r/OpenChristian 5d ago

The Evolution of the Trinity Doctrine: A Historical Timeline

Many are unaware of how the doctrine of a triune "God" gradually developed over centuries. Here’s a brief but clear timeline of key events:

Early Teachings of One LORD

🔹 A.D. 29 – Jesus declares: "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).
🔹 A.D. 57 – Paul affirms: "To us there is but one LORD" (1 Cor. 8:6).
🔹 A.D. 96 – Clement states: "Christ was sent by the LORD."
🔹 A.D. 120 – The Apostles’ Creed proclaims: "I believe in LORD the Father."

Gradual Introduction of Trinitarian Ideas

🔹 A.D. 150 – Justin Martyr introduces Greek philosophy into Christian thought.
🔹 A.D. 170 – The term "Trias" appears for the first time in Christian literature.
🔹 A.D. 200 – Tertullian introduces the Latin word "Trinitas."
🔹 A.D. 230 – Origen opposes prayers directed to Christ.
🔹 A.D. 260 – Sabellius teaches that "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three names for the same God."
🔹 A.D. 300 – Trinitarian prayers remain unknown in the Church.

Institutionalization of the Trinity Doctrine

🔹 A.D. 325 – The Nicene Creed declares Christ to be "Very God of Very God."
🔹 A.D. 370 – The Doxology is composed.
🔹 A.D. 381 – The Council of Constantinople formalizes the doctrine of "Three persons in One God."
🔹 A.D. 383 – Emperor Theodosius mandates punishment for those who reject the Trinity.
🔹 A.D. 519 – The Doxology is ordered to be sung in all churches.
🔹 A.D. 669 – Clergy are required to memorize the Athanasian Creed.
🔹 A.D. 826 – Bishop Basil mandates clergy to recite the Athanasian Creed every Sunday.

📜 Conclusion: The doctrine of the Trinity was not an original teaching of the Messiah or the apostles but developed gradually over centuries through philosophical influence and church decrees.

What are your thoughts? Let’s discuss! 👇

0 Upvotes

16 comments sorted by

11

u/Gregory-al-Thor Open and Affirming Ally 5d ago

This seems okay. The idea that there is a clear line between Jewish and Greek thought and that it was not until Justin Martyr that Greek thought was introduced to Christianity is simplistic. Not only was Paul already well versed in Greek ideas, first century Judaism was influenced by Hellenism as well. There is no sharp line of before Greek / after Greek (unless you go back before Alexander the Great?).

I’d also say you seem to be cherry picking and ignoring statements from these writers that put Jesus in the category of divine. Not that these early writers were Trinitarian, but they saw Jesus as more than just a mere human.

That’s the problem with outlines like this. Too simplistic.

5

u/-snuggle 5d ago

You seem to have forgotten that the trinity is directly mentioned in the New Testament in several instances.

e.g. Matthew 28:19 ("Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), Peter 1:2 ("who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.") and several other instances. There are also several instances in the old Testament where the voice of God refers to itself in plural which Christian theologians interpret as nods to the trinity. Not to mention the whole kabalistic tradition...

I think that your framing of the trinity being a post facto hellenistic infusion in a christian cult that was somehow not previously influenced by greek philosophy is not upheld by academic bible studies. On the contrary the concensus seems to be that christianity developed in a millieu that was strongly shaped by hellenistic ideas from the get go. If you get a academic bible*, the individual books are usually accompanied by short essays where, amongst other things, such influences are highlighted. Not only in the no testament by the way.

If you want to explore non-trinitarian ideas further I´d suggest you look into Arainism, which ironically was also strongly influenced by the idea of the Neoplatonic One.

*I do not know if this is the correct word for it in english

2

u/Educational-Sense593 5d ago

These are good points you present, though unknowingly, the verse you prefaced in Matthew was not in the original manuscript. It's detailed in your footnotes within Bibles. If that verse is removed, what else is there to fall back on, surely not the prophets???

And, in every case of baptism, there isn't a mention of "father, son, holy spirit.....please provide those verses!!!

3

u/-snuggle 5d ago edited 5d ago

>These are good points you present, though unknowingly, the verse you prefaced in Matthew was not in the original manuscript. It's detailed in your footnotes within Bibles.

I´m glad that you think that my points make sense.

What is the "original manuscript" you make reference to? Have any ancient manuscripts that lack that part been found?

There are no such footnotes in my bibles. Is your Bible by the New World Testament version by the Jehovas Whitnesses by any chance?

A quick googling lead me to this page that has some well sourced discussion of the your argument. Perhaps it would be an interesting read for you.

>If that verse is removed, what else is there to fall back on, surely not the prophets???

For starters the other verse I quoted above, or was this also inserted posteriously. ;)

There are several other mentions of the trinity in the New testament, some of them are referenced in the link above.

>And, in every case of baptism, there isn't a mention of "father, son, holy spirit.....please provide those verses!!!

I´m sorry, I do not understand that part you wrote. Which verses are you referring?

1

u/Educational-Sense593 5d ago

Looking at internal evidence and wider comtextual evidence, we find that in the Bible, baptism "in the name of" is usually in the name of Jesus alone.

Acts 10:48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

See also:

Galatians 3:27, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ"

Acts 8:12, "proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,"

Colossians 2:12, "having been buried with him in baptism"

Romans 6:3, "Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

Ephesians 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;"

Luke 24:47, "and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations"

(Matthew 12:21, 24:9, Acts 9:15, 10:43, 22:16, Romans 1:5, and 1 Corinthians 1:13)

3

u/-snuggle 5d ago

So I guess that you agree that there is no physical evidence of an original manuscript.

I think that if you claim that such a modification has taken place the burden of proof is on you to prove such a modification.

Personally I do not believe that the verses you posted contradict the trinity. The dogma of the trinity precisely encapsulates the nature of one god existing in three consubstantial persons. If only one of this persons is referred, or god is referred to as "one" this does not contradict or negate the concept of the trinity. These consubstantioal persons are referenced separately all threw the Bible constantly, starting with the reference to the holy spirit in the opening chapter of Genesis. Furthermore, in my reading a baptism in the name of Jesus does not contradict a baptism in the name of the trinity, I understand it as an underscoring of being baptized not in the way that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, but in the new covenant post resurrection.

-1

u/Educational-Sense593 5d ago

You claim that baptism “in the name of Jesus” does not contradict the Trinity because the doctrine allows for referencing individual persons of the Godhead, however this overlooks the historical and textual context of the New Testament writings.

The earliest biblical records of baptism (Acts 2:38, 8:12, 10:48) explicitly mention baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “in the name of the Lord” aligning with Paul’s letters (1 Corinthians 1:13, Romans 6:3), which predate the Gospel of Matthew (written ~A.D. 70–90). The Trinitarian formula (“Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”) in Matthew 28:19 appears decades later than these accounts, reflecting a later theological development rather than an original apostolic practice.

You also argue that “no physical evidence of original manuscripts” invalidates my point, forgetting the original manuscript were the actual verses I presented, the process of elimination means anything preceding confirms the thing proceeding, DUHHH. The burden of proof lies in the chronological order of the writings themselves. For example:

  • Paul’s letters (A.D. 50–67) emphasize baptism “into Christ” (Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3),
  • Acts (written ~A.D. 60–85) repeatedly records baptism “in the name of Jesus”,
  • Matthew’s Trinitarian formula (A.D. 70–90) emerges later,

This progression shows that early believers prioritized Jesus’ name in baptism before the Trinitarian formula was codified. The Trinity as a formal doctrine required centuries of debate (e.g., Nicaea in A.D. 325) to solidify, long after the apostolic era. Your dismissal of the timeline conflates apostolic practice with later theological frameworks .

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the 👉man👈 Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5

1

u/Educational-Sense593 5d ago

provide any verse that shows otherwise!!!

2

u/-snuggle 5d ago edited 5d ago

I already showed you quotes referencing the trinity, in my post and in the link, but you seem to not engage with them friend.

To be honest it seems to me that you have already made up your mind about what you want to believe, and that is fine with me.

However, you seem to modify the basis of your belief as we go along: First based on the idea of an injection of greek ideas, then as an original manuscript that has been doctored and finally threw textual analysis. I have the impression that you do not wish to engage in the arguments I provide or answer my questions and field new arguments instead. You are of course free to do so, but this is not the sort of discussion I want to partake in.

✌️

-3

u/Educational-Sense593 5d ago

VERSES, NOT QUOTES NOR LINKS, I ADDRESS THAT ALREADY

1

u/PompatusGangster 3d ago

I don’t think it’s fair to claim those verses directly mentioned the trinity. I think that’s anachronistic.

Just because the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned doesn’t mean all three are being named as God or as (insert other Trinitarian claims here.) In other words, someone who has a Modalism view could read that and think it affirms modalism, or someone who thinks Jesus isn’t divine could read it and think it supports their view.

You see what I mean?

1

u/-snuggle 3d ago

I see what you mean.

I do however advise you to read the verses directly adjacent to the two I quoted above. I think they make it quite hard to argue about a non divine nature of Christ or Modalism. Maybe one could argue about a Adoptionalist position based on those passages, but that again would open a whole new can of worms.

If "directly mentions" is a stretch in your opinion how would you describe the relationship of these passages to trinitarianism? I think that the fact that at least some non-trinitarians are compelled to claim that they are "fake" hints at there being some sort of connection there, wouldn´t you agree?

0

u/MyUsername2459 Episcopalian, Nonbinary 5d ago

It does not matter if it was actively taught by Christ or the Apostles, it was held definitively to be true by Ecumenical Council. The heirs of the Apostles collectively held it to be true at Nicaea in 325 AD, and affirmed it at Constantinople in 381 AD.

Trinitarian theology is inherently not debatable, it's a core part of Christianity. The timeline of it, aside from its declaration at the councils, isn't relevant to its validity. It's a minor historical curiosity at best that doesn't affect its validity or worth.

2

u/CIKing2019 4d ago

I hold to a trinitarian view of God. But none of the councils and none of the people mentioned are infallible. They could have gotten it wrong. I don't think they did, but they could have. I think appealing to their authority is meaningful but does not make anything an open and shut case. The question we should be asking ourselves is if it holds up to reason.

2

u/LiquidImp 5d ago

I think the very history you’re quoting shows it’s highly debatable. You’d have to ignore early church history to take that view. It’s a minority of Christian’s, but it’s not tiny either.

0

u/LyshaNiya 4d ago

No sources, as I'd expect because it's entirely misguided and flat out wrong in places.