2: The Trinity, Jesus' Divinity, and Church History

Note: The first part of this post is from section 1 of my blog on the history of the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity (you can find the references in section 1’s reference page). The second part are additional reflections that are new. Reading part 1 is a necessary prerequisite to best understanding part 2 and together are my complete historical reflections regarding the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity, so I include it here.

Part 1: History’s Witness- is the Trinity Doctrine true? 

In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus says, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”

The Bible is the only sure witness as to if the Trinity Doctrine is true, not history. Many conversations I have had with strong Christians concerning Jesus’ deity point to Christian history as a reason to believe it – how can the faithful witness of many to this belief be wrong? History shows that many of the people who decided on the Trinity Doctrine had “bad fruit” and later forced it on others throughout the centuries had “bad fruit”. This does not mean that the Trinity Doctrine is completely false or only partially true. But this does mean, given its violent history, we should be wary of pointing to 1700 years of, at times bloody, Christian history as any deciding factor on Jesus’ deity. The Bible truly is the only credible source. It is possible that it was Satan acting behind the Trinity Doctrine, and that he has used that false teaching from past false prophets to confuse us today. Again, only the Bible can reveal that.

The Council of Nicaea in 325, where the Trinity doctrine was first penned, was ordered by emperor Constantine, not the Church. His empire was dividing over the issue of Jesus’ divinity, and he wanted unity for the sake of his empire – so, for his own sake. The bishops at the council were torn between those who believed Jesus to be God and those who believed Jesus to be the created Son of God. The latter were led by a man named Arius and were called Arians. Of the around 1800 bishops who were invited, only about 300 came who eventually decided on this foundational doctrine (Reading: Athanasius).

Constantine tried to help both sides agree by heavily advocating for the concept of “homoousios”’s inclusion into the Nicene Creed, which in Greek means “of the same substance” (Homoousios meaning at Nicaea, 2024). Constantine sided with the Trinitarian viewpoint that Jesus was God. From this perspective, Jesus was God and begotten by God as his Son. God and Jesus are of the same substance. This word is still used by Christians today to explain how Jesus is God. Shortly after this council, in 326, Constantine murdered his wife and son (Why did Constantine the great execute his son and wife, 2024). While the formation of the Nicene Creed was written and decided upon by more than just Constantine, the great influence Constantine, a non-Christian murderer, had upon the council should not be understated.

During the council, the bishops argued and fought over the theology. As a result of this council’s decision, Arius and his followers were exiled. Others were threatened with exile if they did not sign the Nicene Creed by Constantine (Niekerk, 2024). Does this sound like the Holy Spirit at work? How many bishops signed the Nicene Creed because they were afraid of being exiled? How many bishops signed the Nicene Creed because they truly believed it? Given the pressure the bishops faced if they did not agree with the Nicene creed, the answer to those questions is not an easy one to determine.

I don’t believe Jesus is God anymore. In today’s context, would it be right for me to be exiled because I disagree with most of the Church? The vast majority of people, religious or not, agree that people should not be punished or exiled for differing beliefs. The Declaration of Independence says, penned by Thomas Jefferson, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the peace peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution). In the United States, if someone punished me by forcing me from my home because of my differing beliefs, that person would be jailed and seen as a criminal. So why do we uphold the Council of Nicaea as the clear power, work, and leading of the Holy Spirit if it was so heavily influenced by a man, Constantine, who threatened with exile those who disagreed and followed through on that threat? While there may have been many bishops at the council who were true Christians with the Holy Spirit, the initiator and most powerful participant of the Council of Nicaea was not. History shows that the primary purpose of the council was for Constantine to unite his empire. He was not a Christian, as shown in his murder of his wife and his son a year after the council. Given that the initiator of this council was a non-Christian murderer who exerted great influence in its outcome, particularly concerning the term “homoousios” solidifying the belief that Jesus is God, Christians are wise to be skeptical if the Holy Spirit was the One leading the Council of Nicaea. The Spirit certainly was not residing in Constantine, as shown by the violent fruit in his life, and his influence at the council was very significant. How much should the Church trust the theological outcome of a council initiated and heavily influenced by such a man? 

Holy Spirit wisdom is “peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, and sincere” (James 3:27).  One historian, Joseph Lynch, says in his book “Early Christianity: A Brief History”: the “councils were occasionally unruly and even violent meetings that did not achieve the unanimity that was thought to indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit” (Examiner, 2022). He is speaking of the church councils in general, including Nicaea. Unruliness and violence are indicators that the Holy Spirit was not leading the councils.

Hilary of Poiters (310-367), a bishop, a Trinitarian, and saint in the Catholic Church, spoke of the council of Nicaea and the division in the Church that followed as, “While we fight about words, inquire about novelties, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulties in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ…We determine creeds by the year or by the month, we change our own determinations, we prohibit our changes, we anathematize our prohibitions. Thus, we either condemn others in our own persons, or ourselves in the instance of others, and while we bite and devour one another, are like to be consumed one of another” (Examiner, 2022). This quote from the 4^th century is especially telling of the environment surrounding the decision at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and following. This is not a critique by a 21^st century biblical unitarian but a critique by a Trinitarian 4^th century Catholic saint who clearly did not see the Holy Spirit’s wisdom in the debate over Jesus’ divinity, wisdom that is, “peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, and sincere” (James 3:27).  The fruit described by Hilary should make us cautious in accepting the Nicene Creed as God’s Word – which even the Protestant Church does despite the claim to “sola Scriptura”. Again, this Creed adds to Scripture with terms like “Trinity”, “God the Son”, and “3 in 1”.  The Nicene Creed was written by men and is not the Bible, and we should be skeptical of its divine origin due to the primary leader of the Council of Nicaea, Constantine, and because of the fruit of the council’s participants.

However, Hilary’s critique is to the Church in general, not just one side of the debate, as, sadly, history shows there was persecution from both sides. Constantine eventually reinstated Arius in 328 A.D. (The early unitarians: Arius and his followers, n.d.). Christians persecuted each other for their different viewpoints. Those who believed Jesus to not be God also showed poor character and exiled, for example, Athanasius, for his Trinitarian beliefs. In his turn, Athanasius also persecuted Christians who did not believe in the Trinity, and his famous creed firmly states that anyone who does not believe Jesus is God and the Trinity is condemned (Essays). “Christians” on either side failed to imitate Christ and were violent. So, with bad characters, “bad fruit”, on both sides, who do we listen to? The only sure source of truth: God’s Word.

Consider again: was the Holy Spirit the driver behind a council initiated and commanded by Constantine, a non-Christian murderer, whose outcome was decided by bishops who were threatened with exile if they agreed with Arian’s position that Jesus was not God? But was the Holy Spirit behind those who, fairly soon after, persecuted people like Athanasius who believed Jesus was God? History shows we should be wary of believing Jesus is God, or in believing that Jesus is not God, if we only look at the fruit of people who propagated either belief in the 4^th century. So, only God’s Word can be trusted to reveal who Jesus is; not sinful people. 

Of course, God can only use broken people, and He works all things to the council of His will (Ephesians 1:11). He only did in the Bible. Moses and David, for example, murdered, and God used them mightily. God has been at work in every century through very broken people and through His Church. But we are wise as Christians to only trust the Bible for who God is and who Jesus is, especially if the beliefs are not explicitly in the Bible, which “homoousia”, the hypostatic union”, “Trinity”, and “God in 3 persons” are not.  The “foundational” Trinity doctrine was not penned until 3 centuries after Christ’s resurrection. If it is so foundational, why did God wait for 3 centuries before clearly revealing it? Was the Holy Spirit leading this debate that led to violence on both sides? Let’s lay aside the creeds and councils and look only at the Bible, whose writers we can trust. They were motivated by love and their lives were marked by sacrifice – for many of them, martyrdom.

 I write to anyone who is interested, but now specifically to my Protestant brothers and sisters: do we believe in “sola scriptura” or do we hold tradition and Scripture to be equal in our understanding of God? God is intentional in all His Words. There is a reason why “Trinity”, “3 in 1”, and “God the Son” are not in the Bible. That comes from religious tradition, not God’s Word. Those words were created by an argument from inference. While this does not necessarily mean the Trinity doctrine is not true, why would God not have ensured that His identity as a 3-person God is not explicitly described in Scripture for all to see with no confusion? The definition of God is at least one of, if not the most important, doctrines of a religion! Why wouldn’t God have made it more clear, if He is 3 in 1, a Trinity, and if Jesus is “God the Son”? Why wouldn’t Paul and Peter have explicitly taught these doctrines that would be very foreign for Jews who believe God is “one” and “not a man”? Again, why would God wait till the 4^th century to fully reveal who He is: a Trinity, 3 in 1? Why didn’t Jesus himself talk about the Trinity, God’s 3 in 1 -ness, and that he is “God the Son”? And yet, Christians sometimes judge those who do not believe in this as “outside of the faith” and still needing salvation – all because of a doctrine best understood, I have heard my whole life, as a “mystery”. The God of the Bible, the God of Love I know, would never judge my salvation based on something this difficult to understand – that no one in the Church says they fully understand. And yet, Christians sometimes judge those who disagree as unbelievers. Are those judgments from the Holy Spirit or another spirit? Where in the Bible does it say someone has to believe in the Trinity to be saved?

By 381 A.D., Trinitarian Christianity had firmly become a part of politics. While Trinitarian theology was not something accepted right away, it was something that people were persecuted for if they disagreed on it even slightly starting in 381 A.D. under Emperor Theodosius. The Roman emperors, not Christians, were the primary actors in spreading the Trinity doctrine. Through force, fear, and political influence the Trinity because “orthodox” (Forced trinitarian orthodoxy prevails, n.d.). 

Moreover, during the time of the Roman Empire, authority in faith rested with the emperors, not the Word of God. Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius 1 told the citizens of Constantinople that if they agreed with the Trinity doctrine they would have favor from the emperor. The edict concerning this said, “The rest, however, whom we adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not be called churches, and they shall be smitten primarily by Divine Vengeance and secondly by the punishment of Our Power, which we have received by Divine favor.” So, anyone who disagreed with the Trinity doctrine was said to be demented, insane, subject to punishment by the emperors, and will be smitten by Divine Vengeance (Forced trinitarian orthodoxy prevails, n.d.).

In contrast to this treatment by the emperors, the Bible shows that no one was ever persecuted for denying or affirming a Triune God. Trinitarian Christians persecuted minority Christians in the centuries that followed, showing they were not true followers of Jesus (Forced trinitarian orthodoxy prevails, n.d.), who was nonviolent, teaching his disciples to “love their enemies” and “pray for those who persecute them” (Matthew 5:44). State approved and state-enforced Christianity birthed centuries of persecution by Christians on Christians. Free inquiry and free speech were heavily discouraged, at a minimum with the pronouncement that if you do not believe in the Trinity you are not a Christian. 

Even John Calvin, who is lauded by many Christians, arrested Michael Servetus for his belief that Jesus was not God in the 16^th century and was part of the decision that led to Servetus’ burning at the stake.  Servetus was nonviolent; he just disagreed with Christian orthodoxy on the subject of Jesus’ divinity (The trial, burning, and murder of Michael Servetus by John Calvin, 2013). No evidence shows Calvin ever repented. History records Calvin’s only mercy to be suggesting Servetus be beheaded instead of burned (The trial, burning, and murder of Michael Servetus by John Calvin, 2013). This is clearly not the Spirit of God at work. 1 John 3:15 says, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” I hope with all my heart that Calvin repented. This type of behavior should lead us to question Calvin’s other main theological points. For one, I firmly disagree with him on limited atonement and believe that God’s infinite love, infinite power, and infinite wisdom will make a way for all to be saved, as I explain fully in section 3 of this blog, "Universal Salvation". Calvin emphasizes God’s infinite power and sovereignty in his doctrine of limited atonement, deemphasizing God’s unconditional love. His deemphasis is not surprising given the way he treated those who disagreed with him theologically.

While the persecution of people by the Roman emperors and Calvin does not necessarily mean the Trinity Doctrine is not true, it certainly calls it into question. Movements led by the Spirit of God do not result on Christian on Christian violent persecution. All this being said, the Nicene Creed and the Trinity Doctrine have been believed by most Christians since the 4^th century, and God has certainly worked in and through His Church. People filled with the fruit of the Holy Spirit have and do believe in the Nicene Creed. Surely some bad actors regarding this doctrine cannot prove to show its falseness?

While my short synopsis of the history of the Trinity doctrine does not prove its falseness (only the Bible can do that), my point is that history cannot prove its validity either – and that argument has been used in my discussions with Trinitarian Christians regarding Jesus’ deity. History cannot be used to prove that Jesus is God because Satan is constantly trying to deceive the Church and people are broken, sinful, and fallible. Further, while since the 4^th century most sincere Christians have believed in the Trinity, the fact remains that the origins of this doctrine are not filled with light – they are filled with darkness, as explained above in the violence and persecution that characterized the formulation of this doctrine.

My experience in talking with my fellow believers who believe Jesus is God on this topic is a humility often marked by a trust in the Church that, I think, can be dangerous. Some Christians are so weary to question Church doctrine – especially the Trinity. And why is that? Perhaps one reason is that if they do, they are afraid they will be judged as not really Christian. That fact was part of the reason I hesitated to do any research regarding whether Jesus was God, as it is official Church doctrine in many churches that you must believe Jesus is God to be saved. You are not a Christian if you do not believe in the Trinity. Christians are certainly given strong incentive not to question this doctrine.

But more than that, I have seen in Christians a humility and trust in God despite not understanding the Trinity. Christians trust the Church, they trust God’s work in the Church, and they do not presume to be able to understand a doctrine that their trusted Church leaders do not understand themselves and say is not possible to understand: "it is a mystery". They choose instead to focus on what they deem to be the most important (and it is): loving God, despite not understanding His triune nature, and loving those around them – the true mark of whether someone loves God or not (Matthew 22:37-39). What really matters is loving our neighbor, more practical Christians may consider, and “maybe one day in heaven I will understand the Trinity”. Not much encourages further study of the Trinity Doctrine – to the contrary: “why dig into something too difficult to understand for even our Church shepherds, especially given its apparent necessity for salvation? I have to believe it, I don’t understand it, so… I will just focus on other things.” Who can blame Christians who take this perspective? Life is hard and busy. Christians choose to love this inexplicable triune God with the understanding they do have and love others. Given this climate, it is not surprising that the Trinity doctrine and Jesus’ divinity has gone largely uncontested and challenged.

Of course, for shepherds of the Church, the topic of the Trinity is very significant and one pastors study and wrestle with. Most have not come away with a different perspective than what was decided at Nicaea, and for exclusively biblical reasons. Any pastor I have talked to believes in the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity because they believe the Bible to be God’s Word and are trying to abide by it even if they do not understand everything. Again, I see humility and a deep love for God and His Word in the Trinitarian pastors I know. God has used all of them to impact me in a great way and point me to God, and I am very grateful.

So, given this, how could the Trinity doctrine be anything but true? The vast majority of God’s shepherds now have been taught it, believe it, and teach it. The Holy Spirit does not seem to intervene. Yes, there are a minority of biblical unitarian Christians who think differently, but that is the minority. Surely God’s truth on this is with the majority?

I have continued to wrestle with all these questions as I study God’s Word on this, and overall my answer to my own questions is “I don’t know”. However, this is what I do know:

1.     The Trinity Doctrine has a dark origin that perpetuated much Christian on Christian persecution, though thankfully the level of persecution has diminished to non-violent judgment (by some Christians).

2.     Regardless of my own understanding and interpretation of history, God’s Word is true and trumps any human authority.

3.     God loves His Church. God is good and sovereign, and He is at work in the midst of a broken world where He can only use sinners to accomplish His purposes. If the Trinity doctrine is false, God has remained on throne. He allowed even something like this for a good purpose (Ephesians 1:11), and He intends to save all people (1 Timothy 2:4).

4.     If the Trinity doctrine is false, the Church does need a reformation. Most significantly, only God should be worshiped as God: Christians should stop worshiping Jesus as God.

5.     This topic is well worth the time and effort to study and understand better given its connection to right worship of God.

6.     Just because the majority Church believes something does not make it true – consider the reforms needed when Luther wrote his 95 theses. Just because genuine, God-fearing and God-loving people believe something does not make it true – I know godly unitarian Christians as well who believe Jesus is not God. God’s Word is the deciding factor, and the Church in particular has a formidable enemy who twists God’s truth and is able to deceive us.

So: history does not define truth. Neither does our own experience or the experience of those we love and respect around us. Only God’s Word reveals the truth about who Jesus is and who God is. If we doubt this, we need to remind ourselves of human fallibility and the formidable enemy we have in Satan, the deceiver. We may forget these facts – he does not.  Of course, Satan would like nothing better than to confuse us on who Jesus is, who God is, and who we are. 

Thankfully, God has left us completely equipped with the full armor of God (Ephesians 6:13-17) and our offensive weapon: the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians 6:17). Please completely put aside both history and your own experience and examine the word of God. I also had to do this in order to honestly study this topic, though much in me resisted initially. To really consider truth we have to be open handed about what we hold to be truth. We do not have to be afraid to do this because God is Love (1 John 4:8), and what is really true, if we are believing any lies, can only free us. Jesus says, “…you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

Only the Bible shows what is true, not history.

Part 2: Additional Reflections

A.    The First Christian Catechism, “The Didache”

The earliest non-biblical Christian manual, written in the 1^st century, was called “The Didache.” The Didache had instructions on many things concerning the Christian life, including baptism, the Eucharist, fasting, and prayer. This is the oldest surviving Christian catechism, probably written in Egypt or Syria in the 2nd century, and has no evidence (along with the Bible, I believe) that the early Church believed Jesus was God or worshiped Jesus as God (Didache). This is remarkable if the early Church actually believed Jesus was God – surely that would be included in the Didache as central to Christian worship and life. I recommend reading it. It is short and informative of what the Early Church believed.

B.    Jewish Christians were not even invited to be a part of the Council of Nicaea (Engle, 2024).

In fact, Constantine, who called the Council of Nicaea, said, “It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. … Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. … Let us … studiously avoid all contact with that evil way.” (Engle, 2024)

So, again, the councils were not universally represented by Christians – in part because at least Jewish Christians were excluded. Given the Jewish stance against God becoming a man, which they (still) believe goes against Scripture, I found it doubtful that Christians with Jewish roots at the Council of Nicaea would have agreed with the majority on making Jesus God. This is impossible to know for sure, as they were not even invited. Is this the work of the Holy Spirit? This is heartbreaking.  

C.    Christians before the 4^th century did not believe in the Trinity as outlined in 381 A.D. Ironically, none of the early Church fathers before the 4^th century, including Jesus’ apostles, would be deemed Christian by much of Christendom today because none fully articulated the now majority Christian view that: 1) God is 3 persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 2) all are fully God, co-equal, and co-eternal, and 3) God is one.

Church fathers before the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., though some are cited in our time as believing in the Trinity, actually did not, if primary sources are considered. While some did believe that Jesus was “God” in some sense, they mostly believed in subordinationism in terms of Jesus and God, meaning that ultimately God the Father was Almighty God in ways Jesus was not and was subordinate to Him (see the below article). This means they looked to Scriptures where Jesus said the Father was greater than the Father and took them literally. Arian believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father too. This was the prevailing view in the first few centuries. If you look at the full writings of the Church fathers in the first 3 centuries without taking snippets of what they said to try to prove they believed in the Trinity (which has been done), you will not find anyone who believed in the Trinity as defined by the Church now. Sean Finnigan, a biblical unitarian, wrote a great article on this topic where he explains in detail the history of the Church before Nicaea: he agrees; no one in the Church believed in the Trinity as it was defined in 381 A.D. For example, Polycarp, a disciple of John, did not believe in the Trinity, nor did Justin, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Origen. Finnigan uses quotes from these Church fathers to prove his point. I highly recommend the article, which is linked here: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/the-trinity-before-nicea. The Trinity doctrine developed over time and was solidified in the 4^th century.

To give one primary source example, Justin Martyr said of the Church’s spread in the empire around the middle of the 2^nd century: "There is no people, Greek or barbarian, or of any other race, by whatsoever appellation or manners they may be distinguished, however ignorant of arts or agriculture, whether they dwell in tents or wander about in covered wagons—among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered in the name of the crucified Jesus to the Father and Creator of all things." (Schaff & Schaff, 1916) So, he distinguished Jesus from the Father in prayer and in considering the Father, not Jesus, as the Creator.

Given this history, I actually think history points to the Trinity doctrine and Jesus’ divinity, at least Jesus' divinity as being on the same level as God the Father, as not being true. I find it hard to believe that God would not fully reveal to His Church who He is and who Jesus is (a Trinity) until 3 centuries after Jesus ascended in unruly councils that were not universally represented by the Church at the time and resulted in much Christian on Christian violence. It is hard for me to see the Holy Spirit’s leading in what I read about the development of the Trinity doctrine and Jesus’ divinity, though I certainly see the Holy Spirit at work in the Church today in churches that believe what they concluded. Just because the Holy Spirit is at work in the Church today, however, does not mean we have all our theology correct – including our theology about whether Jesus is God. God can only work with broken people and a broken Church.

D.    From the 4^th century to the 18^th century, many Christians were violent towards those who did not agree with Christian orthodoxy, not exhibiting the Spirit of God.

Consider how heresy was treated before and after 381 A.D. when the Church wed the state according to Philip Schaff, a Protestant theologian and historian, and his son David Schaff, in their book on Christian history: “An inevitable consequence of the union of church and state was restriction of religious freedom in faith and worship, and the civil punishment of departure from the doctrine and discipline of the established church. The church, dominant and recognized by the state, gained indeed external freedom and authority, but in a measure at the expense of inward liberty and self-control. She came, as we have seen in the previous section, under the patronage and supervision of the head of the Christian state, especially in the Byzantine empire. In the first three centuries, the church, with all her external lowliness and oppression, enjoyed the greater liberty within, in the development of her doctrines and institutions, by reason of her entire separation from the state.

But the freedom of error and division was now still more restricted. In the ante-Nicene age, heresy and schism were as much hated and abhorred indeed, as afterward, yet were met only in a moral way, by word and writing, and were punished with excommunication from the rights of the church. Justin Martyr, Tertullian… were the first advocates of the principle of freedom of conscience, and maintained, against the heathen, that religion was essentially a matter of free will, and could be promoted only by instruction and persuasion not by outward force. 

All they say against the persecution of Christians by the heathen applies in full to the persecution of heretics by the church. After the Nicene age all departures from the reigning state-church faith were not only abhorred and excommunicated as religious errors, but were treated also as crimes against the Christian state, and hence were punished with civil penalties; at first with deposition, banishment, confiscation, and, after Theodosius, even with death” (Schaff & Schaff, 1916). Emperor Theodosius’ persecutions began in 381 A.D., but Christian on Christian persecution began around the time of the Council of Nicaea. See the history post in section 1 of my blog for more details.

This additional quote from Schaff and Schaff provides a window into the future following the 4^th century: “Yet, properly speaking, it was not till the eighteenth century that a radical revolution of views was accomplished in regard to religious toleration [in much of Christendom]; and the progress of toleration and free worship has gone hand in hand with the gradual loosening of the state-church basis and with the clearer separation of civil and religious rights and of the temporal and spiritual power” (1916). Was the Spirit of God the One at work to wed state and Church and enforce Christian persecution of those who do not believe in Christian orthodoxy from the 4^th century to the 18^th century? This is not to say that many positive things happened during this time period that should be attributed to the Christian Church, but violence and persecution against those who did not believe in orthodox theology was not one of them. Philip Schaff, who is quoted here in his book, “History of the Christian Church”, which he wrote with his son, is a Protestant theologian and historian, is aiming to provide an accurate history of the Church, and this is his perspective as a Christian historian. He is well respected and helped set standards for scholarship in Church history according to “Britannica Encyclopedia”. I am sure he wishes some of history was other than what it is, but he is trying to give an accurate and truthful account.

Even the respected St. Augustine wrote, in direct opposition to the words and spirit of Jesus, "It is, indeed, better, that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected .... Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain the highest grade of religious development .... The Lord himself orders that the guests be first invited, then compelled, to his great supper"(Schaff & Schaff, 1916). To be fair, Augustine in practice was more humane. Sadly, his writings were used to promote violence by future “Christians” (Schaff & Schaff, 1916).

Another prominent Christian leader during this time, St. Jerome, built a hospital for all strangers… that is, except heretics (Schaff & Schaff, 1916). Where is Jesus’ teaching to “love your enemies” in the 4^th and 5^th century? What could have prompted St. Jerome to not provide medical services to those who disagreed with him theologically? Surely not the Spirit of love - the Spirit of God!

Given the, at times, violent history of the Church, should not Christians be wary of some of the doctrine originating during or following those times? Consider the Christian-initiated Crusades (1095-1291 A.D.), the Inquisition (spanning over 600 years and beginning in the 12^th century), and the general Christian on Christian violence, particularly during the Wars of Religion (1550-1648 A.D.). Just because something has been believed a long time, like Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity, for example, does not mean it is true or biblical. Should not we examine the fruit of some of the men who propagated this doctrine and the violent fruit of the Church that followed the wedding of state and Church? History shows the Trinity doctrine was largely decided as orthodoxy by force (Schaff & Schaff, 2019), not because the Church was of one mind over this doctrine.

Final Conclusion

From my perspective, the witness of history is that Jesus being God (at least on the level of God the Father) should be questioned – against the first 3 centuries of true Christianity given Christians’ heroic and Christ-like character in many of them dying for their faith. The Spirit of God is freedom and love. Not only does the Trinity go against what the Bible says about God, it is by nature divisive. For example, the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity remains perhaps the greatest barrier to Jews and Muslims accepting the gospel. Sometimes, Christians spend hours in debate with Muslims over an unbiblical idea instead of focusing on the message of the gospel. This is very sad.

If you disagree and think history witnesses to the Trinity being true, why? Before Christians (at least some Christians) agreed to the Nicene Creed in 325 A.D., Christians acted like Christ and courageously gave their lives for him. After Nicaea, the Church married the state and atrocities went on for centuries in Jesus’ name. Is it purely a coincidence that embracing the Trinity doctrine went hand in hand with bad fruit, namely, Christian on Christian violence?  If you think, well, people still believe it now and that is not happening – true, and thank God the violence has stopped… but history records the Trinity doctrine being accepted as central to Christianity was part of the beginning of at least one thousand years of a lot of darkness, violence, and judgment (up until the time of the Reformation, where in my opinion light started to break through, particularly with the Bible being available to more people). That is not who God is. I think it is much more reasonable to think, given that many in the Church have had such horrific character from the 4^th century to the 18^th century, that there must be some off theological ideas, including central ones, than to claim, despite all of this, that the Church certainly got it “right” in the 4^th century with those Church councils. If they were right, why wasn’t this theology followed by true Christlikeness? Who were the many violent, divisive leaders of the Church worshipping from the 4^th century to the 18^th century? God? Or themselves?

I think an honest look at Christian history should force us as Christians to question Church doctrine, not to accept it as truth because of it existing for centuries in an often corrupt and violent Church. It should certainly not lead us to believe that the Spirit of God has been leading the Church in all of its doctrine over the centuries. The Church has clearly erred: her fruit is the proof.  Let’s examine the beliefs of the 1^st century – and the 2^nd, and 3^rd centuries, of Christianity, where the leaders at least were nonviolent! And none of them believed in the Trinity.

Finally, while history reveals some of the Church was violent and corrupt for much of the 4th - 18th century, the current Church, while imperfect, exhibits much Christlikeness and, for the most part, believes in the Trinity. My response to that is that the current majority Church is deceived regarding the Trinity. Satan attacked the Church greatly in the 4th century, and his lies have continued to this day and negatively impact the Church. For example, if Jesus is not God and became sinless, which I think the Bible shows, Jesus becomes a different person to follow than if he was a God-man we could never possibly emulate (if we are honest with ourselves, given that we are not God). If he is not God, following him fully suddenly becomes completely possible, particularly if original sin is also not true, which I do not think it is (see section 5 of my blog). I think Satan is afraid of the Church realizing who they really are (meant to be exactly like Christ – and they can be, now, because of the Holy Spirit and obedience) – because if they did, perhaps the world would be completely changed.  

The Church is, I think, in some ways like Eve was in the garden of Eden. In the garden, God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He then, presumably, taught Eve this after Eve was created. When Eve was tempted, she added words to God’s command. She said they were not allowed even to “touch” the tree. Adding words to what God has said is dangerous - as that is what the council of Nicaea did and the councils that followed that one on Jesus’ divinity. The Nicene Creed adds words to the Bible (God the Son, 3 in 1, the Trinity, etc.). This is a doorway for deception. Eve's mind was deceived. The current Church is, I think, the same. The Church generally is filled with people who genuinely love God and Christ but are deceived in their minds regarding who God and Jesus are. Their hearts are amazing and pure - their mind is confused on the Trinity. They have the fruit of the Spirit - they have the Holy Spirit - they are true Christians. But, they have been deceived by the enemy. The true Church today has embraced what the first 3 centuries of Christendom believed regarding false doctrine: those who disagree are not to be persecuted but loved, through words and actions. This has been the case in the Church since the 18th century. Thank God for that! The true Church knows God’s way is love - not persecution of those who do not believe what the Church deems orthodox.

In conclusion, the witness of history is that the Trinity doctrine and Jesus’ divinity is false, man-made, and from Satan given the fruit of those who propagated it and the fruit of the Church that followed its adoption for many years. The current Church has the Holy Spirit and is bearing much fruit of the Spirit, but from my perspective, the majority Church is still deceived over the doctrine of the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity.

All this being said, I think the witness of Scripture shows that Jesus is not God and God is one God, 2 in 1, Father and Mother (see section 1 and section 2 of this blog), and the witness of Scripture trumps history.