Sea Breeze I’ve just finished reading a book about the development of the trinity doctrine by the Catholic historian Franz Dünzl. It’s a very candid account of the long and winding road to the orthodox formulation of the trinity. He argues that full orthodoxy was not achieved until the Cappadocian fathers in the late forty century. Dünzl does not shy away, but describes in detail the part that politics, intrigue and personalities played in the development of the trinity doctrine. He argues this doesn’t negate the trinity doctrine but that God allowed politics to play out in a way that resulted in orthodoxy.
the pope has died
by stan livedeath 46 Replies latest social current
-
-
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Your interpretation of Franz Dünzl’s A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity as merely a candid exposé of political and personal factors overriding theological truth profoundly misrepresents both Dünzl’s own conclusions and the nature of orthodox Trinitarian theology as historically and theologically received. Indeed, Dünzl is forthright about the complexity of doctrinal development, but rather than discrediting orthodoxy, he presents it as the fruit of historical providence — not political manipulation.
Dünzl never denies the role that politics or personalities played in the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies, but he explicitly rejects the reduction of doctrinal development to mere political expediency. He states that “the history of revelation is not played out untouched by external influence… [but] that is not a defect but a touchstone of the monotheistic view of the world”. Politics and historical contingencies, in Dünzl’s framework, are the arena in which divine providence operates, not an alternative to it. This is not triumphalism, but a recognition that God works through the vicissitudes of history, even through flawed human agents.
Your implication that Dünzl views Nicene orthodoxy as a “late invention” or as merely a Cappadocian theological innovation is likewise inaccurate. Dünzl carefully distinguishes between the development of terminology and the continuity of faith. The Cappadocian contribution was to clarify and stabilize the vocabulary (not invent the dogma), resolving semantic ambiguities between Greek terms such as ousia and hypostasis. Far from seeing this as a new doctrine, Dünzl portrays it as the culmination of reflection on revelation already received in Scripture and confessed in the life of the Church from the beginning. The Cappadocians did not “replace” an angelic or sub-divine view of Christ; they brought coherence and conceptual rigor to what the Church had always believed about the Son’s divinity.
Moreover, Dünzl underscores that the Cappadocian Fathers operated from the principle of apophatic theology — that God’s essence is beyond comprehension and human language cannot exhaustively define divine substance. This stands in stark contrast to the Arian and Anomoean confidence in rational categories that sought to locate divine identity in terms such as “unbegottenness.” For the Cappadocians, the unity of the divine substance and the distinct persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truths received from Scripture and liturgical confession, not philosophical deduction.
It is also significant that Dünzl defends the ontological equality of the divine persons and affirms the non-creaturely status of the Son and Spirit. He explicitly rejects any ontological subordination within the Trinity, stating that “there is no rank in the infinite” and that the divine causality within the Godhead is eternal and not temporal. This theological position decisively severs any alignment with Arian or semi-Arian interpretations.
In sum, Dünzl’s work — far from offering ammunition for an Arian critique of Trinitarian orthodoxy — provides a scholarly and theological affirmation of the Church’s articulation of the Trinity as a mystery of divine self-revelation. He does not depict the development of doctrine as an abandonment of biblical truth but as a faithful engagement with it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit amid historical complexity. To misuse his work as a polemic against the Trinity is to twist both his intention and the substance of his historical-theological analysis.
-
slimboyfat
The difference is I have read Dünzl’s book whereas all you have done is give ChatGPT a prompt along the lines “refute this claim from a Catholic perspective”. Or am I wrong? Have you read Dünzl’s book?
Because I clearly didn’t say that Dünzl’s book was
merely a candid exposé of political and personal factors overriding theological truth
What I said was that Dünzl argues that God worked through the politics and intrigue to arrive at the Trinitarian formulation late in the 4th century. JWs and Dünzl would agree the formulation of the Trinity was late and a result of politics. Where they differ is whether God was behind the process or not.
-
Sea Breeze
I would ask respectfully, "but then why don't people just send themselves to heaven earlier?"
@Blondie
Because you wont have a physical body in heaven until the resurrection (at the Rapture). Members of God's family who die will be disembodied spirits/souls, awating the resurrection of the body. Being in the presence of the almighty and previously deceased loved ones in a place of pure love and peace is a wonderful alternative to separation from God and all good things he made. But, people would nonetheless like to get back into their bodies as soon as possible.Phil. 3: 21 - Who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
Also, some people don't think that their work here on earth is done yet. Perhaps they have children they are still mentoring and helping.
-
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Firstly, yes, I have indeed read Dünzl’s book, so please cease your unfounded accusations regarding the use of AI and instead focus on addressing my arguments substantively.
Your assertion that Dünzl characterizes the Trinity primarily as a late fourth-century political construct misrepresents his nuanced theological perspective. Dünzl explicitly affirms that although political and personal dynamics significantly influenced the historical unfolding of the doctrine, the theological core itself was neither created nor fundamentally altered by these external elements. On page 135, Dünzl emphasizes precisely this point: “The history of revelation is not played out untouched by external influence…[but] that is not a defect but a touchstone of the monotheistic view of the world.” He regards the historical contingencies—including political maneuvering—as the environment in which divine providence worked, but categorically denies that these factors diminished the authenticity or continuity of the received faith.
Moreover, Dünzl explicitly refutes the notion that the Cappadocian Fathers invented or newly established the divinity of the Son or the concept of the Trinity itself. Rather, he describes their contribution as providing necessary terminological clarity. Dünzl simply argues that the Cappadocians refined and clarified terms such as ousia and hypostasis, but did not invent the fundamental belief in Christ's divinity, already present in earlier Christian tradition. Thus, Dünzl’s account acknowledges development in language and precision of theological expression, not the introduction of new essential beliefs.
Additionally, Dünzl carefully distinguishes the orthodox doctrine from Arian and semi-Arian positions, explicitly rejecting ontological subordination within the Godhead. He affirms, “There is no rank in the infinite,” highlighting that divine causality within the Trinity is eternal, not temporal or hierarchical (Dünzl, p. 125). Dünzl clearly aligns himself against any interpretation that views the Son or Spirit as less divine or subordinate beings. He further argues that the Cappadocians’ apophatic theology—their insistence on the ineffability of God’s essence—was fundamentally opposed to the rationalist attempts of Arians and Anomoeans to define divine being solely through human philosophical categories.
Finally, your claim that Dünzl’s view "aligns" fundamentally with Jehovah’s Witnesses because he recognizes historical complexities and political elements in doctrinal development is deeply flawed. Dünzl explicitly positions the Council of Nicaea not as the "creation" of a new doctrine, but as a clarification and defense of the Church’s consistent belief against emerging heretical misinterpretations. The recognition of historical contingency in doctrinal development does not equate to a denial of divine guidance or the continuity of revealed truth; rather, it affirms that divine providence operates precisely through historical realities.
In sum, Dünzl’s careful scholarship does not support your reductionist view that the orthodox Trinity was a mere late political innovation. Instead, his analysis robustly demonstrates that the Trinitarian doctrine articulated by Nicaea and clarified by the Cappadocians was rooted deeply in the early Church’s consistent confession of Christ’s full divinity and the eternal relationships within the Godhead. Your representation of Dünzl as supporting an Arian critique fundamentally misinterprets both his explicit arguments and his theological conclusions.
-
slimboyfat
In a previous thread you posted a response of thousands of words within ten minutes. That is humanly impossible. That’s not a matter of opinion it’s a fact, just as a human can’t run faster than a car or a train.
Dünzl doesn’t dispute the part politics played in the formulation of the Trinity, in fact he spells it out in detail. He argues that God used the church to reach the Trinity doctrine despite that history of political intrigue.
I’ll let Dünzl’s own summary of the politics and his argument that God used the church to arrive at the Trinity despite/through the politics and philosophy of the day speak for itself.
The political interference in the theological debate is also likely to provoke scepticism: wasn't Emperor Constantine already less concerned with the quest for truth than with the unity of the empire on a religious basis? Didn't the stubborn efforts of his son Constantius to achieve a theological compromise aim at the lowest common denominator on which the parties in dispute were to agree? Wasn't it mere chance that because of a military emergency, rule in the East of the empire fell to the Spanish Theodosius, who was orientated on Nicaea, so that he had the opportunity also to realize his church-political goal there? Does the Neo-Niene faith thus represent just a further and last variant in the power-play of theological ideas - a variant which was able to establish itself for political reasons?
And if we turn once again to the content of the debate: don't the self-confidence and the sharp (often also unjust) polemic of the opponents, the deliberate distortion and exaggeration of opposing positions, the almost sophistic pedantic and sophistic interpretations of difficult biblical passages, prove repulsive over wide areas? We must not note such abuses on just one side of the parties in dispute - an ideologically coloured painting in black and white will not do justice to the historical evidence.
A look at the history is sobering. But at the same time it presents a challenge. In view of the problems I have mentioned, those who imagine that God's ways with human beings are all too straightforward and simple (or despair of them because they are indeed not so straightforward) are called on to break up customary religious schemes of thought and extend their own horizons so as to be able to do theological justice to reality. The risk of monotheism does not consist in making an arbitrary selection of reality in terms of one's own ideology, bracketing off disturbing problems and allowing only what fits, but in tracing back the complexity, the perplexing diversity and interlinking of phenomena to a last (albeit 'impenetrable') principle which is not one factor among many but the incomprehensible ground of the whole.
That the history of revelation is not played our untouched by external influence as it were in a 'vacuum' in the history ideas is not a defect but a touchstone of the monotheistic view of the world. The philosophical systems of Middle and Neo-Platonism or the Stoa are not simply to be dismissed as non-Christian intellectual constructions which had to be overcome: rather, they are of decisive importance for the communication of God in the sphere of history, which is not a clean sheet, but is already shaped, and its content determined, by ideas. The legacy of ancient philosophy has entered into Christianity (likewise into Judaism, Islam and modern philosophy) - but that does not amount to 'contamination with inauthentic intellectual material'; rather, it is material for fruitful controversy which will always move between the poles of assimilation and demarcation.
-
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Your interpretation of Franz Dünzl's analysis significantly distorts both the author's explicit intent and the theological implications of his historical research. Dünzl himself explicitly refutes your reductionist implication, which suggests that political intrigue or philosophical currents could undermine the legitimacy or theological integrity of the Trinitarian doctrine. Rather than presenting the Nicene and Cappadocian developments as a political invention, Dünzl consistently argues that these historical contingencies are precisely the medium through which divine providence operated, maintaining theological continuity with apostolic teaching and early Christian tradition.
Indeed, Dünzl affirms explicitly in his work that the historical complexities—including philosophical influences and political interventions—do not detract from the doctrine’s authenticity but rather underscore the providential interaction between God and humanity within history. Dünzl states clearly: "The philosophical systems of Middle and Neo-Platonism or the Stoa are not simply to be dismissed as non-Christian intellectual constructions which had to be overcome; rather, they are of decisive importance for the communication of God in the sphere of history." Moreover, he unequivocally emphasizes that the historical development of doctrine is "not a defect but a touchstone of the monotheistic view of the world." Thus, your portrayal of his work as acknowledging political influence as a disqualifier rather than a condition of providential historical engagement is fundamentally erroneous.
Your reference to Dünzl’s discussion of political interference, particularly regarding Constantine and Constantius II, fails to appreciate his nuanced conclusion that divine revelation operates within, rather than apart from, historical realities. Dünzl explicitly argues that the historical arena, including political complexities, is precisely where the divine truth was clarified rather than distorted. He warns against simplistic black-and-white portrayals, stressing the necessity of embracing historical complexity as a theological opportunity rather than an impediment: "The risk of monotheism does not consist in making an arbitrary selection of reality in terms of one's own ideology…but in tracing back the complexity, the perplexing diversity and interlinking of phenomena to a last (albeit 'impenetrable') principle which is not one factor among many but the incomprehensible ground of the whole."
Furthermore, Dünzl explicitly rejects your Arian perspective when he insists that the doctrinal debates of the fourth century did not "innovate" or "create" a new dogma but clarified and reaffirmed existing beliefs. He clearly distinguishes terminological development from doctrinal invention. Regarding the Cappadocians, Dünzl points out that they did not create the doctrine of the Trinity but provided necessary clarity and consistency to existing theological language, resolving semantic confusion between terms like ousia and hypostasis—terms essential for faithfully conveying biblical and apostolic teachings about Christ’s divinity.
Critically, Dünzl also explicitly rejects any ontological subordination within the Trinity. He asserts the full and equal divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, directly countering Arian or semi-Arian positions. He writes: "there is no rank in the infinite," indicating clearly that within the divine essence itself, hierarchy or subordination is impossible and illegitimate. Hence, any attempt to portray Dünzl as sympathetic to an Arian or semi-Arian perspective misrepresents his clear stance on the equality and full divinity of the Son and Spirit alongside the Father.
Finally, your effort to associate Dünzl’s careful historical account with a critique reminiscent of Jehovah’s Witnesses or modern Arians is equally misguided. Dünzl himself emphasizes that the historical conditions of the doctrinal development are not obstacles but essential elements in God's communication and self-revelation within history. The Cappadocian Fathers, in Dünzl’s analysis, represent not an arbitrary or politically motivated innovation but the faithful clarification of biblical and apostolic tradition in response to emerging theological confusion and errors.
In sum, your interpretation of Dünzl selectively and inaccurately represents both his methodology and theological conclusions. The study does not support the idea that the supposedly dominant angelomorphic-Arian Christology was replaced in the 4th century as part of some dark imperial conspiracy. The study does not support the idea that the supposedly dominant angelomorphic-Arian Christology was "replaced" in the 4th century as part of some dark imperial conspiracy as JWs generally believe. Dünzl’s historical scholarship supports neither your reductionist perspective nor your implied critique of Nicene and Cappadocian orthodoxy. Instead, Dünzl consistently presents historical complexity, including political influence, as the very context in which divine providence effectively guided the Church toward doctrinal clarity and theological truth.