father and the Son, that the Father cannot be seen, but the Son can be, and on that very basis argue that the Son was the Angel of the Lord?

These questions are more intended to be rhetorical than to solicit an answer; answers and comments, however, are welcome.

Commentary on the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed

The Pseudo-Athanasian Creed is quite possibly the most heretical Creed ever officially approved of by church bodies. As I shall show below, far from summing up the Christian faith, it would be more accurately regarded as a creed of antichristian sentiments. That it’s supposed authorship by Athanasius is fraudulent is widely recognised by scholars, and I need not take time here to show what anyone can find with a quick search of the internet.

The Creed is still hailed by some as an ‘Ecumenical Creed’, an assertion which is quite laughable itself. The Creed is not used by the East, and by its inclusion of the filoque can be considered quite repugnant to Eastern orthodox thought. Its late authorship in medieval Europe is reflected in its doctrine, and cannot be considered representative of the theology of either its feigned author, Athanasius, or of any of the Eastern communions of churches. It belongs to the Roman Catholic church and its Protestant descendants only- making the claim that it is ecumenical obviously false, unless only those churches which one agrees with are included in the definition of ‘ecumenical’, in which case nearly any doctrine however obscure, so long as some small body of churches holds it, may be considered ‘ecumenical’.

The Creed itself touts that it is a summary of the catholic faith, which a person must believe to be saved. To a Protestant, or any real Christian, this statement is quite ridiculous, as the Creed well exceeds the holy scriptures in what it affirms, and downright contradicts them, as we shall see. Men are left with a choice, then, upon reading this bully of a creed, whether they will forsake the scriptures out of fear of its empty threats, or whether they will forsake the “catholic faith” of a medieval heretic for the true catholic faith taught by the holy and infallible scriptures, which alone are suited to be the ordinary rule of Christian faith.

Even church councils do not have the authority to bind our consciences beyond scripture, with doctrines and practices which have not been revealed by God, and thus cannot be ordinarily known to be legitimate. Yet this Creed is not the result of any council, or of any notable individual even, but of some anonymous author, summing up his own private opinion of what ought to be enforced on everyone else. That the Creed stands in need of both idle threats and a pretended authorship by Athanasius to gain adherents is itself a testament to how uncompelling its doctrines are. Only by threats and lies pertaining to its authorship, and the authority of the Pope, the antichrist of Rome, has this miserable blasphemy been forced upon the churches of the west.

The creed reads thus:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Lines 1-2 of the Creed have already been addressed- this anonymous Creed has no authority over any man, and its threats are as idle as its nonsensical propositions.

Line 3 begins the actual doctrinal meat of the creed, with the now sadly-famous phrase “That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity”. The one God, according to the scriptures, is the person of the Father in particular, not the Trinity. The Trinity is never even expressly mentioned as such in scripture. The one God, rather, throughout scripture, is always identified as the self-same person as the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The testimony of the early church also agrees with this; see: We Believe in One God, the Father Almighty for both scriptural proof and patristic witness to this truth.

The one God, is, according to the earlier standard of the church, the Nicene Creed, “the Father Almighty”. This is an accurate definition. It maintains scripture’s teaching that the one God is one person, the Father, and that He is the “Almighty”, or in Greek “Pantokrator”. This word and its meaning are important; it does not, like the English word “almighty” suggest unlimited ability or strength. Rather the word literally means “Ruler over all”- it denotes supreme headship and dominion over all, absolutely. Thus the term is applied exclusively to the Father, “the blessed and only Potentate” (1 Tim 6:15), Who “is the head of Christ” (1 Cor 11:3) and “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6).

That the Father is the one God is important to know, for scripture reveals it; but it is important to know not only that these words are true, but what they mean according to the scriptures. How, after all, can the Father be the “one God”, while the Son is also called God?

To answer this question it is important to understand what the term “God” even means in itself. It is a term used very frequently throughout the scriptures, not only for the Supreme God, the Father, the “Lord God Pantokrator” (Rev 4:8), but also for being as low as men and angels. As Jesus noted in John 10:35 “He [God] called them gods, to whom the word of God came”, speaking of a psalm where the men of Israel were called “gods”. In Psalm 82:1 “God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods”, calling created angels gods. Paul is well aware of this when he writes “For even if there are many called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”

Scripture then presents the word “God” as something which may be ascribed to many persons. What’s more, scripture treats the word “God” as a relative word, denoting relation rather than some absolute quality. Thus all throughout scripture we have statements where phrases like “my God”, “your God”, and “our God” are used. Sir Isaac Newton comments well on this point:

“This Being [God] governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God Pantokrator [Greek word usually translated “Almighty”], or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: These are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually a signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God; a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God.” (Newton, General Scholium)

Newton’s observations well account for how scripture uses the term “God”. To be “God” therefore is to have dominion, and Godhood is dominion. Thus scripture can justly call the judges of Israel and holy angels “gods” without this in any way blaspheming the one supreme God, the Father. That the Father is the one God then does not tell us something about His nature, but rather tells us that He is the one Who alone has supreme dominion over all, absolutely. Thus on the one hand, as Paul and other scriptures said, there are many gods, and yet in another sense, the highest sense, there is only one God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who alone has dominion over all things absolutely. This dominion (or Godhood) extends not only over all creation, but also over His own only-begotten Son, as we saw above. Thus Christ could say to His disciples, looking forward to His ascension “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

That the Son, although He is another individual person from the Father, the one God, is also called “God” should be no surprise at all. For the Lord said “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18). Having thus received Godhood over all creation from His Father, “in Him the fulness of deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9). Nor was this deity something the Son merely received upon His exaltation to the right hand of the Father, but from the beginning, as the only-begotten Son of God begotten prior to creation and all time, the “the Word was God”. And thus the Son is called “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6), and thus the Psalmist says to the Son “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (Ps 45:6-7 KJV).

The Son is then God and true God, but this does not make Him the Lord God Almighty, the one God, the only true God- for these titles belong to His Father alone, as His Father alone has Godhood over all things absolutely, including over the Son Himself; while the Son has Godhood over all creation which was made through Him, given to Him by the Father, which He exercises according to the Father’s will, on His behalf (John 5:30).

Godhood then is dominion, not a nature, and to be “God” is to have this dominion. For Christians then there is one God, the Father, the one Supreme Ruler over all, and His Son is also God, because the Father has given Him a share in that dominion over all creation, while the Son Himself is still subject to the Father as His God.

This understanding is an important basis for any discussion of theology or the Trinity. Without knowing what we mean by the term “God” and what it means for there to be “one God”, and without knowing what “Godhood” is, we cannot hope to accurately evaluate the pseudo-Athanasian Creed.

For the Creed then to say that there is one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity, is, according to the later sections of the Creed, seemingly meant to be equivalent to saying that there is one God in three persons, and three persons in one God. This is a fair reading since “Trinity” is historically a term that applies to three united persons.

We must ask then what is meant by saying that one God is in three persons? The one God, as we saw from scripture, is the person of the Father, one person. This one person is one of the three persons of the Trinity. One might guess that perhaps this phrase could be taken as referring to the Father indwelling the Son and Spirit, and They the Father, yet this cannot account for the phrase either, since the one God is not described here as one person in unity with two other by way of mutual indwelling, but as a distinct entity entirely which dwells in all three persons, including the Father.

This last observation should give us pause- the one God dwells in the Father? Such absurd blasphemy is reminiscent of the gnostic heresies of the second century, by which Satan sought to create an identity crisis surrounding the identity of God by making out as though the God who created all things and the Father, the God of the New Testament, are two different beings. Perish such a blasphemous thought! Yet this same blasphemy is revived in Augustinian trinitarianism such as is seen in this Creed.

The entire creed begins then by pretentiously summing up under the name under the name of “the catholic faith” a blasphemy and falsehood as great as that of Marcion and the gnostics. The one God does not dwell in the Father, but is the Father. We see then that the whole Creed starts off on a heretical note.

But what is the one God, according to the Creed? We are not told, except that this one God includes in itself the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and is in Them. As we shall see later, the author of the creed has no recognition of the biblical usage of the term God, but instead treats Godhood as a nature or metaphysical essence.

Lines 4-6 read “4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.” In these lines we see that “substance” and “Godhead” seem to be equated. While the “persons” are three, the substance is one, and noted as being undivided.

Here it is crucial to note that “substance” is being used in a way that potentially equivocates with its usage in the Nicene Creed. At first glance this is Nicene, like Nicea proclaiming that the persons of the Trinity share a common genus or nature or substance. But this Creed was authored in Latin, and in the Latin usage of “substance”, there were two possible meanings of the term. One, “secondary substance” is that of Nicea- genus, species, or kind. The second, “primary substance” was the more common usage, and refers to an individual, such as when a person is defined as “a rational substance”. The pseudo-Athanasian Creed is ambiguous, but likely uses the latter meaning.

This is likely at the very least from our knowledge of the historical context; in latin trinitarianism, the one God is a person, who in turn is the three real persons of the Trinity. Thus Augustine prayed to this person as “God the Trinity”. The Trinity as a whole, the “one God” of Augustine, is the one substance shared by the persons of the Trinity. At one time this substance is spoken of as though a genus, like at Nicea; at another, as a person, as Sabellius taught. Given this context, the ambiguity may be intentional; but certainly, if we read this creed in congruence with its medieval environment, it is fair to assume that the “one substance” here is in fact an individual, a primary substance.

The creed also sets out to distinguish the persons, saying that they must not be confounded with one another; the three persons are, according to the creed, truly distinct. This is important to remember, as later this true point is contradicted.

It then proclaims that the Godhead is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal among the three distinct persons. “Godhead”, as per line 35 of the Creed, is clearly meant as secondary substance, metaphysical essence, or nature. This is in keeping with Nicea, although the point is not one that can be proven to a certainty from the holy scriptures, which are to be the true source of our doctrine. The Father’s metaphysical nature is never fully disclosed to us; neither is that of His Son. Rather scripture reveals many attributes, actions, and offices of these persons, without giving us a platonic breakdown of their respective metaphysical natures. Thus such assertions, while plausible, are left to the realm of extra-biblical speculation. Thus to make them a rule of faith, and set them up as a standard which all men must believe to be saved, is to go well beyond scripture, and to say that men must assent to mere theories and plausibilities in order to be saved.

Such is not the teaching of the scriptures. We are told what we must hold to by the scriptures: “Test everything, and hold fast to that which is good.” (1 Thess 5:21). We are to test all doctrines that men suggest to us as being true, and even those which authorities insist upon us, by the scriptures, which are for us a precious and infallible first principle, which we, receiving by God-given faith, may test all other propositions by. Those doctrines then which are demonstrated from the scriptures are good, and we must hold fast to them, according to the command of scripture. But those which are, although not disproven, not absolutely proven either, we must leave within the realm of plausibilities and theories, and not, as though they were known with certainty to be true, enforce them upon others as a standard for communion.

The glory being “equal” among the persons is another statement found nowhere in scripture, again constituting conjecture which cannot be proven. Certainly the Son is proclaimed to be the only-begotten Son of the one God, the brightness of His glory, the exact representation of His person, and the image of Him, the invisible God, the Wisdom and Power of His Father, Who has life in Himself and the Father has life in Himself. Certainly the Son is like the Father and is very glorious. Yet we are not told that the glory of the Father and the Son is equal; much less is the Holy Spirit’s glory compared by scripture.

What we do know is that when Moses asked to see God’s glory, He was only allowed to see it partly and obscurely, for “No one can see my face and live” (Ex 33:20), God said to Him. No man then, we are assured has ever seen God’s glory, for “no man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18). Yet the Son was seen “face to face” (Gen 32:30) by men prior to the incarnation when He appeared as the Angel (or Messenger) of the Lord, ministering to the will of His Father prior to the incarnation. Likewise Isaiah saw Him in a vision in Isa 6, which John refers to in John 12:41 “These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.” (NKJV). The glory of the Son, then, was seen by mortal men, and they lived, yet the glory of the Father is such that “No one can see my face and live”. The one God is invisible, that is, unseeable, to mortal man, because to see God’s glory would kill us, we are told (Ex 33). Yet the Son’s glory, we are told, was seen, and though extremely great, was not deadly.

This certainly gives the appearance of some difference between the glory of the Father and that of the Son; between Him Who is invisible, and Him Who is the Image of that Invisible Person. Yet the matter is left open to conjecture; there may be ways to explain this apparent difference which allow for there to be, in some sense, an equality of glory and an identicality of essence. Two fires, for example, may share the same essence, both being truly fire by definition, and yet one may be larger than the other, and therefore brighter and hotter than the other. The difference in such a case can be viewed as one of magnitude, not one of kind. So perhaps something similar is true in respect to God and His Son, such that although the Son is visible and the Father invisible, yet this may arise from some other factor than a difference in essence or inequality of glory. Scripture does not specify, nor offer any reward or encouragement for digging into deep mysteries and things which God has not revealed to us.

This Creed, however, taking no heed of these things, seeks to be the corrector of scripture rather than its disciple. Let us not follow its bad example.

As far as the majesty being “co-eternal”, that the Son and Spirit are co-eternal with the Father is beyond doubt. The Son was begotten before the ages, and the ages and all time were created through Him (Heb 1:2, John 1:1-3, Prov 8:22-31). The Holy Spirit is called “the eternal Spirit” (Heb 9:14).

Next we come to line 7, which reads “7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.” This is flatly false. If one believes that the three persons share a common metaphysical nature, then certainly within that scope one could fairly assert that the Son and Holy Spirit are identical to the Father, but only in respect to Their nature. When we look at the persons on the whole, we must take into account their personal properties as well as their nature. The Father, for example, is unbegotten, uncaused, Father, and head over all things absolutely as the Supreme God. The Son and Spirit do not share any of these qualities with the Father. They do not beget Sons. They are not uncaused, but have the Father as Their Cause and Source. And it is manifestly obvious that by the very nature of being Supreme God, this quality cannot be communicated to another; and the Son and Spirit are under the Godhood of the Father, as we have already seen.

Line 7 of the creed then is shown to be utterly unbiblical and unpalatable to any true Christian. Had this been limited to the scope of essence, it could be reasonable, but the creed simply leaves the statement unqualified.

In the next lines the creed goes through a list of attributes and tries to demonstrate this principle given in line 7 with them each, stating that they are shared by the Father and the Son, and yet there is only one subject of that attribute. In this endeavor it repeatedly attempts to overthrow arithmetic, to no avail. One and one and one is three, not one. God did not send His Logos to teach men to abandon the rationality He gave us, but to save us. Yet the author of this Creed attempts a futile war against numbers, which, were he not serious, would be nearly comical.

Lines 8-9 read “The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.” That all three persons are uncreated is biblical. The Son was begotten, not created, and this mode of origination, whatever the difference may be between that and creation, is certainly unique to the Son, as He is “only-begotten” (John 3:16). All creatures, on the other hand, were made through Him (John 1:3), and thus the Son is categorically excluded from creation. The Holy Spirit likewise is said to have been the instrument of God in the creation of all angelic and heavenly spirits (Ps 33:6), and thus is excluded from possibly being a creature.

As to the Father, Son, and Spirit being incomprehensible, the term can be translated as “immeasurable”, “infinite”, or “illimitable”. Each of these carries somewhat different but related ideas. Such a confession follows logically from co-essentiality if an essential attribute is in view here.

Lines 10-12 continue “The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.”

The eternality of the persons of the Trinity has already been addressed and affirmed. As three distinct persons, each person is eternal. Yet the Creed goes further than this biblical assertion to affirm the heresy of modalism, in a deviant form. There are three eternal persons- the creed just admitted as much. To then turn and say that there is only one is to deny arithmetic, or to deny the proposition itself. It denies that there are three eternals- yet it has just confessed that there are three. Here we see the self-contradiction inherent in the Augustinian system of semi-modalism. There are three eternal persons in reality, and not one only. The assertion that there is only one, if given more weight, must be a denial that there are three truly; or else the assertion that there are really three must be a denial that there is only one.

One way to understand this in a somewhat less contradictory fashion is to suppose that one of these clauses is meant in a real and literal way, and the other merely nominal. The question is, if this were so, which is nominal? The weight of emphasis seems to be placed on the singularity, and so, in such an understanding the creed could only be understood to assert that there are nominally three persons, but not really. Yet such is the nature of these self-contradictory statements that one could forever wonder which half of the proposition the creed really supports, and never find an answer.

The qualities of being uncreated and incomprehensible get the same nonsensical treatment. If there are three eternal persons, then there is not only one eternal person. If there are three uncreated persons, then there is not only one uncreated person. Yet this creed nonsensically affirms mutually exclusive ideas. The idea that such statements consititute the catholic faith, and must be believed to be saved, is utter nonsense, without either logical or scriptural support.

We may wonder if these self-contradictory statements were not given out of a dishonest intent, with a view to be able to confound any opponent by always agreeing with what they might say, while also affirming the opposite.

In lines 13-14 the nonsense continues “So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.” There is indeed only one Almighty, according to scripture, for as we saw above, the term translated “Almighty” is the Greek word “Pantokrator” in the scriptures, which means “Ruler over all”. So it was translated into Latin “Omnipotent” which can be understood the same way. As we also discussed, only the Father is called “Almighty” in the scriptures, for the reason that only the person of the Father is “Lord God Pantokrator”, the one Supreme Authority over all.

That this blasphemous creed calls the Son and Spirit also “Almighty” is just as much a confounding of persons as if it had called Them both “Father”- there is only one Supreme Ruler over all, the Father, Who has dominion or Godhood not only over all creation but also over His own only-begotten Son and Holy Spirit. The assertion of three “Almighties” then is the assertion that there are three Supreme Gods, and thus is a denial of monotheism as taught by the scriptures. But this wretched creed can be counted on to contradict itself, which it does.

Line 15-16 continue saying “15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.”

The Holy Spirit is never to the knowledge of this author called “God” in the scriptures. In this respect, the Creed seemingly goes beyond what can be known from the scriptures and is said by them. It is accurate to the teaching of scripture that Father and Son are both God. Yet it is unbiblical in saying that They together are one God. The one God is not the Father and the Son, but the Father, as we said above. The Son also has been given a share in the Father’s godhood over all creation, and so, is not an independent or rival God, but rather participates in the Father’s monarchy, as the instrument by which the Father rules over all things through the Son. So there is only one Supreme God, the Father, and His Son is God, but subordinate to His Father, the one God. So although both persons are God, since the Son is under the Godhood of His Father, a monarchy is preserved, and there is one Supreme God, the Father. Such is the scriptural and early patristic reckoning of monotheism.

It continues “17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.” I am unaware of the Holy Spirit being called “Lord” in the scriptures. That the Son is Lord, and the Father Lord, is abundantly clear. Yet the way that the term is used in the scriptures has a special significance as a title special to the Son, by which His subordinate headship over all creation, while being under the Godhood of the Father, is denoted. Thus 1 Cor 8:6 says “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (KJV). In this special sense, in which being “Lord” denotes the Son’s subordinate role to the Father in governing the universe, the term cannot be fittingly applied to the Father. However, in a more general term , simply denoting dominion, it may fittingly be applied to the Father as well as the Son. The special sense which belongs to the Son is denoted by Him being called our “one Lord”. This convention is also common in the early church fathers.

To say that the three persons of the Trinity are together “one Lord” is not only to go against the teaching of scripture concerning this being a special title for the Son, but also approaches modalism. To say that three persons are one Lord comes very close to asserting that three persons are one person.

In lines 19-20 continue: “19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.”

True Christians are compelled to follow the scriptures, whatever they teach, and strive to be the disciples of the same. Yet this creed blasphemously sets out to be the corrector of the scriptures, constantly going beyond what they teach in what it affirms, and sometimes contradicting them blatantly. That there is one God and one Lord we have already examined, as well as in what sense this is the case. 1 Cor 8:6 says “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (KJV). In contrast to scripture and the Nicene Creed, this Creed represents clear degeneration in the western church’s understanding of these matters.

In lines 21-24 there is finally something reminiscent of Nicene theology: “21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.” Line 21-22 are accurate, as is 24. Line 23 includes the filoque so hated by the churches of the East, proving that this Creed is anything but ecumenical. It serves as just one more example of teaching that goes beyond what is revealed in scripture. The statement that the Holy Spirit is “proceeding” requires the interpretation that the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in John 15:26 is ontological, rather than economic.

Line 25-26 read “25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.” These statements are contrary to the plain teaching of the scriptures “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28 KJV). That all three persons are co-eternal is indeed taught by the scriptures, but that the Son and Spirit are equal to the Father is contradictory to biblical monotheism altogether, and to the plain sense of so many passages of scripture. The Son and Holy Spirit are under the headship and authority of the Father, the one God, and so, the Father is greater than the Son and Spirit in respect to authority. Also, as this Creed itself has acknowledged, the Son and Spirit are from the Father, the Father being the Source, Cause, and Origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and so in respect to causality, the Father Who is alone without Cause, Source, or Origin, must be considered greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit. To speculate in respect to essence here is to go beyond scripture’s revelation. But the fact stands, that while the Son of God freely taught, without giving qualification, that His Father is greater than He, this creed of antichrist outright denies this same truth.

Thus at this juncture the reader of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed is posed with a choice, as to whether they will allow themselves to be bullied into denying the true catholic faith by denying the holy scriptures, or if they will instead hold fast to scripture, and reject the creed. For with statements so openly contradictory to scripture, the creed forces a choice between the pretended “catholic faith” of its author, and the holy scriptures themselves.

To declare the Son equal with the Father, without qualification, is to imply that He is equal to the Father in authority and dominion; such a doctrine not only explicitly contradicts the scriptures, but also, by making two, or in this case three persons who are equally supreme in dominion and authority, makes there out to be three Gods, destroying biblical monotheism, which as we have said, is that there is only one Supreme Ruler over all absolutely, the Father, the one “Lord God Pantokrator”.

This doctrine of a Trinity of three co-equal persons then is a denial of monotheism, and the teaching of scripture, and the Christian faith.

Articles 27-28 finish off the section on the Trinity, saying “27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.” This is merely a repetition of the idle threats and foolish blasphemies the Creed began with, and need not be addressed again.

The rest of the Creed focuses on the incarnation, but I will not toil over that section of it. It is enough to show that it is no orthodox creed, and a denial of the Christian faith. No attempt at explaining the incarnation of the Lord on that foundation can have any hopeful prospect.

 

The Grievous Error of the Fourth Lateran Council

When doctrinal error is mentioned in respect to the Fourth Lateran Council, a number of issues could be brought up depending on what tradition is examining the council. Protestants reject its teaching on transubstantiation as error; Eastern Orthodox reject its teaching on the Filoque; the Oriental Orthodox would reject its Chalcedonian articulation of the hypostatic union. Everyone but the papists themselves takes issue with the council’s strong assertion of papal supremacy and authority (written, conveniently, by the Pope himself, as all the canons). But in this article, I want to draw attention to a lesser-known doctrinal error the council did much to promote: the anti-trinitarian doctrine of semi-modalism.

The Fourth Lateran Council is not primarily known today for its decisions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. The thirteenth-century Papal Council, held in a Roman palace, dealt with a host of issues, including crusades, defining and officially confessing the doctrine of transubstantiation, the filioque, and papal authority. Yet its impact on trinitarian doctrine for Roman Catholicism is actually very great (the council is generally rejected by protestant and Eastern churches, as it took place after the Great Schism, and prior to the Reformation, with significant parts of its rulings being rejected by the Reformers).

The council’s importance to Rome’s views on the Trinity is primarily because of the council’s dealings with Abbot Joachim of Fiore’s treatise on the Trinity, in which Joachim accused Peter Lombard of teaching heresy in his famous Sentences. The heresy Joachim had in view was none other than semi-modalism. Abbot Joachim recognised that teaching that the Trinity was a single conscious thing who is the three real persons of Father, Son, and Spirit, is far different than scripture’s teaching of that the one God is only one person, the Father, and made efforts to draw attention to this departure from scripture’s teaching. He correctly pointed out that Peter Lombard’s semi-modalism effectively made the Trinity itself into a fourth divine person, ultimately to the destruction of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The bishop of Rome and the council he had called did not agree with Abbot Joachim’s assessment. His teachings on the subject were condemned, and the council affirmed the already well-entrenched heresy of semi-modalism as the official Roman Catholic belief, as they officially redefined the doctrine of consubstantiality to no longer teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one and the same divine nature to instead mean than the Father, Son, and Spirit were the same conscious “reality”- in concept, a person. They avoided the language of “person” for this reality, denying Abbot Joachim’s criticism that conceiving of the Trinity this way was to believe in a fourth person of the Trinity, since to admit such would be obviously heretical.

This equivocation on the terminology of “person” and on the subject of consubstantiality have continued down to our own day, as semi-modalists continue to follow the pattern of substituting out another word besides “person” for the singular, personal, conscious, rational reality that they teach is the three persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit. They call this “thing” the “essence” or “substance” which exists in the three persons of the Trinity, while originally the Nicene church fathers introduced this language not to indicate that a person was three persons, but to speak of the single divine nature shared by the three persons of the Trinity. This fact can be seen clearly from their own writings.

Hilary of Poitiers, for example, wrote thus:

“IV. If any one dares to say that the Unborn God, or a part of Him, was born of Mary: let him be anathema.

42. The fact of the essence declared to be one in the Father and the Son having one name on account of their similarity of nature seemed to offer an opportunity to heretics to declare that the Unborn God, or a part of Him, was born of Mary. The danger was met by the wholesome resolution that he who declared this should be anathema. For the unity of the name which religion employs and which is based on the exact similarity of their natural essence, has not repudiated the Person of the begotten essence so as to represent, under cover of the unity of name, that the substance of God is singular and undifferentiated because we predicate one name for the essence of each, that is, predicate one God, on account of the exactly similar substance of the undivided nature in each Person.” (De Synodis)

Even in the post-nicene period, this classical understanding of co-essentiality can be clearly seen in the Chalcedonian Definition when it says:

“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divine nature and also perfect in human nature; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the divine nature, and co-essential with us according to the human nature; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the divine nature, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the human nature…”

Notice Christ is said to be co-essential with man according to his human nature. This is consistent with an understanding of essence as a general nature considered in abstract, such as human nature, or the divine nature. Christ being co-essential with man literally means he is of the same human nature as all other men. By way of parallel, which is obviously drawn by the Definition, Christ is also eternally co-essential with the Father as His Son, in that He has from all eternity the same divine nature as the Father. This same understanding can also be seen articulated by Basil the Great (see: https://contramodalism.com/2018/01/12/basil-the-great-on-the-distinction-between-essence-and-person/ ).

In contrast, the idea that co-essentiality would somehow mean that the subjects were one “thing”, with its own real concrete existence, does not fit at all with the Chalcedonian Definition. Christ is co-essential with man- yet there is no real existence to the human nature considered in abstract. Human nature finds real existence in human persons; but considered in abstract, it is only an idea, lacking concrete existence. Yet if we apply the Fourth Lateran Council’s semi-modalistic re-definition of co-essentiality to the Chalcedonian Definition, this is exactly the way we must understand it. Yet clearly, this idea is nonsensical.

So we are able to see a medieval papal redefinition of co-essentiality:

“We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately. Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds.” (From Canon 2)

This redefinition of co-essentiality is erroneous, as it ultimately makes the Father, Son, and Spirit into a single person who is all three together. This doctrine is mutually exclusive to the classical doctrine of the Trinity taught by scripture and the orthodox church fathers of the Nicene and Ante-Nicene eras which is summed up in the Nicene Creed.

The Roman Catholic Church needs to abandon this grievous error and return to the classical trinitarianism contended for by such Western church fathers as Irenaeus of Lyons and Novatian. Those of other traditions should take heed of this error hidden among the historically more conspicuous problems with the rulings of the Fourth Lateran Council. We may be thankful that both Protestant and Eastern churches are free from commitment to the canons of this council, and thus are not, like the Roman Catholic church, bound to the heresy of semi-modalism in an official capacity by the ruling of the Papal council.