The Trinity

It is alleged by some Oneness Pentecostals that the doctrine of the Trinity is an invention of the backslidden (read, Catholic) church and was thus, no part of the Apostolic doctrine. When this doctrinal innovation is supposed to have been added to the Early Church’s doctrine is a matter of debate. According to some this teaching first came into being around the year 325 A. D. at the Council of Nicea. Others would contend for a much earlier date. There are those who teach that it originated with the Gnostics in the Second or Third Century.

But what do we see in the Early Church Fathers—those teachers of the church who existed contemporaneously with the Apostles or shortly after them? What do these men who were taught by the Apostles or one of their disciples have to say about the Trinity?

Clement of Rome (around the end of the first century) wrote as follows:

Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? [ANF 1: 17; First Epistle of Clement; ch. XLVI]

St. Justin Martyr in his First Apology, written during the first half of the Second Century, elegantly defends the Christians against the charge of atheism hurled at them by the pagans.

And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught. [ANF 1: 164; ch. VI]

Several things should be noted in this passage. First, the mention of all three persons of the Blessed Trinity is made in an almost matter-of-fact manner. Secondly, notice that he says that this is “as we have been taught.” He is not declaring some new doctrine or fresh revelation but is simply stating the faith as he has been taught it.

In A Plea for the Christians, Athenagoras (c. 176 A.D.) addressed the same charge that Justin Martyr had earlier.

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? [ANF 2: 133; ch. X]

Irenaeus who battled valiantly against the Gnostics would no doubt be surprised to hear that the doctrine of the Trinity (which he believed and taught) was an invention of the Gnostics. A good example of his belief is found in Against Heresies written near the end of the Second Century.

Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving His Word, but imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by Himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them.” For the Son, who is the Word of God, arranged these things beforehand from the beginning, the Father being in no want of angels, in order that He might call the creation into being, and form man, for whom also the creation was made; nor, again, standing in need of any instrumentality for the framing of created things, or for the ordering of those things which had reference to man; while, [at the same time,] He has a vast and unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring and His similitude do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject. [ANF 1: 470; ch. VII, par. 4]

In Theophilus to Autolycus , Theophilus is credited with the first use of the word “Trinity” around the year 181 A.D.

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. [ANF 2:100-1; book II, ch. XV]

While we may not agree with his typological interpretation, there is no doubt that he does believe in the Trinity. The note given in ANF is instructive:

“the use he makes of it [the word Trinity] is familiar. He does not lug it in as something novel: “types of the Trinity,” he says, illustrating an accepted word, not introducing a new one.”

Hipplytus of Rome writing in the early Third Century writes the following in his Against the Heresy of One Noetus :

A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His poweris one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. [ANF 5:226, ch. 8]

We accordingly see the Word incarnate, and we know the Father by Him, and we believe in the Son, (and) we worship the Holy Spirit. [ANF 5:228, ch. 12]

For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. [ANF 5:228; ch. 14]

As a matter of fact, the whole of this work refuting Noetus is a powerful tool in combating his heresy which was modalistic monarchianism, aka, Oneness.

From this brief overview, it should be quite clear that though the full explication of the Trinity may have come later, the Fathers of the Early Church were definitely Trinitarian in their beliefs. They did not add a new doctrine but explained one that had been handed down fro

Homosexuality

The debate is raging today about homosexuality. There are even Gay Pentecostals now. If the Pentecostal churches thought they would escape the debate because they are “Spirit-filled” they are in for a rude awakening.

While it seems that the Bible is quite clear on the matter, like with many other “clear” matters, those who oppose the truth have managed to twist the Bible to say what they want it to say or to explain away what it does say. As has been my methodology previously, we will approach this matter from the vantage point of the Early Church Fathers.

The Didache, being one of the earliest noncanonical Christian writings, puts it plainly:

And the second commandment of the Teaching; 2. Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit pæderasty, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practice magic, thou shalt not practice witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. [ANF 7: 377; ch. II, sect. 1]

Both the word “fornication” and the word “paederasty” disallow homosexual relations.

St. Polycarp in his Letter to the Philippians spells out the early Christian attitude toward these type of relations.

It is a fine thing to cut oneself off from the lusts that are in the world, for "every passion of the flesh wages war against the Spirit," and "neither fornicators nor the effeminate nor homosexuals will inherit the Kingdom of God," nor those who do perverse things. Wherefore it is necessary to refrain from all these things, and be obedient to the presbyters and deacons as unto God and Christ. [ANF 1: 34, par. 3]

Notice he says “it is necessary to refrain from all these things.” That could hardly be made much plainer.

The writer Athenagoras in A Plea for the Christians draws a stark contrast between the sexual morals of the Christians and those of the pagans around them.

For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure,—who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonouring the fair workmanship of God (for beauty on earth is not self-made, but sent hither by the hand and will of God)…. [ANF 2: 147; ch. XXXIV]

Shock, outrage and dishonoring to God are the early Christian’s descriptions of homosexual acts.

The Instructor by Clement of Alexandria speaks to this matter in very straightforward terms.

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law. [ANF 2: 277; ch. III]

Tertullian in his Apology declares unambiguously,

The Christian confines himself to the female sex. [ANF 3: 51; ch. XLVI]

St. Cyprian of Carthage in his letter To Donatus offers us the following condemnation of homosexual activity.

Oh, if placed on that lofty watch-tower you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers, and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight,—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do,—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them. [ANF 1: 277-8; epistle I, par. 9]

St. John Chrysostom in commenting on Romans 1: 26-27 had this to say:

All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature. But that which is contrary to nature hath in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure. For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. NPNF1-11:355-6; homily IV]

This entire homily is a powerful exposition and explication of this extremely important passage concerning the subject of homosexuality. While the modern “preacher” may try to explain these verses to justify the modern sensibilities, St. John does not shy away from telling us the meaning of this passage to the Early Church.

I will close this section with a final quote from farther on in the above homily.

For if when discoursing about fornication Paul said, that “Every sin which a man doeth is without the body, but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body”; what shall we say of this madness, which is so much worse than fornication as cannot even be expressed? For I should not only say that thou hast become a woman, but that thou hast lost thy manhood, and hast neither changed into that nature nor kept that which thou haddest, but thou hast been a traitor to both of them at once, and deserving both of men and women to be driven out and stoned, as having wronged either sex. And that thou mayest learn what the real force of this is, if any one were to come and assure you that he would make you a dog instead of being a man, would you not flee from him as a plague? But, lo! thou hast not made thyself a dog out of a man, but an animal more disgraceful than this. For this is useful unto service, but he that hath thus given himself up is serviceable for nothing. Or again, if any one threatened to make men travail and be brought to bed, should we not be filled with indignation? But lo! now they that have run into this fury have done more grievously by themselves. For it is not the same thing to change into the nature of women, as to continue a man and yet to have become a woman; or rather neither this nor that. But if you would know the enormity of the evil from other grounds, ask on what account the lawgivers punish them that make men eunuchs, and you will see that it is absolutely for no other reason than because they mutilate nature. And yet the injustice they do is nothing to this. For there have been those that were mutilated and were in many cases useful after their mutilation. But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. How many hells shall be enough for such? But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration! And they know it well that have been at the place, and have seen with their eyes that scourge divinely sent, and the effect of the lightnings from above. Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time! For whereas many thought scorn of His words, by His deeds did God show them the image thereof in a certain novel way. For that rain was unwonted, for that the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain. Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable? Oh, what madness! Oh, what distraction! Whence came this lust lewdly revelling and making man’s nature all that enemies could? or even worse than that, by as much as the soul is better than the body. [NPNF1-11; 357-8; homily IV]

The debate may rage on but there can be no debate as to what our forefathers in the Early Church thought.

Which Day?

There are those in the Christian world who steadfastly hold to the Old Jewish Sabbath and hold their services on Saturday rather than Sunday. It is their contention that the Church has always observed the Sabbath and that it was changed by the Catholic Church. This is given as an example of the Pope being the Antichrist who is supposed to “think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:25)

Whether the Pope (or the Papacy) is the Antichrist is quite a separate question and it is one which we will not attempt to answer or address. But as to the Church’s traditional practice from the very beginning there is no question at all. The Early Church Fathers speak unanimously.

The Didache provides the following instruction about when the Church met for services.

But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. [ANF 7: 381; ch. XIV, par. 1]

Bishop Ignatius, writing very early in the Second Century in his Epistle to the Magnesians, makes it even clearer as to which day was to be the Christian day of worship.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death…. [ANF 1: 62: ch. IX]

The Apologist Justin Martyr is equally clear in his First Apology when he describes the weekly worship of the Christian community.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. [ANF 1: 186; ch. LXVII]

Clement of Alexandria details the life of the True Gnostic (a Christian) in The Stromata.

He, in fulfilment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps the Lord’s day, when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord’s resurrection in himself.

Near the end of the Second Century, Tertullian explains Christian worship in his Apology.

We shall be counted Persians perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea no doubt has originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also under pretence sometimes of worshipping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sun-day to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun-worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant. [ANF 3: 31; ch. XVI]

In Peter of Alexandria’s Canonical Epistle the following is laid down concerning the Lord’s Day.

But on the Lord’s day we ought not to fast, for it is a day of joy for the resurrection of the Lord, and on it, says he, we have received that we ought not even to bow the knee. This word, therefore, is to be carefully observed, “we have received,” and “it is enjoined upon us according to the tradition.” For from hence it is evident that long-established custom was taken for law. [ANF 6: 278-9; canon XV]

Victorinus in On the Creation of the World writes the following:

This sixth day is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. For He perfected Adam, whom He made after His image and likeness. But for this reason He completed His works before He created angels and fashioned man, lest perchance they should falsely assert that they had been His helpers. On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God, or a fast. On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath… [ANF 7: 341-2]

It is clear that the Christians of that time did not even wish to be mistakenly identified with the Jews and the Sabbath. How can anyone then see them every allowing themselves to be called Saturday Sabbatarians or “Seventh-Day” Christians? It is inconceivable. If we are to worship on the Church’s Day of Worship, we will worship on Sunday. The truth of this assertion cannot be plausibly denied unless one discounts all of the Fathers as “unreliable” and “Catholic.”