What Happens in Rome Stays in Rome: The Great Trinity Controversy
2 Corinthians 13:5-14
5Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? —unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test! 6I hope you will find out that we have not failed. 7But we pray to God that you may not do anything wrong—not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. 8For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. 9For we rejoice when we are weak and you are strong. This is what we pray for, that you may become perfect. 10So I write these things while I am away from you, so that when I come, I may not have to be severe in using the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down. 11Finally, brothers and sisters, farewell. Put things in order, listen to my appeal, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you. 12Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the saints greet you. 13The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.
What Happens in Rome Stays in Rome: The Great Trinity Controversy
By
Richard Mario Procida, Esq.
Did you know that the word “Trinity” is not used in the Bible? There are passages from which scholars have derived the doctrine, but the New Testament never explicitly describes a Triune God. Instead,the Bible describes God as infinite. [Jeremiah 23:2 and Revelation 22:13] So how do we get the Trinity?
The Ebionites
The first Christians were the Ebionites(1st to 4th C.E.) These early Jewish followers of Christ believed Jesus to be the Messiah but not God. They insisted upon following the Jewish rites and laws, followed Jesus’ brother James [Galatians 1:19] and rejected Paul as apostate to the law. They denied the virgin birth and believed the words “Son of God” signified a special relationship with God just as Moses had a special relationship with God.
The Ebionites found support for their view in both the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament frequently uses the term “son of God”. The angels, many just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, and the Kings of Israel are all called “sons of God” in the Old Testament. [Catholic Encyclopedia] In 2 Samuel 7:14, God calls King David his son. God also refers to the nation of Israel as his begotten son. [Psalms 2:7; Hosea 11:1] In the New Testament, Luke calls Adam the “son of God.” [Luke 3:38] The term “son of God” should not be confused with the theological term “God the Son”. The later term is not found in the Bible. It is the third person of the Trinity as defined by church doctrine.
Early Christian Interpretations
There were three main competing views of the God’s relation to Christ in early Christianity: Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionists believed that Jesus was a human being who became God’s son by adoption either at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension. Sabelliansim is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different modes, manifestations, or experiences of God rather than three distinct persons. Arianism is the belief that Jesus Christ was divine and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father.
Adoptionism, also known as dynamic monarchianism, was the belief that Jesus was a human being, the child of Joseph and Mary, who God adopted as his son either at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension. Like the Ebionites, Adoptionists believed that God chose Jesus because of Jesus’ sinless devotion to God’s will. According to Paul of Samosata (200 to 275 CE), Bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268, Jesus kept himself sinless and achieved union with God.
Some scholars see Adoptionist concepts in the Gospel of Mark and in the writings of the Apostle Paul. In Mark, references to Jesus as the Son of God are strategically placed. [Mark 1:1 (“The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God”, but not in all versions), 5:7 (“What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?”) and 15:39 (“Surely this man was the Son of God!”).] Furthermore, Mark contains no infancy narrative. This suggests that the Virgin Birth narrative had yet to be elucidated at the time the author wrote.
The phrase “Son of God” at Mark 1:1 is not present in some early manuscripts. This reflects an Adoptionist view. In these early manuscripts, Jesus is not referred to as “Son of God” until after his Baptism. [Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (1993).]
Paul’s writings are the earliest New Testament writings. They do not explicitly mention the Virgin birth. Paul wrote of Jesus that he was “born of a woman, born under the law” [Galatians 4:4]. “As to his human nature [Jesus] was a descendant of David”, Paul wrote. [Romans 1:3] Hebrews also reflects an adoptionist view. In it God says to Jesus “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”. [Hebrews 1:5]
Sabellianism, also known as modalism, modalistic manarchianism, or modal manarchism, is the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three separate persons but are instead different way humans experience God. God is said to have three faces or masks. Considered perfectly orthodox at the time, Modalists point out that the only number ascribed to God is one. [Deuteronomy 6:4]
The writings of Tertullian (160-225) suggest that the majority of early Christians favored Sabellianism. Sabellianism is named after Sabellius, a third century theologian and priest who advanced modalism.
Tertullian labeled Modalism “Patripassianiam” meaning the Father suffered. In his work Adversus Praxeas, he attacked Modalists for implying that “God the Father” had suffered on the Cross. Tertullian accused Modalism of doing “a two-fold service for the devil in Rome”: It put to flight the Holy Spirit and crucified God the Father. 
Arianism
Arianism is attributed to Arius (252-336 CE). Arius taught that Jesus was divine, and that God sent him to earth for the salvation of mankind; but Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father or the Holy Spirit. God either created or utilized Christ for this purpose. Christ was not God by nature but was rather a changeable creature who God granted the dignity of becoming the “Son of God”. In this way the Son is subordinate to the Father.
Arians contend that scripture describes the Father’s supremacy in every way. [John 14:28 and Proverbs 8:22] God the Father, the creator of the world, is “unbegotten” having always existed. Jesus Christ was begotten and thereby had a beginning, but God is without beginning. Arianism became the dominant view in some regions in the time of the Roman Empire, notably the Visigoths until 589.
The Nicene Creed
Controversy over Arianism arose in the late 3rd century and persisted throughout most of the 4th century. It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests and monks to bishops, emperors and members of Rome’s Imperial family. The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.
In 325 Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius’ doctrine and formulated the original Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed describes Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” The Nicene Creed’s central term, used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, is Homoousios or Consubstantiality, meaning “of the same substance” or “of one being”.
Constantine exiled those who refused to accept the Nicene Creed, including Arius himself and the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius and his followers. He ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned; and he issued an edict condemning to death anyone who did not bring the book forward to be destroyed.
The Arian Controversy
The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy. Many bishops of the Eastern provinces disputed the homoousios. After Constantine’s death in 337, open dispute resumed. Constantine’s son Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire, encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene Creed.
Debates raged. In an attempt to come up with a new formula, three camps evolved. The first group opposed the Nicene terminology. They preferred the term homoiousios (alike in substance) to the Nicene homoousios, but they rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and co-eternality of the persons of the Trinity. Despite their rejection of Arius, they were called “semi-Arians” by their opponents.
The second group also avoided using the name of Arius but largely followed Arius’ teachings. In another attempt at compromise wording, they described the Son as being like (homoios) the Father rather than of the same substance (Homoousios).
The third group explicitly called upon Arius and described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father. Constantius wavered in his support between the first and second party and harshly persecuted the third.
The debates among these groups resulted in numerous synods, among them the Council of Sardica in 343, the Council of Sirmium in 358 and the double Council of Rimini and Seleucia in 359. There were no fewer than fourteen further creed formulas devised between 340 and 360. This lead the pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus to comment sarcastically: “The highways were covered with galloping bishops.” 
After Constantius’ death in 361, his successor Julian, a devotee of Rome’s pagan gods, declared that he would no longer attempt to favor one church faction over another. He allowed all exiled bishops to return. This resulted in increasing dissension.
The Emperor Valens, however, revived Constantius’ policy and supported the “Homoian” party, exiling bishops and often using force. During this persecution many bishops were exiled to the other ends of the Empire.
Valens died in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 and was succeeded by Theodosius I, who also adhered to the Nicene Creed. Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople in 380 CE he expelled the Homoiousianbishop, Demophilus of Constantinople, and surrendered the churches of that city to Gregory Nazianzus, the leader of the rather small Nicene community there. The act provoked rioting. The following February Nazianzus co-published an edict requiring all their subjects to profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene Creed) or be handed over for punishment.
Although much of the church hierarchy in the East had opposed the Nicene Creed for decades, Theodosius managed to achieve unity on its basis. In 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Nicene Creed of 381. This second and final Nicene Creed was supplemented with reference to the Holy Spirit as well as other changes. This is generally considered the end of the dispute about the Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic peoples.
Is There Scriptural Support for the Trinity?
Our scripture for today exhorts us to test ourselves and to realize that Jesus is within us. [2 Corinthians 13:5] Pray for one another as we struggle with issues of Truth. In the process we must be careful to build each other up rather than tear one another down. [2 Corinthians 13: 9-10]
Most importantly, we should be agreeable toward one another. Live in peace. Greet one another with a kiss, and experience our Lord Jesus Christ as grace, God as love, and the Holy Spirit as communion.
For a doctrine described as central to the Christian faith, the lack of any explicit description of the Trinity in scripture lead to dissension. TheEncyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” [Deuteronomy 6:4]
Scholars investigating the historical Jesus assert that Jesus taught neither his own equality with God or the Trinity. To those who follow the life and teaching of Jesus, the question of Christ’s divinity is largely inconsequential and a distraction from the message Jesus taught.
Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic and Trinitarian, found a reading of scripture to be far from conclusive. He wrote that Mark 10:18, Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Ephesians 1:17, 2 Corinthians 1:3,1 Peter 1:3, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:28, Mark 13:32, Philippians 2:5-10, and1 Corinthians 15:24-28 are texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus. They constitute “negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject.” Galatians 2:20, Acts 20:28, John 1:18, Colossians 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 1John 5:20, Romans 9:5, and 2 Peter 1:1 are texts where, by reason of textual variants or syntax, “the use of ‘God’ for Jesus is dubious.” Finally, Hebrews 1:8-9, John 1:1 and John 20:28 are “texts where clearly Jesus is called God”.
The Trinity was finally defined as three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal persons by the Athanasian Creed late in the 4th century. The Trinity is the teaching that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are co-eternal, co-equal, and indivisibly united as one being or ousia. Hypostasis means underlying state or underlying substance, the fundamental reality that supports all else.
The Trinity is said to be “a mystery of faith”. It is incomprehensible and incapable of logical demonstration. It’s “above reason” and incompatible with rational thought. Explanations often lack logical or philosophical basis. Saint Augustine explained that the Trinity is beyond human language, the definition of the Trinity as three persons is but a similitude needed in order to express it.

Conclusion
Today there are many non-Trinitarians who either call themselves Christians or whose churches arose historically out of Christianity. These include Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, some Quakers, Shakers, and Unitarian Universalists, among others.
Today it no longer makes sense to let matters of doctrine, particularly esoteric doctrines like the Trinity, divide us. Instead, today’s scripture reading tells us not only to be agreeable toward one another, but to support one another, to live it peace, and to pray that we don’t do anything wrong. [2 Corinthians 13:7]
Today we respect and honor others religions and cultures. How much more should we respect one another, our brothers and sisters, and our neighbors? Today we honor other faiths as co-equal paths to truth. We no longer burn books or sentence people to death just for thinking and believing differently. Even excommunication is a sign of weakness. It means the Church has lost the allegiance of one of their own.
The author of 2 Corinthians reminds us that “we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.” With Christ within us, under the influence of the Spirit, and with love as our guide, we cannot do anything against Truth. We cannot destroy the Truth of other faiths and cultures or of the various understandings of God and the eternal. This is true both within and outside our faith communities
Live in peace and understanding with one another as we all struggle with issues of universal truths. As Marcus Borg as pointed out, the term “believe” as used in the Bible means to love, to hold dear, to cherish. [Marcus J. Borg, Speaking Christian:Why Christian Words Have Lost Their Meaning and Power – And How They Can Be Restored (1989).] It also implies that we follow who we believe in.
Today it is better to follow Jesus than to argue over doctrines about him. In fact, it always pays to look at things from multiple perspectives. We gain new insight this way.
The Adoptionist, Sabellianist, and Arian views offer different windows through which to see Christ’s relation to God. They also help us to understand what the issues were.
Rejoice when we appear weak and others strong, and pray that we do no wrong, that we become perfect, not in understanding but in how we treat others. Most of all use the authority of scripture to build others up rather than to tear them down regardless of their perspective or identity.
































































































