by Chuck Hedrick
Chuck Hedrick was a theologian at Rutgers University who posted regularly and carefully to net.religion.christian in 1985 — one of the few participants who combined genuine scholarly training with the patience to explain historical theology to a mixed audience of believers, skeptics, and the genuinely curious.
In August 1985, Frank Silbermann asked how Modalism came to be condemned as a heresy. Hedrick's response is a compact history of Trinitarian development from the second to the fourth century: the Monarchian movements that tried to preserve monotheism against what they saw as creeping tritheism; the Arian alternative that almost prevailed; and the eventual formula — one ousia (essence), three hypostases (persons) — that emerged from the councils and has defined orthodox Christian theology ever since.
What Hedrick makes clear is that the doctrine was not handed down whole. It was the result of a long, contentious argument in which every alternative was tried and found wanting. The Monarchians got the monotheism right but lost Christ. The Arians got Christ as a figure but made him something in between. Only the Trinitarian formula allowed for a Christ who was "fully human, but also a full revelation of God." The Nicean Creed, Hedrick notes, actually came out of the Council of Constantinople in 381 — a fact often obscured by the creed's name.
This is a response to a couple of issues that Frank Silbermann raised a few days ago.
He asks how Modalism came to be considered a heresy. If you are interested in the Trinity, it is worth at least a glance at the early doctrinal debates. Otherwise you are liable to fall into known pitfalls. (It's obviously much more fun to avoid the known pitfalls and find new ones to fall into.)
From the 2nd to 4th Century, Christian ideas about God moved slowly from wording that more or less recapitulated Biblical language to the first true Trinitarian formulations. The folks who did this work thought they were just clarifying their language and making explicit ideas that were already there in the NT. Along about the 3rd Century, a number of people saw where this was headed and decided that there had to be a better way. In particular, they were concerned that the discussions were moving towards tritheism. So these folks attempted to formulate a Christian theology based on a single, simple God.
Monarchianism
There were several different attempts to work out these ideas, generally referred to as "Monarchianism." The problem is that based on a simple model of God, it is hard to come up with an explanation of Christ's relation to God that does justice to Christian experience and the NT message.
One group of Monarchians ended up saying that he was just a man, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Another went the other way, and ended up with Jesus as a sort of puppet. The latter group was known as "patripassian" because they said that the Father himself suffered on the cross. Both of these contradict the Biblical accounts, as well as the experience of the Church.
As far as I know, nobody ever held an official church council to outlaw these ideas. However they were generally pounced on by various bishops, and such major theologians as Tertullian and Origen. The impression I get is that this approach was generally discredited and people went on to other things. Certainly by the 16th Century, Reformed creeds were referring to the Monarchians (not by that term: normally they listed representative theologians by name) as if it was well known that they were heretical.
Arianism
There was another major attempt to develop an alternative to the Trinity in the early 4th Century. This is referred to as Arianism. Unfortunately, Arius ended up with a Christ who was a semi-divine creature, not quite God but more than man. This manages to combine the disadvantages of both Monarchianism and tritheism. However this attempt turned out to be much harder to stop. Various councils were called, and things got tied up in Imperial politics. Arius' views were anathematized formally at several of these councils.
The Nicean Creed
The final result of this is the confession that is now known as the Nicean Creed (though in fact it seems to have come out of the Council of Constantinople in 381). It speaks of God as being a single essence (ousia), but having three persons (hypostases). Many people found this formulation somewhat painful, but every attempt to avoid it seemed to result in something worse. I think the final test of the various alternatives was how they dealt with Christ, and only the Trinity allowed for a Christ who was fully human, but also a full revelation of God.
As for tritheism, as far as I know, no Christian theologian ever seriously considered this. It was always something that one accused others of believing. Christians believe that Christ revealed the Father. Making him a separate god doesn't help explain how he revealed the Father.
On the question of Roman religion: you say that many of the ideas that I mention are also present in the OT prophets. Of course. I don't claim that Christians say things that contradict the OT. However in the OT there is a sense in which God is a mathematical point. We know what he wants us to do because he sent a prophet to say "Thus says the Lord." We know he loves us because he revealed that fact to us. But in Christ we believe we see God. So we are no longer dependent upon messages about him.
I don't doubt that the patriarchs of the OT knew God. I don't even doubt that there are Jews now who do. I think they would have a lot to gain if they came to know Christ, but I'm not interested in disproving other people's religions or their relationships to God. I'm sorry if I implied that it is impossible to believe in God's love without believing in the Trinity.
Colophon
Posted to net.religion.christian by Chuck Hedrick, Rutgers University, August 1985. Hedrick posted as [email protected] and contributed some of the most careful theological writing to appear on early Usenet. For his companion piece on the Trinity's deepest purpose — not counting persons but affirming that Love is intrinsic to God's nature — see The Trinity and the Fine Line in this collection.
Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: [email protected].
🌲