Did Greek Philosophy Shape the Doctrine of the Trinity?
by David K. Bernard
Podcast recording (no venue stated in the delivered transcript)
Kind: teaching
Scripture: Deuteronomy 6:4, John 1, Hebrews 9

Source: https://acts238.life/repository/sermons/david-k-bernard--did-greek-philosophy-shape-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
Published by Acts 2:38 Life from the sermon transcript on that page.
Free to copy and share with attribution.

------------------------------------------------------------
It's a very interesting subject and what I've just stated is not controversial among mainline church historians. It's generally accepted. Even those who believe in the trinity will acknowledge that the way God revealed it was through this historical process which was influenced by uh Greek philosophy. And I guess they would argue that was the method god used.

But if you just step back and look at it, you can see the clear development. And if I've I've written about this in several books, the oneness of God and history of Christian doctrine volume one and the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. All three give a summary, a different level. The glory of God gives a little more theological, theoretical. But if you really want to go to the original writings, so you're not just taking my word for it, but read it for yourself. Uh I have two historical books. One is Trinity AD 100 to 300, which which looks at all the relevant statements of the ancient Christian writers of the first, the second, and third centuries.

And then I have a followup uh which deals with the fourth century the trinitarian controversy in the 4th century and you can clearly see the influence. So let me see if I can bring this in a simplified form. So Plato was the most prominent philosopher of ancient Greece and then Chapter 2: Platonic views on God of course his student um Aristotle. But Plato had this ide concept of the world of forms or the world of ideals or the world of ideas. And what he was saying is this world this physical world is an imperfect copy of this pure world of spirit and ideas.

So in this world we have human beings. Uh they are imperfect beings. But in the world of ideas, there is the archetype of a perfect human being that we are all copies of. And the abstract subjects like things like beauty. We all recognize beauty. We recognize it maybe in a little different ways, but that's because and and maybe no one is has perfect beauty, but we can recognize a beautiful person versus someone who's not very beautiful. We have this concept in our head. And even though there may be differences of culture or personal taste, we can generally agree that's uh you know a beautiful person or or another example uh we see an animal that's a horse, that's a dog, that's a cow.

If you try to define what's the difference between a a dog and a cat, it's can be very extraordinarily difficult to write in words. And then you you get the this typical extremes, but then you can find well okay a chihuahua does it fit the classical description or a great dane or you know so what he's saying is in the world of ideas there is this perfect idea of beauty, perfect idea of justice, perfect idea of what a dog is, perfect idea of what a cat is. And in this world we we're all having imperfect replicas. So from that involved the the physical world the world of matter is impure imperfect sinful the pure world is the world of spirit and idea and Plato had perfection.

Plato had this concept of God as the creator or the first mover, the un, you know, I think Aristotle used the term unmoved mover, but it was more of an abstract, not so much a personal being. Certainly not like the Hebrew god of scripture, engaged, loving people, hating sin, getting involved in the world, but really a a god who's the ultimate of purity and perfection. So the way Greek philosophy thought of it, if you're perfect, you don't change. Because if you change, you're not perfect anymore. So the perfect God has to be unchangeable. Well, that means he can't feel emotions. Because if he could get sorry, well, he must not be perfect.

If he could change his state from sorrow to joy to anger to happiness, then he's changing all the time. Well, which one of those times is he perfect? So the only way God could be perfect is to be unmoved, unchangeable, impassible. by which they mean incapable of human emotions, incapable of suffering, incapable of being affected by this world. Well, so therefore, he's remote. So he can't get he can't love people, he can't get engaged at people, he can't get upset at people. He wouldn't be perfect. That was their concept. So in order to create this imperfect world and and you find this in various ways but Pho would be a Jewish philosopher who tr the first century contemporary of Christ who tried to use Greek philosophy to to justify the Bible.

He tried to uphold the truth of the Bible by using the terms of Greek philosophy. While that may be a commendable effort, it's dangerous because when you start using the terms of your opponents, you start adopting some of the thoughts of the opponents. So, Pho tried to explain that the logos, the word of God that God, you know, so God, the pro the problem of Greek philosophy that's set up is how can the pure perfect God interact with the imperfect sinful fallen world of matter, fallible world of matter and sin? Can't. So there's an intermediary called the word that comes out of God and he created the world.

Now Pho never made this a second person because he was a Jew. He always believed the doctrine of Deuteronomy 6:4 here. O Israel the Lord our God is one. But he really came close at times of saying this emanation from God or this this is a way God could lower himself to interact with the world. Okay. So then you come to a Christian theologian, Justin Martyr. So he is called a martyr because he was killed for his faith. But he was a Greek philosopher before he became a Christian. He became a local preacher or president. He never became a bishop. So he was never a recognized leader of the church.

And it's interesting to me. I think if there were other writings of bishops, they might have been destroyed because they didn't fit with later teaching. But Justin's was preserved because it was the closest to later teaching. Although it's unclear that he had much influence in his day. In fact, he even alludes in his writings that most Christians don't agree with what he says. So, it's ironic that history preserves him as a leading thinker because he was a step towards the later development of Trinitarianism. Whereas at the time, he was maybe respected in his local church, but maybe not influential at all. He's just these writings are preserved by later monks.

So that's why he's important. But how significant was he in his time? I don't think he was. But anyway, he was a Greek philosopher and he did the same thing as Pho in a Christian context. He wanted to explain to his pagan friends that Christianity is really the true philosophy. So again, he used these concepts to try to bring them to Christ. It was a noble endeavor, but I think it was fatally flawed because he was using the terms and concepts of opponents. So he's trying to get them to believe in Jesus. So he comes up with this great idea. He looks at John one.

In the beginning was the word. The word was with God. The word was God. Now I think I may have another episode or we will have John's concept was not Pho or or uh Justin's he was actually using the concept the word from the old testament and he understood Greek philosophy but he was using it to exalt Jesus Christ. But anyway, this concept of logos in Greek philosophy was they felt the universe was ruled by reason, God's reason. So they called that the word. So it was much more than spoken word. It was the principle of reason by which the world was organized. So Justin seized on this.

He said, "Now I can explain this to my pagan friends that are steeped in Greek culture. Here's who Jesus is. Jesus is the word of God, but not meaning the word of God of the Old Testament, God revealing himself, God acting in his own behalf, but the word of Greek philosophy, the emanation of God. So just is very clear, the word is not the supreme god because the supreme god could not come down to earth. The word is a second god. The word is not equal to the first God. Not as powerful to the first God. But he is the way God created the world.

And now he's the way God redeems the fallen world. So this word is Jesus Christ. So Justin very clearly has two divine persons. But one the second person is clearly subordinate. Now that's not the doctrine of the trinity. The trinity believes there are three co-equal co-eternal persons. Justin believes two persons only one is eternal that's God only one is all powerful that's God the second person or even second God the son which he equates to the word who he equates to Jesus is not the supreme God is not equal to God not of the same substance of God not eternal but God's way of creating the world and God's way of interacting the world God's way of redeeming the world he does have an offhand comment of the Holy Spirit and the angels, but he doesn't really even define that.

Uh so really you would say he's benitarian. He believes in two divine persons, but they're not co-equal. That is how the doctrine of the trinity began to evolve from this presos presupposition of Greek philosophy that the supreme god could not interact with the world, could not be moved, could not be changed. So, Tertullian takes the next step and he says, "No, they're actually three persons, father, son, and holy spirit." That's what you find in Matthew. However, he goes on to add, "They're not eternal. Originally, there's just God. But out of God came the word to create the world. Out of God came the spirit." They're not co-equal.

The father is the most powerful. And one day in eternity, the son and the spirit will merge back into the father and he will be the one god alone as he was in the beginning. So it's not the modern doctrine of the trinity but it is a doctrine of three persons and Tertullian was the first to use the Latin term three persons and trinity. And so he is credited as the father of the doctrine of the trinity but it was based on this philosophical concept. And he admits the majority of believers of his day opposed his doctrine on two grounds. one, it was contrary to the teaching of one God.

Uh, and two, it was contrary to their most ancient tradition, their rule of faith, their their confession of faith that they obey when they got baptized. And so, in a backhand way, he pretty much admits that the vast majority of believers were what we would think of in terms of oneness believers. His response to them, it's absurd because it means the father suffered. Their doctrine means God suffered. Well, we know God can't suffer. Only the son could suffer. So notice he's betraying. He is he's assuming Greek philosophy. He's not saying I follow Plato or I follow Pho or I follow Greek philosophy. That's just the culture.

That's just his mindset. That's just the, you know, the the common assumptions of the culture. That would be a very convincing argument. You know, it would be like us saying, "Well, we can't believe this doctrine because it violates uh human rights." So, where we don't have to justify human rights. That's our culture. That's our context. So, he's saying, "Well, this doctrine can't be right because it violates what do we know about God?" But not from scripture. Because if you look at scripture, God is very active. He's grieved. Now maybe you could say he doesn't suffer physically but he definitely is impacted in whatever way God can be and God in Christ was reconcileing the world to himself through the spirit.

Jesus offered himself to God. Hebrews nine. So but he thought this would be absurd. He said these people they crucify the father. They say the father suffered. And so these what I would consider equivalent to one disenous believers they were called the patracians the people that taught the father suffers as if that's a cleansing argument that would say this is all ridiculous. So by the time of the council of na you have this argument and actually it's not as hostile as you s think because in the 4th century you had Aras who's following the logic of Justin and Tertullian to say Jesus is a created being.

He's not the supreme god. And you have Athanasius, a bishop in Alexander, say, "Wait a minute. Jesus has to really be God or he couldn't save us from our sins. So he has to be equal to the father." So the debate was, is Jesus equal to the father or is he subordinate to the father? But notice they're already assuming Greek philosophy. So the answer of the council of na, we have to say the father and son are equal. And then later the council of Constantinople in 381. Well, we have to say father, son, and spirit are equal. So, actually the doctrine of trinity was not established the council of Nika.

It was established the council of Constantinople. But it was Nika was kind of the turning point to head that way. But notice they're assuming the father couldn't become incarnate. They're assuming the father couldn't suffer. They're assuming the father couldn't be moved by our feelings. Only a second person could. So, if that assumption is correct, Jesus has to be a second person. the best you could do to restore his deity is make him equal. So in a way the doctrine of the trinity was a uh I don't know what I would say a noble effort to elevate the deity of Christ against all this teaching going back just in Tertullian and Aras to denigrate the deity of Christ.

But of course my argument be that's because you if you assume Greek philosophy is correct the best you could come up with to to protect Christ's deity is the trinity. But what if you don't assume that? What if you go back to the scriptures? What if you go back to the Hebrew Bible? What if you go back to the New Testament where they were all Jewish people and said, "You know, there is one God, but he does interact. He does come into our world. He does grieve over our sin. He does rejoice in our salvation. He does love us." Well, if you have that kind of God, then that kind of God could come in the flesh to be our savior.

He could suffer according to the flesh. He could himself provide the sacrifice for our sins. So Jesus could be really the supreme god only you don't have to have three persons to make that happen. You just need one God who's not bound by the limitations of Greek philosophy. So that's a very very shorthand way of of saying yes the doctrine of the trinity step by step evolved from Greek philosophy was influenced by philosophy and and to the credit of of the trinitarians today they will say but it overcame that. Well, yes, but it accepted that whole context where they couldn't get back to the biblical doctrine of God because they already constrained by the limits and thinking of Greek philosophy.