The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century

Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.

Click here to find out about THE definitive book on William Branham - Under The Halo: Examining the Legacy of William Branham

This article is part of our series examining a number of David Bernard's major publications. Please click on this link if you would like to go to the list of pubications we have reviewed - Links to Bernard's other books.

Critical Response to The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century by David Bernard

---

This book picks up where Oneness and Trinity A.D. 100-300 left off. That book covered the church through 300. This one covers the defining century that produced orthodox Trinitarianism: the Arian controversy, the Council of Nicaea in 325, the fifty-year battle that followed, the three Cappadocian theologians who refined the formula, and the Council of Constantinople in 381. Bernard's goal, as in his previous books, is to show that Trinitarianism was invented by philosophers and politicians rather than received from Scripture or the apostles.

Some of what Bernard argues here overlaps with arguments addressed in responses to his earlier books — the "development" argument, the founders-as-heretics argument, and the general claim that modalism was widespread. This response focuses only on the arguments that are new to this volume: the specific political dynamics at Nicaea, the content and actual limitations of the original Nicene formula, the Cappadocian theological settlement, and several specific claims that deserve direct engagement.

---

"Constantine Forced Nicaea Through for Political Reasons"

Bernard quotes historians Will Durant and Walter Nigg to show that Constantine convened Nicaea not out of theological conviction but to preserve imperial unity. The emperor called the dispute "insignificant" and "quite unworthy of fierce contention." In the end, he threw his political weight behind the Athanasian position, threatened exile for those who refused to sign, and saw all but two bishops comply. Bernard uses this to argue the Nicene formula was politically coerced, not theologically earned.

The political facts he presents are accurate, and Trinitarian historians have never hidden them. But the argument confuses the process by which a decision is made with whether the decision is correct. Constantine's motives for calling the council were political. The bishops' reasons for signing varied from genuine conviction to pragmatic compliance. None of that changes whether what the creed affirmed — that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father — is true. A decision can be made for bad reasons and still be right.

There is a second problem with the political-coercion argument. It only accounts for Nicaea's initial victory in 325. What it cannot explain is what happened next. Constantine almost immediately reversed course, siding with the Arians, rehabilitating Arius, and sending Athanasius into exile. His son Constantius made the empire officially Arian for years. The Arian party controlled the East for decades. If Trinitarianism were simply a political winner riding Constantine's coattails, it should have collapsed when he changed sides. Instead, it survived fifty years of political adversity, sustained by theologians who endured exile repeatedly rather than abandon their position. The Nicene confession prevailed in 381 not because an emperor happened to like it, but because Athanasius and the Cappadocians convinced a rising generation of bishops it was true.

---

"The Key Word at Nicaea Was Coined by Gnostics"

Bernard cites Jaroslav Pelikan's observation that the central word at Nicaea, homoousios ("of the same substance"), was "coined by Gnostic heretics, dictated by an unbaptized emperor." Bernard adds that the Gnostic Valentine had used the term, and that the Sabellians had used it against Trinitarianism. The implication is that this contaminates the Nicene settlement.

The origin of a word doesn't determine whether it can be used accurately. The word "person" in Trinitarian theology was borrowed from Roman legal vocabulary, where it referred to a legal identity, and from Greek theater, where it meant a dramatic mask. That origin doesn't invalidate its theological use. The word "Trinity" itself was coined by Tertullian, who later became a schismatic condemned by the church. Theologians regularly take existing words and give them precise new definitions. What matters is whether the definition arrived at is accurate, not whether the word had a clean history before the council adopted it.

Bernard also notes that the Sabellians had used homoousios to mean the Father and Son were the same single person. The Nicene council used it differently: same substance while being genuinely distinct. Using the same word with a different meaning is a normal feature of theological vocabulary development. The Nicene party was aware of the Sabellian use and explicitly intended something else. That Sabellius and Athanasius both used the word is no more significant than the fact that Oneness believers and Trinitarians both use the word "God."

---

"The Original Nicene Creed Was Compatible with Oneness Theology"

This is one of Bernard's more careful arguments in the book. He points out that the creed produced at Nicaea in 325 was not the Nicene Creed used in churches today. The original formula didn't explicitly state that God is "three distinct persons." Its main purpose was to condemn Arianism by insisting the Son was "of the same substance" as the Father. The creed also used the words hypostasis and ousia interchangeably in its condemnatory clause, condemning anyone who said the Son was of a different hypostasis or ousia than the Father — but the later Trinitarian formula is explicitly "one ousia, three hypostases." So the original Nicene creed, Bernard argues, was not clearly Trinitarian in the modern sense and some signers may have understood it in a modalistic way.

Bernard is right that the original Nicene formula is not the creed in use today, and that it developed further before reaching its familiar form. Trinitarian historians acknowledge this openly.

But the creed's compatibility with Oneness is more limited than Bernard claims. The original creed says the Son is "begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father." The phrase "begotten of the Father" describes a relationship between two realities that exists before the Incarnation. Oneness theology requires the Son to have no existence before Bethlehem. The creed affirms one. More directly, the creed condemns those who say "He was not before he was made" and "there was a time when he was not." Those are direct condemnations of Arianism, but they also condemn any position that the Son came into being at the Incarnation. Oneness theology teaches exactly that the Son's existence began at Bethlehem. The condemnatory clause at Nicaea would apply.

The terminological problem with hypostasis and ousia is real but doesn't help Bernard's case. Yes, the original creed used them interchangeably, and later Trinitarianism distinguished them. This shows the Nicene formula was underdeveloped, not that it was Oneness-compatible. The Cappadocians' later refinement was a move toward greater precision about what the council had already affirmed about the Son's relation to the Father, not a reversal of direction.

---

"Oneness Supporters Were Inside the Nicene Party Itself"

Bernard argues that two prominent supporters of the Nicene position — Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra — were essentially Oneness or modalistic in their views. Athanasius defended both men. Archibald Robertson described Marcellus as holding "archaic conservatism akin to the 'naive modalism' of the early Church." Marcellus held that the Logos was not a distinct person, that "Son" referred only to the Incarnation, and that the Father and Son were not two persons. Bernard concludes that Nicaea was not a clear rejection of Oneness because Oneness believers were part of the winning coalition.

The historical point is real. Marcellus held what sound like modalistic views, and Athanasius initially defended him. The early Nicene coalition was a diverse anti-Arian alliance, not a theologically uniform Trinitarian movement.

But what Bernard draws from this is too large for the evidence. Marcellus was eventually condemned, by councils closely allied with the Nicene position. A council at Sirmium in 351 pronounced specific anathemas on several of his views, including the position that "Son" began only at the Incarnation. A council at Constantinople in 336 had already deposed him. Athanasius himself ultimately distanced himself from Marcellus. And the Council of Constantinople in 381, which completed the Trinitarian settlement, explicitly condemned "Marcellians" by name alongside Arians and Sabellians.

What this shows is that the Trinitarian movement, as it developed precision over the fourth century, progressively distinguished itself from modalism — including the modalism of people who had once been allies against Arianism. The modalists signed onto the anti-Arian cause early because Arius denied the full deity of Christ, and so did they, in their own way. That alliance doesn't mean the final Trinitarian formula endorsed their views. It means the church had to work through the distinction between defending the deity of Christ (against Arians) and affirming the personal distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit (against modalists). That work took time. The outcome was the rejection of both.

---

"The Cappadocians' Solution Was Essentially Three Gods"

This is the sharpest theological argument in the book. The three Cappadocians, in order to explain how three persons could be distinct yet one, compared the Godhead to three men sharing one human nature. Peter, James, and John were their recurring example: three individual persons, one human nature. Basil used this comparison not as a casual illustration but as part of his formal definition of hypostasis versus ousia. Bernard cites Trinitarian scholars Seeberg, Tony Lane, and Harold Brown to show that even defenders of Trinitarianism acknowledge this analogy amounts to three gods.

Bernard is right that this is a real tension in Cappadocian theology, and he's right that Trinitarian scholars acknowledge it. Gregory of Nyssa himself admitted the objection was "very difficult to deal with." The answer Gregory gave was that calling three men "three humans" is technically an abuse of language, because properly they share one human nature — we should really speak of "one man." By the same logic, three divine persons share one divine nature and are therefore "one God." Whether this answer fully resolves the objection is genuinely debated.

But here is what the argument misses: the charge of tritheism and the charge of modalism are both rejections of the Trinity, and the fact that the Trinity is vulnerable to both criticisms simultaneously is actually what you should expect if it is true. If God is genuinely three persons, you will always risk pushing too far toward three-ness and sounding like three gods. If God is genuinely one, you will always risk pushing too far toward one-ness and sounding like modalism. The Cappadocians were trying to hold both realities together without collapsing either. Their specific analogies leaned toward the tritheism side — that's a fair critique of their vocabulary. It is not evidence that the underlying reality is false. The alternative Bernard proposes, one God with no real distinction of persons, only roles, solves the tritheism problem by abandoning what the New Testament actually shows: the Father and the Son speaking to each other, praying to each other, sending each other, loving each other, as real and distinct persons.

---

"The Cappadocians' Answers to Arian Texts Undercut What Trinitarians Argue Today"

This is the most pointed specific argument in the book, and it deserves honest engagement. When the Cappadocians answered Arian proof texts about Christ's inferiority — passages like Luke 22:42 ("not my will but yours"), John 14:28, and Mark 13:32 — they consistently said those passages referred to Christ's humanity only, not to any difference within the Godhead. Gregory of Nazianzus explicitly treated Luke 22:42 this way, saying the Godhead has one will common to all three persons. But Bernard observes that many Trinitarian apologists today use Luke 22:42 to prove two divine persons by arguing it reveals two distinct divine wills. The Cappadocians' own handling of the passage contradicts that apologetic move.

Bernard has caught something real here. If the Cappadocians were right that Luke 22:42 refers only to Christ's human will (because the divine will is one and common to all three persons), then using the same passage to prove two divine persons with two distinct divine wills is an argument those theologians would reject.

The honest answer is that the Cappadocians were right, and that modern Trinitarian apologists who reach for that particular argument are overreaching. Luke 22:42 demonstrates that Christ had a genuine and distinct human will that he freely submitted to the Father. That demonstrates the reality of his human nature, which was essential against Apollinaris (who said Christ had an incomplete human nature). It does not, by itself, prove two divine persons in the Godhead. Trinitarian theology doesn't actually require two divine wills; it affirms one divine will common to Father, Son, and Spirit, while maintaining that the three persons are genuinely distinct in their personal relations. Bernard has correctly identified imprecision in some modern Trinitarian apologetics. He has not identified a flaw in Trinitarianism itself. The Cappadocians' answer on this passage is consistent with careful Trinitarian theology. The popular apologetic use of the verse has sometimes gone further than the theology actually requires.

---

"Gregory of Nazianzus Admitted the Spirit's Deity Was Hidden from the Apostles"

Bernard notes that Gregory of Nazianzus taught that the full deity of the Holy Spirit was "originally hidden from the disciples" and was progressively revealed to the church after the apostolic age, with the Spirit guiding the church into this truth over time, citing John 16:12-13. Bernard treats this as an admission that the complete doctrine of the Trinity was not present in the apostolic deposit but developed afterward.

This is worth taking seriously, because Gregory's claim is remarkable. If the Holy Spirit's deity was hidden from the apostles, then the full Trinitarian understanding wasn't available to the New Testament writers. But the claim deserves scrutiny on its own terms, not just as a Trinitarian's admission.

The New Testament is specific about the Spirit in ways that are hard to explain on modalistic or unitarian grounds. In Acts 5:3-4, Peter tells Ananias that lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God — a direct identification of the Spirit as God. In 1 Corinthians 2:10-11, Paul describes the Spirit searching "the deep things of God" and knowing the mind of God as a man's own spirit knows his mind, attributing to the Spirit a form of self-aware, personal, divine knowledge. In John 14:16, Jesus describes the Spirit as "another Comforter," using the Greek word allos, meaning another of the same kind, distinguishing the Spirit as a person of the same kind as Jesus. In Romans 8:26-27, the Spirit intercedes for believers while the Father searches hearts and knows the Spirit's own mind, describing a three-way personal relationship between believer, Spirit, and Father. These passages don't read as though the Spirit's deity or personhood is hidden.

What Gregory was actually describing was how the church's formal vocabulary for the Spirit developed over time, not that the New Testament kept the Spirit's nature secret. Bernard takes Gregory's historical claim at face value because it suits his argument. But Gregory was a theologian describing doctrinal development, not a prophet reporting what the New Testament contains. The development of vocabulary is real. The hidden content Gregory imagined is not.

---

"Prominent Scholars Admit the Trinity Wasn't Present in the Early Church"

Bernard's concluding chapter quotes Jaroslav Pelikan, the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, all of which state that the formal formula "one God in three persons" was not solidly established until the last quarter of the fourth century. Pelikan says that to think you can sit alone with the New Testament and arrive at the Trinity "is naive." Bernard uses these admissions to argue that Trinitarianism is a fourth-century invention, not a biblical teaching.

These quotations are real, and the historical observation they make is accurate. The precise technical language of Trinitarian orthodoxy, specifically one ousia in three hypostases, was not formulated until late in the fourth century. The word homoousios was not used in Christian doctrine before Nicaea. The Cappadocians' careful distinction between ousia and hypostasis took decades to develop and gain broad acceptance. All of that is true.

But there is a large assumption buried in Bernard's use of these quotations. What Pelikan and others are saying is that the formal vocabulary took time to develop, not that the underlying reality it describes was absent from Scripture. Pelikan was a committed Trinitarian Christian who believed the councils were correctly articulating what the New Testament teaches. When he says you can't sit alone with the New Testament and arrive at the doctrine, his point is that without the context of the specific debates and the precision forced by those debates, you would develop only imprecise and underdeveloped ideas. He is not saying the New Testament doesn't teach the Trinity.

When Arius pressed the question of whether the Son was truly God or a created being, the church's answer required a level of precision that ordinary Christian language hadn't previously needed to produce. Before Arius, you could worship Jesus as God, pray to the Father and the Son as distinct, recite Matthew 28:19, and speak of the Spirit as God, all without having worked out exactly how those things fit together. Arius forced the question into the open, and the councils answered it. They didn't add content to the New Testament. They defended content already there against a reading that would have dissolved it. That is a fundamentally different claim from inventing it.

---

Reading the Fourth Century Honestly

This book is the most historically detailed of Bernard's three church history volumes, and it is genuinely useful as an account of how fourth-century doctrinal battles unfolded. Bernard is honest about the political pressures at Nicaea, the theological imprecision of the Cappadocians' analogies, the presence of modalists within the early Nicene coalition, and the drawn-out and contentious process by which the Trinitarian formula emerged. Trinitarian Christians should engage all of that honestly rather than pretending the councils were a smooth and unified declaration of something everyone already agreed on.

What the book does not show is that the doctrine is wrong. The process was messy. The people involved were imperfect. The vocabulary they used was borrowed from philosophy and was imprecise in ways that later required correction. But the reality they were trying to describe, a God who is genuinely one and in whom the Father, Son, and Spirit are genuinely distinct persons, is not a fourth-century invention. It is what the New Testament shows when you ask it the questions Arius forced people to ask.

The modalists got something right: the full deity of Jesus, the oneness of God, the rejection of a subordinated second being. They got something wrong: the personal reality of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as distinct from each other. Arianism got something right: the genuine distinction between the Father and the Son. It got something fatally wrong: the Son as a created being less than fully God. Nicene Trinitarianism, imperfectly and through an agonizing process, arrived at the answer that honors both: one God, fully divine, eternally existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each fully God and genuinely distinct. The messiness of the process does not disqualify the conclusion. It is, rather, what you would expect when the church is forced to say precisely what it has always believed.

---

This article responds to David K. Bernard, The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1993). Primary counter-sources: Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992); Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology; Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology.*

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines

Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us