By Steve Berg

One of the main reasons that the Jehovah's Witnesses are considered to be outside the realm of orthodox Christianity is their outright denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has made it clear how much they detest this doctrine held so dear by Christians throughout the centuries. Not only do [Jehovah's Witnesses] attempt to disprove the Trinity biblically, but they go to great lengths to impugn the integrity of its development, by making it appear that the early Church threw open the door to pagan philosophies, and completely apostasized from the faith within the first few centuries after the death of the apostles. The Watchtower Society devotes much space in its publications to their false version of the Trinity's history.

Since the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible, and was not made an official doctrine until the 4th century, and since it utilized terms borrowed from Greek philosophy, the Watchtower [Society] has concluded that the doctrine of the Trinity is the invention of man, and is certainly not Biblical. In their highly-circulated booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", they expend great effort to link Christianity with paganism and Greek philosophy in an attempt to prove the Trinity is the product of anti-Christian sources. Consider the following quote:

"Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began in invade Christianity. While [Plato]I did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato's ideas of God and nature." -- Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 11.

The Watchtower Society's argument can be summed up as follows:

1) The Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.

2) Ancient pagan religions believed in "Triads" or "Trinities".

3) The Trinity did not develop until four centuries after Christ.

4) Greek (Platonic) philosophy heavily influenced the Trinity.

Therefore, the Trinity is the unbiblical, pagan invention of man.

On the surface, the [WatchTower] Society's argument looks convincing. But the question we have to ask is, "Is it fair, or are there other factors to consider which the Watchtower Society has failed to mention?" In other words, are there missing pieces to this argument that would provide us with a better understanding of the origin of the Trinity?[1] 

Even a cursory reading of Church history will reveal that the Watchtower Society's portrayal of the events surrounding the development of the Trinity is incomplete and slanted. Despite the Watchtower Society's allegations, it has been proven that the theologians of the first few centuries (known as the early Church Fathers) virtually all accepted the fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were each God, long before the Trinity doctrine was made official. [2] 

Also, despite the Watchtower Society's charge that the Trinity is like other pagan conceptions of God, it is actually one of the major distinctives of the Christian faith, making it unique among all other religions of the world. While many religions may attempt to imitate the Trinity in some form or another, they are easily identified as counterfeits. While some other religions worship "triads of gods", none legitimately can be called a "Trinity". Neither is such relevant, since it contributes nothing to the validity or invalidity of the Trinity. Are the Jehovah's Witnesses a "Muslim" sect, because they also worship a unipersonal God?

The divine trinity has been a long debated issue due to its complex nature. Since the infinite God of the universe is so transcendent to our puny little existence on this puny little planet, it only makes sense that we would not be able to fully comprehend His nature. This is a stumbling block the Watchtower [Society] just can't seem to overcome. While it would be absurd to adhere to an actual contradiction (such as saying that God is one person at the same time that He is three persons, or He is one God at the same time that He is three Gods), we can take what we know and explain it the best way we can. If the Bible is true, and if it teaches that God is somehow both one and three at the same time, such an apparent contradiction cannot be an actual one. It may be a paradox, but not a contradiction. This is exactly what the ancient Church had to deal with.

Even though Jehovah's Witnesses may dispute the Biblical evidence supporting the Trinity, the fact is that the original formulaters of the doctrine back in the 4th century did believe it was Biblical. And it was for this reason they developed the formal doctrine of the Trinity, not because they were apostates deliberately trying to fuse Christianity with pagan philosophy. [3] 

All the reliable literature on Church history affirms this, even those sources cited by the Watchtower. Yet, this fact is something conveniently left out of their publications, since it would demolish their theory that "apostate Christendom" had evil intentions. The truth is, since the early theologians were convinced that the Bible teaches that somehow the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all fully divine, and yet teach that somehow there is only one God, they wanted to find an adequate way to reconcile this apparent contradiction. What follows after this is a gradual development of the Trinity doctrine that grew clearer in conception, yet was forever to remain a mystery.

As the early Church saw it, God made a radical revelation to us regarding Himself with the addition of the New Testament Scriptures. This new concept of God as portrayed in the Bible presented the early theologians with a unique challenge, that is, how to describe a God who is somehow both one and three at once. In addition, various other interpretations cropped up that were deemed unbiblical, such as Sabellianism (which held that God is only one person who is sometimes called the Father, sometimes called the Son, and sometimes called the Holy Spirit) and Arianism (the belief that only God the Father is God, and that the Son is a created being; a belief identical to Watchtower [Society] theology today). 

Because of such heresies, these theologians wanted to be more precise in their explanation of God's nature in order to make it clear that these other interpretations were unorthodox. If these heresies had never developed, a formalized doctrine of God's nature may never have developed either, since it probably would not have been necessary. Thus, while some form of a triune God was already accepted prior to the 4th century, there was no formalized doctrine to explain it. 

The Watchtower [Society] would have us believe that the Nicene Council, where the deity of Christ was first officially affirmed, was nothing but a political ploy designed to incorporate paganism into Christianity. In reality, however, it was a meeting designed to spell out more precisely what the church had already believed for centuries, but had never clearly defined, since there had not been a need until these heresies developed around it. 

Contrary to the Watchtower [Society]'s teaching, Arianism (the 4th century counterpart to Watchtower theology) was a relatively new theology. In fact, it can be said that Arian/Watchtower theology is actually younger than Trinitarian theology, another fact conveniently left out of Watchtower [Society] literature.[4]

In one sense, the Watchtower [Society] is right. The Trinity was influenced by Greek philosophy. But is it fair to assume that 1) philosophy is by nature evil and that 2) philosophy produced the doctrine of the Trinity?

The situation is a little more complex than the Watchtower [Society] would have us believe. Christianity sprang onto the scene right in the midst of Greek culture and thought. Hence, it is not surprising to see how extensively the Greeks influenced Christianity. Without their language and philosophy, our understanding of God's nature would probably be vastly limited and confused. Moreover, it would be absurd to think that Greek philosophy would have had no affect on Christian theology whatsoever, as it was so immersed in that culture. In fact, the Greeks played a major role in our very understanding of God as infinite, transcendent, unchanging, supreme Love, and absolute Truth. We see this clearly in St. Augustine's expression of God, whose language, though thoroughly Greek, the Watchtower would find nothing to disagree with:

"... for the essence of Cod, whereby He is, has nothing changeable, neither in eternity, nor in truth, nor in will: because there the truth is eternal, love is eternal; there the love is true: and there eternity is loved, truth is loved." (De Trinitate, 4).

The only way to reconcile the apparent contradictory evidence in the Bible was to use the language of the day, which happened to be heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Many of the New Testament writers themselves used Greek philosophical terms -- like the apostle Paul in Colossians 2:9; as well as the apostle John in the first chapter of his Gospel clearly shows. (The term logos or "Word" in reference to Jesus, was originally a Neo-Platonic concept.) 

Thus, the Watchtower Society's disregard for philosophy seems to be more of a superstitional fear than a valid concern. Just because Greek was used in explaining the "three in one nature" of God is really irrelevant to the discussion of whether God truly is three in one.

Secondly, the Platonic philosophers of the day would have been appalled by the conception of the Trinity. Saying that "the logos was God" would have made no sense to them. This only serves to further illustrate the fact that the Trinity was not an outgrowth of [Greek] philosophy.

Therefore, although Greek philosophy played a major role in explaining Christian doctrine, it cannot be said that the former conceived the latter. Greek philosophy was only able to help us understand the infinite God. Yet it was Christianity that added the concepts of personality and plurality. Contrary to the Watchtower [Society], instead of Christians syncretizing pagan beliefs into their faith, and manufacturing an artificial doctrine, the Trinity did not add any new information to the Biblical text. Rather, it merely synthesized the Scriptural data of God's nature into a convenient framework in which to explain it. 

In fact, if we wanted to, we could throw out all the philosophy and not discuss "the Trinity" at all. Instead, we could just discuss the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as taught in the Bible.

With this new information left out by the Watchtower [Society], we can now add the following statements to our earlier syllogism:

5) The Early Church Fathers believed in the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

6) The formulators of the Trinity sincerely believed it was Biblical.

7) Philosophy played a passive yet vital role in the development of the Trinity by merely providing us with the language necessary to explain it.

With the addition of these premises, the Watchtower [Society]'s original conclusion is no longer justified, since it is in consistent with the facts. A more logical conclusion, but one the [WatchTower] Society couldn't accept is:

"Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is not the invention of pagan philosophy, but is the elucidation of the paradoxical nature of God, as presented in the Bible."

Footnotes:

1. Note: This article is not a defense of the Trinity, but is rather a response to the Watchtower [Society]'s claim that the Trinity is pagan in origin.

2. See Robert Finnerty's "Jehovah's Witnesses on Trial".

3. An interesting note on this point is that the canon of Scriptural books was not officially decided upon until fourth century either, and yet the Jehovah's Witnesses accept as inspired the same books of the Bible that "Christendom" does. Thus, if the Trinity if the product of an apostate Church, then so is the selection of the books in the Bible.

4. The next article in this series will expand on the Watchtower [Society]'s hypocritical portrayal of Church history, showing precisely the origin of their theology, and Arius' own heavy reliance upon [Greek] philosophy.

***

By Steve Berg

Much has been written [about] the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology. Even from its inception, Christianity has found many similar concepts in Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought. Having been immersed in Greek culture, such an influence is entirely understandable. But is it excusable? Should the whole of Christianity be thrown out because of this fact? Many would have us think so. Some, while not concluding that Christianity itself should be rejected, say that only the corrupted version of it should be [rejected]. They maintain that true Christianity was unstained by philosophic speculations and interpretations.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [and its] Jehovah's Witnesses [members] is one of these groups. Due to their rejection of many orthodox Christian doctrines, they conclude that pure Christianity was lost some time shortly after the Apostles. By allowing the syncretization of Greek philosophy with Christianity, such doctrines like the "Trinity" and the "immortality of the soul" are purported to have arisen -- despite the clear teachings of the Bible and the Apostles. On numerous occasions, the Watchtower Society has traced the supposed pagan and philosophical roots of Trinitarian theology -- drawing the conclusion that it is not Biblical. [The Jehovah's Witnesses] capitalize on the fact that the formalized doctrine of the Trinity was a later development, and hence imply that their theology is the only true, orthodox, and historic Christian faith.

However, we never see anything more beyond these implications. The Watchtower [Society] has never provided a [detailed] analysis proving that the early Christians were the equivalent to the Jehovah's Witnesses today. They have never traced the development of their theology, as it has merely been assumed that it extends all the way back to the New Testament. Yet, is it true that Watchtower theology has been preserved from the influence of Greek philosophy? While the previous article illustrated the mere passive influence of Greek thought on Christian theology, this article will attempt to demonstrate the more direct evolution of pagan philosophy into current Watchtower theology.

While Greek philosophy may have played a part in helping us to understand what the Bible teaches about God, the Watchtower's theology actually also is consistent with [Greek philosophy]. In fact, the Greeks would have found the concept of a triune God to be a very strange one, whereas the unipersonal monad of current Watchtower theology would have been much more greatly accepted.

Neo-Platonism

In tracing the roots of current Watchtower theology regarding the nature of God and showing its connection with ancient pagan concepts, we must first begin with an overview of a pagan philosophy known as Neo-Platonism, and one of its major proponents, Plotinus. Plotinus, quite independent from Christian theology, postulated an ultimately transcendent God.[1] This God is the One, who is beyond all thought and all being. He is utterly ineffable and incomprehensible. He also believed that this one God cannot be multiple or divided in any sense. God is the One, beyond all distinctions whatsoever. He cannot even distinguish Himself from Himself, and so, is beyond self-consciousness.[2] Obviously, Plotinus would have flatly rejected the Trinity and would have been much more in line with the Arians, who refused to accept the notion of the coequal nature of the Son with the Father, had he a seat at the Nicene Council in 325 A.D.

In addition to this, Plotinus also held to the Neo-Platonic doctrine of emanations. He maintained that the world issues from God or proceeds from God by necessity.[3] In other words, Plotinus believed in a great chain-of-beings that began from God, and emanated down to the lowest form of created beings. We will see how this important concept influenced later precursors to the Watchtower Society's theology.

Origen

The next figure we must look at in the evolution of Watchtower theology is a brilliant thinker by the name of Origen. Living during the third century, Origen was a very significant figure in the history of both orthodox and unorthodox theologies. He was later condemned in the fifth century as a heretic. While it is true that Origen did play a major role in the eventual formulation of the Trinity, his influence on later Watchtower Society theology was heavy as well.[4] However, as it will be demonstrated, it is the non-Biblical, purely philosophical components of Origen's thought that will more directly influence the precursors of the Watchtower Society's theology. These precursors took one element of Origen's theology to one extreme, whereas the Trinitarians focused on a different aspect. This element, evident in Origen's conception of the Godhead, is the separate and subordinate nature of the Son to the Father.

Origen was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly Middle and Neo-Platonic thought. As previously mentioned, the Neo-Platonists believed there was a vast descending series of beings from God down to man.[5] These emanations provided intermediary links between God and the world. The Logos, or reason of God, commonly was thought to be the highest of these emanations.[6] Origen then adapted this concept into a Christian context.

His rather unique theology involved the pre-existence of souls, which illustrated the Neo-Platonic chain-of-being concept. He believed that the transcendent God generated a world of spirit beings who were given the free will to obey God, or not. These spirit beings became too comfortable and satiated with God's love, so that through neglect, their love subsided, and they fell into varying degrees of existences, forming a sort of hierarchy of beings, with the Logos (who, of course, never fell) at the top, and angels and men coming underneath him. Christ is the pre-existent Logos, the Mediator between God and man, and to whom it is proper to pray. Yet, while not being another God alongside the Father, Origen avoided polytheism by saying he is a lesser God, subordinate in nature to his Father, but at the same time uncreated and eternally begotten. Hence, out of this, we can see Origen's distinct doctrine of subordinationism developing from the Middle and Neo-Platonic conceptions of emanations.

Arius

The next link in our theological chain is a man named Arius, who often is referred to in Church history as an arch-heretic, because despite the fact that he acquired quite a following, his teachings were condemned numerous times by the early Church. Arius' connection to Origen can be seen in the latter's conception of subordinationism. Arius picked up on Origen's subordinationism and took it to even greater extremes by pushing God so far into transcendence that nothing could be said to share in his nature.[7] Hence, everything else had to be utterly separate and created by Him. Therefore, God created the Logos, who in turn created "everything else". This Logos had a totally separate nature from God, though in some sense could still be considered God (or even a god). As a result, Arius slightly distanced himself from Origen by rejecting the eternal generation concept of the Logos.[8] Arius was also strongly motivated against both polytheism and modalism, yet could not accept Origen's conception of the relationships within the Godhead. To him, separate divine persons tie distinct beings altogether. So. while Arius strayed radically away from Origen, who would have disowned the Arians, his thought certainly was an outgrowth of Origen's theology. The ties between Middle Platonic emanations, to Origenic subortionationism and to Arian subordinationism is not so much a difference in kind as it is in degree. In oher words, we're not talking aobut the differences between apples and oranges, but rather the difference between a big apple and a little one. In fact, one author has said, "Consciously or not, Arius is a post Platonian.[9]

Thus, we actually see that Middle Platonic thought is very much intrinsic to Arianism, while Trinitarianism merely utilized Greek philosophical language to explain a Biblical concept. In other words, without Middle Platonism, Arianism would not have arisen. Arian thought hardly grew independent of Greek philosophy, and whereas Trinitarianism uses Greek thought to explain Christian concepts, it seems as though Arianism takes Christian theology and applies it to Greek philosophy. Another church historian sees this connection fairly clear enough:

"Arius had, of course, discarded certain of Origen's ideas, notably his doctrine of eternal generation, and he had carried his subordinationism to radical lengths, reducing the Son to creaturely status. In doing so, he was following, despite his consciously Biblical starting-point, a path inevitably traced for him by the Middle Platonist preconceptions he had inherited." [10]

Watchtower Theology

How exactly does current Watchtower theology square with Arianism from the fourth century? Does the Watchtower Society link their own thought with the Arians? The Watchtower Society, though indirectly, definitely identifies itself with the Arians of the fourth century. For instance, in their recent polemic against the doctrine of the Trinity entitled, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", they attempt to trace the history of the development of the Trinity, and in so doing, link themselves positively to those who believed Jesus was created. This is an obvious reference to the Arians at the time of Nicaea.

In another recent WatchTower Society book entitled, "Mankind's Search for God", a more detailed discussion regarding the Council of Nicaea ensues with an even closer inference being made:

"Some favored the Biblically-supported viewpoint that Christ, the Logos, was created and therefore subordinate to the Father. ... .Among these was Arius. a priest in Alexandria, Egypt." [11]

By calling Arius' viewpoint the Biblically supported one, they obviously are trying to identify themselves along with him. Yet, in so doing, they are unwittingly linking themselves to Arius' theology. Interestingly, the Watchtower Society makes no mention of the fact that the Arians (the so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses" of that age) believed in the full personality of the Holy Spirit, In fact, while Arius may not have held to a modern conception of the Trinity, he did have his own version of it; the main difference being the creation of the Second Person.[12] If the Jehovah's Witnesses of the fourth century believed that the Holy Spirit was a personal being, and not just a magical force, why have the Jehovah's Witnesses of today apostasized from true Christianity?

In terms of Watchtower Society theology, the reminiscence of Arius is quite clear. Arius believed that the Logos (the Son) was a created being, who in turn created "everything else". This is exactly in line with what the Watchtower says about the Son. In their handy, mini-systematic theology text called, "Reasoning from the Scriptures", under the heading of "Jesus Christ", they define Him as:

"The only begotten Son of God, the only Son produced by Jehovah alone. This Son is the firstborn of all creation. By means of him all other things in heaven and on earth were created. He is the second-greatest personage in the universe." [13]

A famous motto adopted by the Arians would be something the Watchtower Society would have been proud to cite as well, "There was a time when the Son was not." [14] This phrase clearly emphasized the Arian belief in Christ's finite nature, and comes very close to the following Watchtower statement regarding Jesus' essence.

"The Bible is clear and consistent about the relationship of God to Jesus. Jehovah God alone is Almighty. He created the prehuman Jesus directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity." [15]

Last of all, we see the two groups using the same passages of scripture to support their veiws. Associating the Logos with Wisdom, the Arians often appealed to Proverbs 8:22 to demonstrate his creation out of nothing. In addition, Colossians 1:15 speaks of Christ as the firstborn of all creation, which they suppose implies a series of created beings, the Son being the first.

Needless to say, the Jehovah's Witnesses have not been shy in citing these references as well: "Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was the first-born of all creation (Colossians 1:15)." 16 Therefore, the identification of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect today with the fourth-century Arians is easily established. Since the former view themselves as the only true Christians and they view the latter as the only true Christians of their day, this kinship is difficult to deny.

However, upon further examination of the historical evidence regarding Arius and his theology, this connection is not a fact the Watchtower would want to have exposed beyond the common belief in the Son's createdness. As we have seen, Arius himself was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. However, the Watchtower effectively has kept knowledge of Arius primarily hidden in obscurity. Why is it that we never hear them report on the beliefs of Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists? Why do they not delve further into Arius1 background and mention the fact that not even lie denied the personality of the Holy Spirit, as they themselves do? The fact is, the Watchtower fails to cite any advocates of their theology before the great apostasy. Is this a mere oversight? Or could it be due to the plain, historical fact that the whole of the Watchtower's distinctive theology has no basis in Church history whatsoever? They may find representatives who held certain beliefs in common, but none whose entire theology matched theirs. Another point of oversight on the Watchtower's part is the fact that, despite Nicaea, Arianism rose to extreme prominence in the Roman empire soon after Constantine. It was his own son, Constantius (as well as another Arian Emperor, Valens, who often is referred to as a rabid Arian) who banished Athanasius and made Nicene theology illegal. Athanasius actually was exiled five times in his lifetime due to the injustices of the fourth century "Jehovah's Witness" politicians who controlled the empire at the time. Such opposition led to the famous saying of Athanasius, "Athanasius against the world" and "the world against Athanasius." Thus, if there was anyone who suffered persecution, it surely was not Arius. It took the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. to finally settle this issue once and for all.

Conclusion

In summary, we can see that the Watchtower's reason for rejecting orthodox Christianity because of its syncretization with pagan Greek philosophy is totally invalid. If Christendom is guilty of such a charge then, so too, if not more so, is Watchtower theology. However, Trinitarianism is surely not the result of philosophy (see previous article ). In fact, down through the history of philosophy and theology, the dominant contention has always been that the doctrine of the Trinity could not be result of philosophical speculation, but could only be due to divine revelation. So while Arius' theology fits very nicely with purely pagan philosophical conceptions of God, true Trinitarianism would he foreign to Plato and his later adherents. In fact, two of the most influential proponents of Trinitarianism, Tertullian and Athanasius, spoke rather unfavorably toward Greek philosophy. The former of these two (who is even credited with inventing the term Trinity) hated it so much that he has become well-known for asking, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" It would appear then that, in the Watchtower's attempt to link orthodox Christianity with paganism and Greek philosophy, and to find a non-Trinitarian advocate during the early period of the Church, they actually have flown right into the arms of paganism themselves.

 

Footnotes:

1. Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy, Vol 1 New York: Doubleday. 1993, p. 464.

2. Ibid, p. 465.

3. Ibid, p. 466.

4. Gamble, Richard C., The Ancient Church 95 A.D. -- 600 A.D.

5. Copleston, p. 466.

6. Ibid.

7. Outreach. Inc. 1989, Lecture VII.

8. Kelly, J. R D. Early Church Doctrines. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. 1978, p. 228

9. Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, London: Oarton, Longman, and Todd. Ltd., 1987, p. 224

10. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.. 1989, pp. 7, 8

11. Gwatkin. Henry Melvill, The Arian Controversy, New York: AMS Press, 1979. p. 7

12. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985. p.209

13. Ibid

14. Kelly, p. 228

15. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?". p. 16

16. Ibid, p. 14