TRINITARIAN HERESIES

In the previous entry about Origen, I talked about the uneasy relationship of neo-Platonic philosophy and early Christian theology. I also said that during the time of Origen the question of heresy was not a priority, as Christianity was in a desperate struggle for survival against Roman persecution, and internecine fighting was the last thing to be engaged in. Everything changed however after Constantine legitimized Christianity, and even presided over the 325 AD Council of Nicaea. Politics became an essential part of the picture, and what Origen had previously been able to get away with, without jeopardizing his posthumous honorific title of a Father of the Church, in these new times would bring about severe condemnation at the least and, excommunication to the unrepentant.

The philosophical, as opposed to strictly theological, question of the Trinity was very much on the minds of all Christian theologians, a truly fascinating intellectual challenge, indeed, only now it had become subject to severe Church discipline, and doctrinal uniformity was categorically imposed upon matters theological, to the great detriment of philosophical discussion.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (297-373) was at that time the chief protagonist of religious orthodoxy which, he said, he derived strictly from the Scriptures. He was particularly instrumental in the development of the orthodox theological concept of the Trinity, seeing God the Son and God the Holy Ghost as consubstantial and coeternal with God the Father. His emphasis on the Trinity was particularly caused by his determined dispute with the so-called Arian heresy, in which the nature of the Trinity was the main issue.

Arius of Alexandria (256-336) was obviously a much older and much more distinguished Christian leader than the relative youngster Athanasius and for this reason alone his words carried a lot of weight among the Christians, and in fact swayed Emperor Constantine in his favor, causing Athanasius to be frequently exiled and otherwise persecuted. The Arian approach to the Trinity was logical and philosophical although not the only solution to the problem posed by the concept itself. The essence of Arianism was that the Son was not equal to the Father, and was not eternal, having been created by the Father. Although much of this heresy was logical and relatively inoffensive, the denial of eternity to the Son was unacceptable to most theologians, who however wished to find a compromise with Arius, and only Athanasius rejected compromises, for which same reason he was initially persecuted, but triumphed in the end.

By far the best philosophical interpretation of the Trinity, in my opinion, belongs to the 3^rd-century theologian Sabellius, of uncertain roots and unheralded biography, yet of no uncertain treatment of this most difficult subject of Christology. He said that there was only One God, revealing Himself in three manifestations as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the latter two by no means distinct from God the Father. This representation of the Trinity makes so much sense to me, that I used to hold the same philosophical view about the nature of Godhead, and philosophically I still do, except for recognizing the religious necessity of adherence to the Creed which I am culturally tied to.

It is unfortunate that the author of this supremely philosophical theory of the Trinity is virtually unknown to the world, unlike, say, Arius, whose own doctrine, although perhaps more logical than the accepted creed, is less consistent and convincing (sorry, Newton!) than that of Sabellius. Still, I am determined to raise high the name of Sabellius in this entry, declaratively at first, but elaborating on this subject in future revisions, eventually hoping to give him, as a religious philosopher, what is unquestionably his everlasting due.