Proto-Trinitarian

 Proto-Trinitarian

English is a living language. We are often reminded of this when we experience new words coming into use that one has never heard with the ear nor seen on the written page. Old words fall into disuse and often disappear altogether, while new words come to the fore and challenge us to embrace them and include them into our already crowded vocabulary.

Then there is this: the minefield of changing meanings of common words and phrases of a past generation. God forbid that one of my generation (baby boomer) call someone queer when we actually mean they are odd or strange acting—we are sure to be misunderstood. Since I am a biblical researcher and write mostly on theological matters, there are certain words that I must take great care to define just how they are being used. An example is the word “cult”. I may use the word “cult” as its primary and lexical meaning of “formal religious veneration: worship; a great devotion to a person, idea, or thing”, which is all positive when referencing Christianity and the worship of Jesus. However, the word has been so used in popular circles as to taint it altogether. Thus, a causal reader, who is unaccustomed to theological terminology is sure to misconstrue my meaning, or, at least, be confused.

During the last decade (2010-2020) I have noticed some new comers to the vocabulary of theology in the area of Godhead discussion. Two of these new kids on the block are the terms christophany and proto-trinitarian. I do not mean to imply that these words have been coined at some point during the last decade, but what I am observing is that they are just now surfacing as acceptable theological currency. Since I covered “christophany” in Godhead Theology (2015), I will only focus on “proto-trinitarian” in this  writing.

Like “christophany” the term “porto-trinitarian” is so new to the theological landscape that it does not, as yet, appear in the general English dictionaries. Also, as with the term “christophany”, “proto-trinitarian” has been coined, in this writers considered opinion, as a reflexive response to pressure the Modalistic Monarchian (Oneness) theology has been applying to the trinitarian camp for the past century. Ergo, Modalism has proven that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus of the New Testament. As a result, the Pluralists have tweaked their position to say that the Father makes no appearance in the Old Testament at all; that all appearances of God in the Jewish scriptures are christophanies, not theophanies. Ergo,  Modalists writers, in agreement with the scholarship coming from the intelligentsia of Christian schools of higher learning, have proven that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found within the New Testament, and that the Trinity was not the Godhead understanding of either the Lord’s apostles nor the Apostolic Fathers of the second century, and that a whole extra biblical vocabulary was coined to represent the evolving concept of a tri-personal deity.  Thus, the Trinity is an evolved dogma that did not appear in its present form until the late fourth or early fifth century. With this piece of church history being indisputable, the Puralists’ camp has coined a new term with which to label those churchmen of the second, third, and fourth centuries who knew nothing of a Societal Trinity which has three separate and distinct rational persons in society. By “in society” I mean in personal relationship. Thus, enter the term “proto-trinitarian”. 

The term “proto-trinitarian” can be confusing. What is meant by its use? That question may not be so easily answered and may depend on the one using it. The best we can do at this early stage of its use is to examine the term by way of its etymology.

Although the theological term “Trinity” has different meanings, depending on the one using it, most likely we can all agree that in relation to God the term “Trinity” means that God exists as three somethings — Terullian said “persons”; Augustine said, “three somewhats”; Anselm, “three I know not what”; Barth, “three ways of being” or “three modes”; Professor Moses Stuart said, “three distinctions”. Keeping a safe distance from tritheism we may safely affirm with Stuart and Barth that God exists as three modes or distinctions. We identify these modes/distinctions as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, remaining safely within the bounds of the Shema (Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Deutronomy 6:4 KJV) we have identified a Trinity that we can accept. However, that acceptable Trinity is most likely not the Trinity embraced by those putting forward the term “proto-trinitarian”. 

Continuing in our study of the etymology of our term “proto-trinitarian” we now look to the prefix “proto”. Primarily the term means original or primitive: first; anterior; relating to a precursor: ORIGIN. It arrives from the Greek: prōtos, ‘first’.  What follows is the definition given in Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2005: “1) First in time, original, primitive [protoplast] 2. first in importance, principal, chief [protonotary] 3 [P-] prehistoric or original: set of a people or language [Proto Germantic] 4 a) forming nouns on the way to becoming the (specified) thing or kind of person [proto-suburbia, a proto-terrorist] b) forming adjectives on the way to having the {specified) quality or relationship [a proto Cubist painting] 5 Chem. a) being the number of a series of compounds having the lowest proportion of the (specified) element or radical [protoxide] b) being the parent form of a (specified) substance.” Of the five definitions given, the first four seem to be applicable to our consideration in one form or another. The fifth may apply if one is generous with class definitions.

First, it is important to mention that by default the apostles of our Lord and, in fact, all the writers of the New Testament come under the label of “proto-trinitarian” by those who use the term as having legitimacy. This becomes important information when we understand that the term is employed to indicate that all those coming under its banner, though on the right path, had not yet arrived at the full truth of the Godhead. A true Christian must feel the sting, even the insult, at the insinuation that the apostles, the very ones who had their understanding to the Scriptures opened by divine fiat (Luke 24:45), did not know the truth of the Godhead.

At this point we will take a look at the various definitions and how they would be applied:

1. First in time, original, primitive [protoplast]: If this definition is intended, then the Godhead understanding of the first three centuries would be considered the “primitive” form of the finished dogma. This would be saying that the apostles, their surrogates, and the churchmen of the next two/three hundred years were the original Trinitarians, thou holding the dogma in its primitive form without any of the language (or what that language would imply) that would come along in later centuries.
2. First in importance, principal, chief [protonotary]: This can hardly be intended by those who coined the term, those who hold the Trinity in its finished form; because this definition would make the finished form of the Trinity (Societal Trinitarianism: i.e., the Athanasian Creed variety) a bastardization of the original, and, therefore, not worthy of adherence. This would, indeed, be the position of those, today, who continue to maintain the selfsame Godhead position as the Christians of the first three/four centuries. I.e., the Modalistic Monarchians.
3. [P-] prehistoric or original: set of a people or language [Proto Germantic]: This definition is much like the first, only here people groups and language groups are referenced. While definition #1 can be applied to the dogma, this definition #3 could apply to the people group holding said dogma.
4. Forming nouns on the way to becoming the (specified) thing or kind of person [proto-suburbia, a proto-terrorist] b) forming adjectives on the way to having the {specified) quality or relationship [a proto Cubist painting]: In all truthfulness this fourth definition permits the reader to comprehend what is actually intended by the epithet “proto-trinitarian”. This term is intended to reference a people and their dogma that are on their way to “becoming” the Trinity of later centuries—which is a Societal Trinitarianism which has separate and distinct rational persons, each possessing their own individual centers of intellect, will and volition, each interacting in personal relationships with each other.
5. Chem. a) being the number of a series of compounds having the lowest proportion of the (specified) element or radical [protoxide] b) being the parent form of a (specified) substance: Of the five definitions given, the first four seem to have some relation to our term under consideration, but this fifth definition can be disregarded as non-applicable. Unless the chemical qualities could somehow be transliterated and associated with the different personas of Father, Son and Holy Spirit which begin as modes but mutates along the way into rational persons. Tertullian actually attempts this transformation for his Economical Trinity in his treatise “Against Praseas” (See, Ante Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 978-1-56563-082-6, Vol. 3, Tertullian, Part Second, pages 597-627.) 

Misnomer

There is a need, for those holding to a Societal Trinity, to have a bridge to the apostolic church of the first century. Their legitimacy depends on whether or not such a connection can be made. If this bridge cannot be established between Societal Trinitarianism of the fifth century onward and the apostolic church of the apostles, then all of Roman Catholicism (which includes Protestantism), Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy (to a lesser degree) must be considered a wholly different religion from the apostolic church. The Hebraic-Christology of the Hebrew prophets, of which Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2 are examples, stands in stark contrast to the Logos-Christology of Plato, Philo, and Justin Martyr, which is embraced by modern Trinitarianism. 

Since modern scholarship has established the absence of any form of a Societal Trinitarianism during the first three centuries of the Lord’s church, modern Trinitarianism attempts to bridge themselves to the apostolic church by labeling the apostles and the churchmen of the first three/four  centuries as “proto-trinitarians”. This is a misnomer, however, in that there is nothing found within any writing of the Apostles or the Apostolic Church Fathers that comes anywhere close to the Trinitarian dogma of “Three In One”, as it presents itself in modern times—indeed, since the fifth century. (Even 1 John 5:7  [KJV], the Great Trinity Hope of finding itself in the Holy Scripture, proved to be a spurious text. And as for the only other text that lends itself to a Trinitarian understanding, Matthew 28:19: there are red flags all over it, as far as textual criticism is concerned.) Not even in the Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) is there a hint of a relational Trinity with three rational persons. 

In this view “proto-trinitarianism” would not be a proper epithet for the Godhead dogma of this period (first through the fourth centuries), but Monarchainism would be. This is what the majority of Christians of this time period actually called their dogma. Writing of this period of the Church, the Most Eminent Cardinal John Henry Newman of England (1801-1890) states: “Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. ... their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, and that the true faith was hardly preached in the churches” (Essays and Sketches, Vol I, Primitive Christianity 5:2). By “the true faith” Cardinal Newman meant the dogma of the Trinity. Tertullian writes of the numerical superiority of the Monarchians in his time (AD 155-240), and the steadfastness of their position: “To be sure, plain people, not to call them ignorant and common – of whom the greater portion of believers is always comprised – in as much as the rule of faith withdraws them from the many gods of the heathen world to the one true God, shrink back from the economy” (the economical trinity) “they are constantly throwing out the accusation that we preach two gods and three gods... . We hold, they say, the monarchy” (Against Parxeas ch III). Supporting the testimony of Cardinal Newman and Tertullian is the witness of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which also declares that Monarchianism was in the majority in the 3rd and 4th centuries: “Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large.... In the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism....” (I.S.B.E., Heading “Trinity” section 22.) 

Segueing off of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’s statement (“In the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism….” ) we are obliged to point out the following: The brand of Christianity that holds Societal Trinitarianism does not look to the Monarchians (“Noetus, Epigonus, Praxeas, Sabellius, etc.) as their forefathers in the Faith, but they look to men such as Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen. These men are less than stellar when it comes to their doctrine concerning Christ.  Hippolytus was the first anti-pope (in opposition to Calixtus, the legitimate Monarchian Bishop of Rome); Justin Martyr was a subordinationist who taught the Son of God to be a “second god” (Henry Chadwick “The Early Church” Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1962, page 85.);  Origen taught that the Son of God was the logos who, although eternal, was of a different substance than the Father; Tertullian taught that the Trinity was not eternal but came into existence sequentially (See Against Praxeas). His Godhead paradigm is called the Economic Trinity. One should ask: Why do the Roman Catholic and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox embrace suordinationalists such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen (Men who did not recognize the full deity of Christ and who would be placed outside of the Faith if they lived today.) as their church fathers? If the question was seriously asked and investigated the answer would be painfully clear: Their God (the Societal Trinity) comes into Christianity from the Greek logos philosophies, and the men mentioned were necessary steps to the finished Logos-Christological dogma. The route was Plato-Philo-Justin-Origen-Tertullian; the last mentioned gave to the world the first systematic theology of a Trinitarian dogma (Friedrich Loofs) based on the logos. It, further, should be pointed out that Tertullian was out of fellowship with the Orthodox and a member of an excommunicated group called Montanist at the time he wrote "Against Praxeas" (Tertulliam lamented the fact that Praxeas was received in fellowship by the Bishop of Rome and was successful in having Rome’s letter of fellowship recalled from the Montanist.); neither was Justin associated with the mainstream of Christianity of his time: In “Justin Martyr and Companions” Justin, though living in Rome for the second time and having a school there, confessed of not being knowledgeable of other Christians and their meeting places in Rome. It should be alarming to all Christians that the men modern Trinitarianism looks to as their headwater for Logos-Christology were not in fellowship with the Orthodox Christians of their time and would be excommunicated—to a man—by the very ones that sing their praises today.

In this climate there is no warrant to reclassify the doctrine of these centuries as in any way trinitarian. Any attempt to do so is seen as a means to artificially create a touchstone to the apostolic church. The orthodox of this age of the Church were Monarchians who believed in the Monarchy which saw Jesus and the Holy Spirit as self revelations of the Father. To label them as proto-trinitarians is a misnomer of the highest order.

The apostolic church, with the teaching of the Lord’s apostles of baptizing in the name of Jesus and the worship of the Monarchy, has always maintained a presence in the earth, though not always easily visible in the historical records of nations. The true apostolic church has had its existence alongside of the Church of Iniquity from the most earliest of times. Today, in the Year of Our Lord 2020, there are more than 116.8 million Modalistic Monarchains (Oneness Pentecostals) throughout the world, (According to the Pew Research Center, Pentecostals and Charismatic Christians numbered over 584 million or a quarter of the world's 2 billion Christians in 2011. According the the researchers of the Boston Globe, Oneness Pentecostals are just over 20% of that number. This data is nine years old at the time of the writing of this article and during this time Pentecostalism has been growing expeditiously in the Southern part of the globe.). To help put this number in some prospective, as of 2018 the world Jewish population was 14.6 million (DellaPergola, Sergio (2019), "World Jewish Population, 2018", in Dashefsky, Arnold; Sheskin, Ira M. (eds.), American Jewish Year Book 2018, American Jewish Year Book, 118, Springer International Publishing, pp. 361–449,).

Apostolically Speaking

☩ Jerry L Hayes

If you enjoyed this essay you would also like to read the essay entitled "New England Trinitarianism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2020/10/new-england-trinitarianism.html