Help With The Trinity

I made a video rebuttal to this type of argument a few years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKlnRbD-IMk

So, I watched it but I still feel like I don't have a good grasp on the subject but that's not your fault. It's new to me. Thanks for the response though, Errol. I was hoping you'd weigh in.

Chip,

I was once Oneness and these points were always my go-to whenever the issue of Church History came up in debates about God and Christ.

First, let me say that, at present, I do not hold to monarchical trinitarianism. I tend to think that the apostolic church and the post-apostolic church were unitarian in their theology. It seems to me that monarchical trinitarianism is the result of developments in thought based on misinterpretation of key passages of Scripture. I wanted to say that simply so that my current personal opinions would be clear not to start a discussion about that.

Second, I think these claims are extremely important for anyone claiming that their doctrine of God and Christ are apostolic should look into. The fact is that Tertullian and Origin *did* admit that the majority of believers in their day didn't agree with their theology. That should give us some serious pause.

Third, we need to parse out who exactly Tertullian and Origin were referring to. Now, the other gentlemen who commented here made some comments to this effect in his video that I will be addressing in a reply to his comment. We need to ask and discover: were the majority of believers to whom Tertullian and Origin referring to equivalent to "Oneness" as this person claims? I don't think so.

As the other gentlemen pointed out, the kind of subordinationism we see *was* universal simply doesn't fit with the Oneness/Modalistic Monarchian equation of Jesus with God.

I hope these comments are helpful in stimulating further thought and prayer.

Errol,

I watched your video. Just a couple points from someone who used to be Oneness/Modalistic Monarchian (from now on simply Oneness) and is now Unitarian.

I think your point at the very end was the most poignant. You mentioned that subordinationism was a key characteristic of pre-Nicene orthodoxy, this subordinationism simply doesn't cohere with a Oneness theology, and therefore the majority of believers referred to by Tertullian and Origin who disagreed with their theology cannot be Oneness adherents.

I think this is a sufficient refutation of Mr. Ritchie's points (I hope he is now with the Lord, for, if you hadn't heard, he passed this year).

However, I don't think you did a sufficient job addressing the question of what exactly these people referred to *did* in fact believe. You mentioned a distinction between the "radical modalism" that you think is equivalent to Oneness and the "naive/modest modalism" that, it seems, you think is the theology held by these believers referred to by Tertullian and Origen.

But, the only thing you mentioned as far as what they believed is that they didn't agree with the Logos Christology that was developing. You also mentioned that it is hard to know what exactly they believed because they didn't leave a written record.

Well, it seems to me that the fact they didn't accept Logos Christology is sufficient to conclude that they were not Monarchical Trinitarians as this is an essential component of Monarchical Trinitarians.

So, if they weren't Oneness, Monarchical Trinitarians, or later "Egalitarian" Trinitarians, what were they?

Frankly, I think the answer is clear: they were Unitarian Christians.

The next question is: What should that tell us about what we should believe today?

Well, it depends on whether you think the true belief was preserved in this mostly illiterate and uneducated majority of believers in that day or whether it was preserved in the writings of the literate and educated leaders.

That's another question!

Lord bless.

Hey Tre,

Good to see you on the boards. This conversation is a bit out of my depth actually. That's why I passed it along to others here who know what's going on. My study of the early Christians tends to focus on 1st/2nd century sources. So I can't say that I'm familiar with Tertullian or Origen's comments regarding the Trinity. I am however a lifelong student and I'm happy to look into these matters more.

Greetings. As noted in my video, there was apparently a level of tolerance in the early Church for what some scholars refer to as "naive modalism" (cf. Campbell Bonner, 'The Homily on the Passion by Malito Bishop of Sardis and Some Fragments of the Apocryphal Ezekiel,' pg. 28; Alistair Stewart, Popular Patristics 20:29; 55:39; Manlio Simonetti, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity

2:819-820), so long as it didn't become a systematic theology being proselytized such as in the case with with Sabellius, et al., in which case modalistic monarchianism is not precluded as common among the laity by the pre-Nicene orthodoxy of Subordinationism as held by the leaders and thinkers of the Church. I can't think of any reason to suppose that the former had a better or more pure understanding of such theological points than the latter.

I was unable to find a creedal or unanimous Unitarian view of the Trinity so as to make a comparison to these ancient sources. Can you point me in the right direction for this information?