Historical Background of the Trinity – Chapter 2 – Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity!


Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity bookCHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


“DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:… ‘At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings.’—Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 6-7

The following is the complete quote from this encyclopedia in context:

Economic and essential trinity.—(a) The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity (tropoV apokaluyewV) to the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity (tropoV uparxewV). At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings….It should be observed that there is no real cleavage or antithesis between the doctrines of the economic and the essential Trinity, and naturally so. The Triunity represents the effort to think out the Trinity, and so to afford it a reasonable basis.” —Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 12, p. 461

What this scholar is basically saying is that while the early Christians had a rudimentary understanding of the nature of the Triune God as they experienced Him (“economic or dispensational Trinity”) through His dealings with mankind throughout the Old and New Testaments, it wasn’t until subsequent centuries that they were more capable of articulating ontologically their understanding of the Triune God through the formulation of the Christian creeds (“ontological Trinity”). Indeed, as this encyclopedia states, “there is no real…antithesis between the doctrines of the economic [“Trinity of experience”] and the essential Trinity [“Trinity of dogma”]” as the “Triunity [“ontological” or “essential” Trinity] represents the effort to think out the Trinity, and so to afford it a reasonable basis.”


“THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity? p. 7

In order to establish a basis for their existence, every heretical group which claims to restore “true Christianity” asserts that Christianity as we know it today has become so apostate and full of paganism that unless one disassociates himself from his religion and joins their group, he cannot be saved. Note the following statements found in various issues of The Watchtower:

“And while now the witness yet includes the invitation to come to Jehovah’s organization for salvation….”—The Watchtower, November 15, 1981, p. 21

“Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do.” —The Watchtower, December 1, 1981, p. 27

“Such thinking is an evidence of pride….If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: ‘Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?’ No, we cannot!” —The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p. 27

While the Mormon church claims that their prophet Joseph Smith was called to “restore” true Christianity to the earth as it was uniquely revealed to Joseph through revelations and visions, the Watchtower Society teaches that although the majority of Christianity apostatized, Jehovah God has always sustained a remnant of true followers on earth throughout the centuries. Thus, the Watchtower Society maintains that their Governing Body is comprised of members of this “remnant” class who serve as God’s mouthpiece and “channel of communication” to His people on earth. Endeavoring to validate their teaching that the majority of Christianity apostatized, the Watchtower Society seeks to find support for their doctrines in the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.1. By claiming that these Fathers taught Watchtower doctrine, the Society maintains that although historic Christianity possessed pure doctrine at the time of the apostles, within four centuries, Christianity adopted “pagan” doctrines such as the doctrine of the Trinity. They then conclude, “Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.”2. Are these claims credible? Note the following Scriptural passages which clearly articulate God’s preservation of the Church throughout history:

“…I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”—1 Timothy 3:15

“…upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” —Matthew 16:18

“to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.” —Ephesians 3:21

“…I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” —Jude 3

With this assurance of protection, how could the Church have apostatized to the point of becoming pagan and needing to be restored? How could the Church which is “the pillar and support of truth” have crumbled, when Jesus promised that the gates of Hades would “not overpower it”? If the church truly apostatized, how could it have given glory to God throughout “all generations”? Due to the fact that it was in response to heresy that many doctrines of Christianity were formulated into creeds, the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially formulated until the fourth century. However, this does not in the least imply that this doctrine was not understood or taught prior to this time. Contrary to the Watchtower Society’s claims, the Ante-Nicene Fathers did uphold Trinitarian doctrine as is clearly revealed in their writings.

IGNATIUS (30-107 A.D.)

Although the Society’s brochure on the Trinity does not reference Ignatius, he studied under the Apostle John and was acquainted with other apostles who had seen Jesus. As a martyr who was executed for his faith in Christ, Ignatius was a fervent follower of Jesus Christ and wrote four epistles to the Ephesians just prior to his execution at Rome on December 20th, A.D. 107. Therefore, Ignatius’ testimony on this issue is worth investigation:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia…predestinated before the beginning of time…and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God….Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you….There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our Lord.” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 49, 52 3.

These statements by Ignatius provide ample evidence that the concept of the Deity of Christ was well-known and accepted by the apostles and the early Church, and therefore cannot be of pagan origin. We will now turn our attention to the other Ante-Nicene Fathers that the Watchtower Society references in their brochure.


The Watchtower’s brochure states that Justin Martyr “called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is ‘other than the God who made all things.’ ”4. However, far from teaching that Jesus is “a created angel,” Justin Martyr actually taught that Christ is “the Angel of God” who conversed with Moses out of the burning bush and revealed Himself as the Jehovah God saying, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.…I AM WHO I AM.”5. Justin Martyr also understood the Scriptural term “first-begotten” of God to mean that Christ is of the same nature as God the Father. Note the following excerpts taken from his writings:

“For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt…our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush….‘And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers….’…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets….in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts….Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: ‘God went up with a shout….’ And Trypho said, ‘…For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud…and ought to be worshipped.’…And Trypho said, ‘We have heard what you think of these matters.…For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages…this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.’ ”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 184, 212, 213, 219


The Society claims that Irenaeus “said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the ‘One true and only God,’ who is ‘supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.’ ”6. This assertion on the part of the Watchtower Society is deceitful because Irenaeus did not contrast Christ with the “One true and only God” but actually contrasted the true God with the lesser gods of Gnosticism. In reality, Irenaeus taught the following concerning Christ:

“Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the Son; ‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 328


The Society’s booklet declares that Clement “called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a creature’….He said that the Son ‘is next to the only omnipotent Father’ but not equal to him.7. This assertion is not only erroneous but is quite deceitful, for Clement actually taught the opposite of what the Society insinuates. Note the following excerpts taken from Clement’s writings which not only reveal the deception of the Society claims, but also the fact that as far back as the second century, the early Church Fathers articulated and defended the concept of the Trinity:

“…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.…There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574

Changes between two versions of the 1986 Watchtower Should You Believe in the Trinity have Clement of Alexandria teaching Jesus is a


The Trinity brochure states that Tertullian “taught the supremacy of God. He observed: ‘The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.’ He also said: ‘There was a time when the Son was not….Before all things, God was alone.’ ”8. Concerning this last statement, “there was a time when the Son was not,” Robert Bowman comments:

“Actually. the expression ‘there was a time when the Son was not’ was not used by Tertullian himself. Rather, this was an expression used by a modern scholar to summarize a statement made by Tertullian, who argued that God was always God, but not always Father of the Son: ‘For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin.’ Since elsewhere Tertullian makes clear that he regard the person of the Son as eternal, in this statement Tertullian is probably asserting that the title of ‘Son’ did not apply to the second person of the Trinity until he began to relate to the ‘Father’ as a ‘Son’ in the work of creation.”—Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 1989, p. 31

In his writings, Tertullian was very explicit in his articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

“He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God….so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature….and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.…Thus does He make Him equal to Him.…I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other….they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being….when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, (the Persons of) the Trinity….In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons)….”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 34-35, 601, 603, 606-607


The Society claims that Hippolytus “said that God is ‘the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,’ who ‘had nothing co-equal [of equal age] with him…But he was One, alone by himself; who willing it, called into being what had no being before,’ such as the created prehuman Jesus.”9. Here again, when one examines what Hippolytus actually taught, one uncovers another example where the Society misrepresents the facts. Note the following statements found in Hippolytus’ writings:

“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world….Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality….And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods….Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things….For Christ is the God above all…..He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever….And well has he named Christ the Almighty.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225

ORIGEN (250 A.D.)

The Society states that Origen taught “‘the Father and Son are two substances…two things as to their essence,’ and that ‘compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.’ ”10. While it is true that Origen was not orthodox on all his teachings about the Trinity and was eventually regarded by the Church as a heretic (although this was not on the basis of his view of the Trinity), he did teach certain aspects of the Trinity.

“This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same….From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father….Having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit….And who else is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the God of all things, save God the Word…inasmuch as He was the Word, and was with God, and was God?”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pp. 255, 604

Concerning Origen’s orthodox and unorthodox views of the Trinity, Robert Bowman comments:

“…Origen was unorthodox in other aspects of his teaching on the Trinity. He tended to view the three persons more or less as three Gods, though without ever putting it just so, and (inconsistently) held that the Son and Spirit, though far superior beings to any creatures, were inferior to the Father. He thus also denied that worship or prayer should be addressed to the Son or the Spirit. In sum, Origen’s view of God had similarities both to orthodox trinitarianism and to the JWs’ doctrine of God. Unlike the Witnesses, Origen believed that the Son was eternal and uncreated, and he definitely regarded the Spirit as a person. But, like the Witnesses, he regarded the Son as a second, inferior God next to Almighty God.”—Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 1989, p. 34


“Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: The modern popular doctrine of the Trinityderives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all of the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and …holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.’ Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.”–Should You Believe in the Trinity? p. 7

It is with these statements from Alvan Lamson that the Watchtower Society concludes their section on “What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught.” Yet, as we have already seen by comparing the Watchtower Society’s claims about the Ante-Nicene Fathers with the actual writings of the Fathers, these Fathers not only affirmed the concepts found in the Trinity doctrine, but they actually taught the very opposite of what the Society claims they taught.

This caused me to ponder, where did the Watchtower Society get their information about the Ante-Nicene Fathers in the first place? It certainly could not have been from their actual writings. A clue was given in the Watchtower reference above where they quoted Alvan Lamson’s book, The Church of the First Three Centuries. By referencing the “Bibliography to the Trinity brochure” that the Watchtower Society provided, it was confirmed that all of the quotes given in their statements about the Ante-Nicene Fathers on page 7 of the Trinity brochure, came from Alvan Lamson’s book, not the original writings of the Fathers.

Who was Alvan Lamson? Is he a credible source for this information? No. Alvan Lamson was an anti-Trinitarian who may have been a Unitarian. While the specific edition of Lamson’s book that the Society quotes was published in 1869 by Horace B. Fuller, Boston, MA, a later edition was published in 1875 by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association of London. Why is this significant? Unitarians are Anti-Trinitarians. Thus, while we cannot say for sure that Alvan Lamson was a Unitarian, his book reflected the anti-Trinitarian ideas of Unitarians to the point that the British and Foreign Unitarian Association chose to publish his book.

Yet, even in the case of quoting Lamson who was biased toward the Watchtower Society anti-Trinitarian position, the Society went beyond his statements to further distort the true teachings of some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I noted the following misrepresentations and omissions:


Concerning Justin Martyr on page 7, the Watchtower Society claims that he “called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is ‘other than the God who made all things.’ ” Yet, nowhere in Lamson’s statements did he claim that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus was a “created angel”. Lamson merely said:

“There is another God and Lord under the Creator of the universe, who is also called Angel, because he announces to men what the Creator of the universe— above whom there is no other God—wishes to declare…. He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, and to Moses, and is called God, is other than the God who made all things. I say, in number, but not in will.”—The Church of the First Three Centuries, 1869, p. 71

So while it is true that Lamson claimed that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus is “other than the God who made all things,” Lamson prefaced his statements about Justin Martyr by qualifying Martyr’s term of “angel” as a reference to being a messenger who “announces” God’s words and appears to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. As we have already seen in Justin Martyr’s own statements, Martyr regarded Jesus to be the Angel of the Lord, the great I AM who appeared to Moses in the burning bush as Jehovah God. This is a far cry from being a “created Angel” who is not God. Thus, even the anti-Trinitarian Lamson, did not go as far as the Watchtower Society did in distorting what Justin Martyr taught concerning Jesus’ identity as the “Angel.”


From Clement’s own writings, we have already seen how he regarded Jesus to be “…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe.” Yet, the Watchtower accurately portrayed Lamson’s view of Clement as teaching that Jesus is inferior to the Father. The one place where the Watchtower skewed Lamson’s statements about Clement is where the Society states on page 7 of their brochure:

“Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a creature’ but called God ‘the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.’ ”10A.

Alvan Lamson did not claim that Clement himself taught that Jesus was “a creature.” He actually attributed the phrase “creature” to the claims of Clement’s opponents. He said:

“None of the Platonizing Fathers before Origen have acknowledged the inferiority of the Son in more explicit terms than Clement. Photius, writing in the ninth century, besides charging him, as already said, with making the Son a ‘creature’Rufinus, too, accuses him of calling the ‘Son of God a creature.’ …Clement believed God and the Son to be numerically distinct; in other words, two beings, — the one supreme, the other subordinate, the ‘first-created of God,’ first-born of all created intelligences…”—The Church of the First Three Centuries, 1869, pp. 124-125

So while Lamson does not directly claim that Clement called Jesus a “creature,” he does attribute the phrase “first-created of God” to Clement. Of course, without the context of this phrase, it is indeed uncertain as to whether Clement actually taught that Jesus is a “creature.”


When it comes to Tertullian, it seems that for the most part, the Watchtower’s quotes of Lamson’s statements about him are accurately portrayed. However, there is a key phrase from Lamson that the Watchtower Society left out. Lamson said:

“…Tertullian admits that the Son is entitled to be called God, on the principle, that whatever is born of God is God,’ just as one born of human parents is human. He speaks of him as possessing ‘unity of substance’ with God… ‘The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten.’ …Tertullian, though he admits the preexistence of the Son, expressly denies his eternity. ‘There was a time,’ he tells us, ‘when the Son was not.’ Again: ‘Before all things, God was alone, himself a world and place, and all things to himself.’.”—The Church of the First Three Centuries, 1869, pp. 106-108

So while Lamson claims that Tertullian denies the eternality of the Son, the Watchtower Society notably excludes a key statement about how Lamson viewed Tertullian’s comments about the Son being begotten. The fact that Lamson claims that Tertullian taught, “whatever is born of God is God,” indicates that Tertullian at least acknowledged the superiority of Christ as being “God” by nature.


“AT THIS point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7

Amid the fires of debate generated on account of the heresy of Arius spreading within Constantine’s empire, on June 19, 325 A.D., the Council of Nicaea began with Eusebius of Caesarea the “first church historian” recording the events. The issue of debate focused on the person of Christ and His relationship to God the Father. Around 318 A.D., Arius began teaching that Jesus is a created being who is of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father. Prior to this, as already noted in the discussion on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Christians held to the view that God is a Trinity who consists of three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Arius’ heresy struck at the very heart of this doctrine; for by insisting that Jesus had to be created, he was teaching that Jesus is not the one true God, but is rather an inferior god who is in some sense only “divine.”


Arianism Arius Different substance as the Father—heteroousios
Orthodox Alexander, bishop of Alexandria;
Hosius, bishop of Cordova;
Athanasius, who eventually became bishop of Alexandria
Same susbance as the Father—homoousios
Eusebian Eusebius of Caesarea Similar substance as the Father—homoiousios

Fearing that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to advocate the heresy of modalism (promoted in earlier centuries by Sabellius and others who taught that Jesus and the Father are the same person), Eusebius and his proponents favored the term homoiousios feeling that this would avoid the heresy of Sabellius and at the same time refute Arianism. As the Council proceeded, each group shared its views, seeking to come to an agreement on what Scripture teaches and how to best communicate this truth. As the Orthodox group expressed their position that by using the term homoousios, they were not compromising the teaching of the distinctions in the persons of the Trinity, but were rather endeavoring to defend the Deity of the persons, the Council eventually came to an agreement with all but Arius and two bishops signing the following creed:

“We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made.…”11.

The Watchtower Society argues that the doctrine of the Trinity was not totally formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., because there was no mention of the Holy Spirit at this council. While it is true that the person of the Holy Spirit was not discussed at this time, the council did affirm Trinitarian doctrine not only by the fact that it acknowledged that Christ is of the same substance as the Father, but the Nicene Creed12. states: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…And in one Lord Jesus Christ.…And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life.…”13. The reason the person of the Holy Spirit was not discussed at the Nicene Council is due to the fact that the issue of controversy concerned the Son—not the Holy Spirit.


“Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: ‘Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun;…his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace…It was a military matter.’ ”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 8

The Society’s Trinity brochure twists the quotes from Chadwick’s book The Early Church in order to give the impression that he was teaching that Constantine was not a Christian. Note the context from which these quotes are derived:

Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; [page 122] …The conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe. [page 125] …But if his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians….He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one’s life, especially if one’s duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many religions of his subjects, but did not make it the official or ‘established’ religion of the empire.”—The Early Church, pp. 122, 125, 127

It appears that Constantine “worshipped the Unconquered Sun” prior to his conversion.14. Also, in context, it seems like Chadwick felt that Constantine’s conversion was genuine. However, he admits that “if” Constantine’s conversion was not genuine, it should be interpreted as “a military matter.” Nevertheless, the fact that Constantine was not baptized until the end of his life “implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common…to postpone baptism to the end of one’s life.” While it is true that Constantine was the one who officially called the bishops together for the Nicene Council, he did not force his views upon the Council. This can be seen by his willingness (in subsequent years) to abandon the Nicene position in order to enhance his political position. He was not a theologian, but was primarily interested in unity, for he recognized how disunity on these issues threatened his empire.

Although the Council of Nicaea rejected Arianism, this was by no means the end of controversy. For nearly five decades from 332-381, Arianism seemed to reign. Emperors generally preferred Arianism (which taught that Jesus was a “divine” creature) as the more attractive religious system due to the fact that it advocated that a creature could be a god, and they felt it was easier to rule if their subjects thought of them as being somewhat “divine.”

Constantine’s successor, his second son Constantius, ruled the East and allowed Arianism to flourish under his rulership. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arians and semi-Arians endeavored to overturn Nicaea. Under Constantius, regional councils met at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium, forcing many leaders to subscribe to Arian and semi-Arian creeds. Athanasius who became bishop of Alexandria shortly after the Council of Nicaea was removed from his position five times, and even Hosius who was now nearly 100 years old, was threatened. Despite pressure to compromise, Athanasius continued to fight, and remained firm in his conviction that Scripture should be regarded as the supreme authority; thus, giving rise to the phrase, “Athanasius contra mundum—Athanasius against the world.” Although Athanasius did not write the Athanasian creed, it was named after him due to his perseverance and uncompromised stance on the issue of the Deity of Christ.

Finally at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the Trinity doctrine was reaffirmed and Arianism eventually died out with internal fighting among its advocators. Yet, contrary to the claims of the Watchtower’s Trinity brochure, from this point on in history, the Trinity doctrine did gain wide acceptance as it was clarified in subsequent years and codified into the creeds we posses today.15. Thus, The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.…”16.

Apostasy Foretold

“THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time.…Accurate knowledge of God brings great relief. It frees us from teachings that are in conflict with God’s Word and from organizations that have apostatized….By honoring God as supreme and worshiping him on his terms, we can avoid the judgment that he will soon bring on apostate Christendom.”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 9, 31

As foretold in the Scriptures, throughout history as well as in our day, there are groups of people who were at one time considered to be within the perimeters of Biblical Christianity but have subsequently turned away from the truths found in God’s Word and have followed after heretical teachers who teach what these people want to hear.17. Nevertheless, simply because some of the people of Christianity have turned away into heresy, this does not imply that Christianity as a whole has become apostate. As was noted previously, Jesus and his apostles foretold that the Church would endure and give glory to God “throughout all ages.” Thus, one must conclude that Christianity could not have become apostate to the extent that the Watchtower booklet asserts. Notice that at 1 Timothy 4:1 where Paul speaks of an apostasy that is to come in the last days, he states that “some,” not all, will fall away.



1. i.e., the Church Fathers who lived prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
2. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7
3. The Ante-Nicene FathersTranslation of The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D. (WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI)
4. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7
5. Exodus 3:6, 14
6. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
10A. Later editions of the Should You Believe in the Trinity? brochure, bearing the same publication date of 1989 and the same notation of “First printing in English,” have completely removed the sentence “called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a creature’ ” from the citation about Clement of Alexandria above.
11. Quoted from “What Really Happened At Nicea?” by James R. White, Christian Research Journal, July-August 1997, pp. 28-34
12. Although the Nicene Creed was formulated at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., it was named after the Council of Nicaea due to the groundwork laid at this council for the formulation of this creed.
13. Quoted from Christianity In Crisis, by Hank Hanegraaf, 1993, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR), p. 375
14. Note page 122 in Chadwick’s book appears before his conversion on page 125.
15. For more information on the Council of Nicaea, see the July-August 1997 issue of the Christian Research Journal article entitled “What Really Happened At Nicea?” by James R. White. A transcript of this article may be obtained by contacting the Christian Research Institute at www.equip.org.
16. The Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 27, p. 117
17. See 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This post is also available in: Spanish