TRINITY [3 Gods or 1]

User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active

trinity 01 or 03

 Islam Newsroom - June 5, 2024 01:30 A.M.

Excerpts & quotes from: History of Roman Catholic[1] Church[2]
— By Yusuf Estes & Brother John Raymond [and listed others]


Long before the birth of Christ Jesus, and long after he was taken up by Almighty God, the Universal Church of Rome (prior to 325 A.D.) controlled all the religious institutions and worship for Roman citizens.

The Universal Government of Rome owned and sanctioned all the temples, all the Bishops, all the priests, and all rituals for their many gods.

The word for "Universal" in Greek is "Catholic".

They never even changed their name!

Trinity 3 is

The Roman Empire played a heavy role in overseeing any and all religious affairs, with their emperor being the Chief Priest, Pope, and Protector of their National Religion, called The Universal Church of the Holy Roman Empire.

Religion of the Roman Empire was very important and was heavily involved in political policies, social and religious practices and ceremonies. So much so, it was a civic duty for all Roman citizens to worship the "Gods of the Roman Empire".

Anyone not in The Holy Roman Universal Church, could not be a Roman citizen!

[Estes 2024, p.1]


Arianism was a fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked at as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal, beginning in Alexandria and spreading throughout the entire Holy Roman Empire, must be seen in the context of the times.

The Roman Universal Church came out of a Greek - Jewish World. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the "ONE AND MANY" and between the "ULTIMATE UNITY" - laying behind a visible universe and the incalculable variety existing in this world."

[Ward 1955, p.38]


Relationship between God and his entire universe was already established, prior to any formation of the Holy Roman Empire and its many “gods”. God is always eternal. God is the only Creator of every single atom in the universe. God is the Only Sustainer of each of the creation. God is uniquely ONE, without partners, without relatives on earth or anywhere else.

[Holy Bible, Exodus, 20 & Deut. 5 & Quran (Recitation of God)

Jews already understood a Supreme God created by His word. It was an idea of a "Word or Wisdom- The Word was pronounced, the Wisdom was created - The God communicated with Adam and all of his offspring. Then took possession of Adam.

[Genesis. p.1]

But the Greeks could not imagine how a finite and changeable world could come about from an Eternal and Changeless God. So, they came up with an idea of a "mediating Intelligence" or even a “Logos” (Greek: ‘word’), as a first, "Emanation of the First Principle", and reduced the distance between God and the world".

[Estes 2024, p.3]

The Church must: "Reconcile their beliefs inherited from their Bible to meet those they derived from Greek philosophy. Jews and Greeks had to meet in The Christ.

They must find an answer to agree with revelation they got from Christ as recorded in scriptures and the Greek’s philosophy.”

[Ward 1955, p.39]

This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian Controversy. The Roman Universal Church responded with A First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea bringing together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain Trinity.

The Council did triumph over Arianism, only after fifty years of bitter battles with each other. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were principal reasons for this long, drawn out battle.

[Estes 2024, p.1]

{keep reading}



(theological belief of Jesus in early Christian church), rejecting concepts of trinity and denied Jesus Christ was a part of God. Named after Arius, a priest from Alexandria, Arianism was declared a "heresy" (invention in religion) at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.


Arius, (born in Egypt, 256 A.D.) a priest in Alexandria. He studied under Lucian of Antioch[4], founder of the school of Antioch, was earlier condemned for saying Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because:

"Arius ~ and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians ~ were his students. Calling themselves “Lucianists” and “Collucianists”, they developed his Adoptionist and Subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy."

[Harkins 1967 — ps. 1057, 1058]


Arius struggled with the question of Trinity. He taught in Alexandria the following: "Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the logos [‘logos’ ~ Greek for 'word'] as no more than a power or quality of God - He said this "logos" before time began.

God created Jesus by the power of the Word (to be His agent in His creation. The “Christ” was not identified with the God, he was only a God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist, meaning he could not be eternal.

Arius stressed the subordination of the logos (3) to such an extent as to affirm his (Jesus) creature-hood, to deny His eternity ~ and to assert His capacity for change and suffering."

[Ward 1955, 41]

The teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the Deity and also destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities."

[Ward 1955, 43]

The Person of Christ, “as a Son-of-a-God, "belonged to no order of being the Universal Church of Rome could recognize. . . He was not a God at all”.

[Ward 1955,42]


Arius' views spread wide and rapid - for common people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander, the Bishop, called for a meeting of his priests and deacons. He was insisting on a complete “UNITY” of a “godhead” (Trinity).

Arius kept arguing, “Since Christ (Jesus) was in some way “begotten by the Father” - then he existed - it was “a time when Christ did not exist”.

Arius refused to submit to Bishop Alexander and continued to spread his message of only “ONLY GOD IS ONE” — Christ is neither, “A PART” nor “PARTNER” of God!

Bishop Alexander called for a synod of Bishops in Egypt and Libya. One hundred Bishops attended, eighty voted for  the “condemnation and exile of Arius.”

After the synod Alexander wrote letters to other Bishops who refuted the views of Arius'. Then the Bishops used the term, "homoousios" to describe a Father & Son as “being of one substance”. Bishop Alexander used this term to become the keyword of the whole controversy."

[Ward 1955, 43, 44]


After the decision of the synod, Arius fled to Palestine. Some Bishops in Palestine, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him.  Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor, from Palestine (Arabic: Filastini).

The Bishop of the area, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this place Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling it Arius' Views of Orthodox and they condemned Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius had strong grounds for this condemnation.

The term used by Bishop Alexander, homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor, Dionysus, when arguing against the Sabellians, claiming (the Father and Son were identical).

All this controversy took place just as the Universal Church of Rome was getting away from oppressing the Christians.

[Estes 2024, p.1]


Durning the rise of Emperor Constantine to power, the Roman Universal Church was taking over Christianity and making it the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine politically united the Empire. However, he was distressed to see the Universal Church so divided up.

Constantine (a worshipper of many gods), did not understand the significance of this controversy. He sent Ossius, his adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In his letters he tried to reconcile them by saying their disagreement was merely just a matter of words and both of them were really in agreement of these major doctrines and neither was involved in any heresy.

The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch, attended by fifty-nine bishops (forty-six of them would soon attend the Council of Nicaea). The Council in Antioch was a forerunner to the later “Council of Nicaea” (in Nicaea of the Holy Roman Empire — today known as the country of Turkey).

Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated - Issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.



It was summer, 325 A.D. in Nicaea (now Turkey). The Emperor  Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia.

It would not be unusual for an Emperor to invoke Council, since in Hellenistic thought he "was given all Power by God supreme, over material and spiritual things."

[Davis 1987, 56]



The General Council was well attended by the major "sees" of the Eastern Empire. The Pope, Sylvester sent two papal legates and some Western Bishops were there too. The number of all Bishops there depended on who you asked - Eusebius attended and said 250 Bishops were there. Athanasius was also there, he said 300 Bishops attened. After the Council a "symbolic number" of 318 was used to represent the total. Some modern Catholic scholars use the number 220. (is it symbolic too?)

(Your guess is as good as mine)

Write records were kept for the Romans in those days. But at this counsil any offers, mistakes, or minutes taken - disappeared and are not longer with us.

We do know from the writings of Rufinus, "daily sessions were held and Arius was often called on the carpet before the assembly - His arguments were dealt with harshly. The Majority, especially those opposed to his pleadings, the "Confessors of Faith", declared to be against the impious doctrines of Arius."

[LeClercq 1913, 45]

Concerning a Creed drafted at Council "Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius gave divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted."

[LeClercq 1967, 792]

One reconstruction of events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered was a creed favorable to Arian views. However, this creed was also rejected by the Council.

[Davis 1987, 59]

Eusebius of Caesarea proposed a baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although it was accepted, it does not seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed.

Attempts were then made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms from a translated Bible (to Latin). This attempt at creeds was also not enough to prove any such ideas for a union of GOD and MAN, let alone a TRINITY. So, they continued to exclude the Arian position.

[Estes 2024, 1]

"Finally, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement - The creed preserved in the writings of Athanasius, historian of Socrates, Basil of Caesarea, and the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, commonly referred to as the Nicene Creed. It was formulated and adopted during the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

Then the creed was re-refined and expanded in the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. These writings and documents provided valuable historical records of the development and preservation of the Nicene Creed. It was also in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD.”

[Davis 1987, 59]


Even as the creed was finished, 18 Bishops still opposed it. Finally, Constantine intervened and threatened exile to anyone not cooperating to sign it.

Two Libyan Bishops and Bishop Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled out of the general population.

The Nicaea Creed and an Analysis of some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

"We believe in ONE GOD — Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST, the only begotten (see Palms 2:7 to challenge) of the Father of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth.

Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain `God is of another substance,' of `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes  them (curses upon them).”

[LeClercq 1913, 45]


The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son was "begotten of the Father" was seen by them as saying — the Son was created from nothing.

But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed totally ruling out their position of the Son having a beginning.

Another Arian teaching was ~ the Son was God by grace and name only.

The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation the Son was really truly God against this Arian position.

The most important statement in the creed affirming. — "the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.

[Davis 1987, 61]



This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the "Son" as an intermediary being between God and Creation. In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions.

The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was not."

The Arian belief in a Son of God being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are not."

Arian Doctrine: The Son was created and subjected to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the Will, is expressed in the phrase as; "He is mutable or alterable."

Finally - the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance."

These specific curses against them, it seemed the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished.



The Eastern Church used Greek and the Western Church used Latin. Misunderstandings were arising over their theological terminology.

One example; "He is of a different hypostasis (substance).”

These 2 words for the Eastern Church were seen to be exactly the same.

In Western Rome hypostasis meant a person. Westerners would think the Council was condemning the statement of the Son was a different Person from the Father, and would clearly be in error.

Only later on when the East came to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West, was there a general agreement.

This instance of confusion "points out the terminological difficulty continuing to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's position."

[Davis 1987, 63]

A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At the time this word had three possible meanings:

1. Philosophy — concept of “same substance or essence”. Used in early Catholic theology, to describe a relationship between God & Jesus Christ.

2. Chemistry — a substance having same chemical make up or molecule formula as another substance.

3. Language — words or phrases with same sound patterns.

[Davis 1987, 61]

The first showed — Equality of Son God to Father God.

Second showed the Council’s focus — “Father God and Son God are identical” (clear Sabellian heresy).

Third — an earthy association, saying — “Father God and Son God are different parts of the exact same stuff.

Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios, the history of the this word is closely associated with heresies (deviations of accepted belief systems).

The word was originally used by the Gnostics[2]. In fact, this same word was condemned in the Council of Antioch, in 268 A.D. regarding its use by Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.

This word was also unpopular because — It was never used in The Sacred Scripture.


Emperor Constantine really showed support and favor to the Arians and Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine.

The Bishop convinced Constantine the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). By use of the word homoousios, the Council got called into question. This spelled out the defeat of the Council’s oppression of the Arians.

Everything seemed to be moving along fine — until  Emperor Constantine died.

After the Emperor’s death, the Holy Roman Empire was divided between his two sons: Constans (western ruler)  favored  Nicaea and Constantius (eastern ruler) and seriously anti-Nicaea.

Supporters of Nicaea in the East, were excommunicated, deposed and cursed by The Dedication Council of Antioch especially  the Bishop Athanasius.

This Council of Antioch directly attacked the Nicaea Council by making laws, rules, doctrines against them and officially making up its own creed — especially omitting the phrases "from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios."

Many attempts were made to find a substitute for homoousios. Fourteen Councils were held between 341 AD and 360 AD, "in it every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression!

Then they came up with the term, “homoiousion” or `like in substance— But only used it to remove the Nicene formula."

[Barry 1913, 709]

Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized Father God and Son God are "dissimilar" or “anomoios.” One group used the word “homoios”, (similar) for relationship of “Father God - Son God”.

Constans died in 350 AD (western ruler, favored Nicaea. Then his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Holy Roman Empire.

The new Emperor demanded all Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.

Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula.

"This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on the entire Universal Church of Rome by the Council of Constantinople in the following year”. It condemned the terms homoousioshomoosios and anomoios.

[Ward 1955, 57]


It would seem Arians triumphed over the Nicaea creed. At first it gained popularity solely by imperial imposition. But the seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.

After Emperor Constantius died in 361 AD — it all collapsed.

Second, by persecuting both homoousios and homoosios supporters alike, it brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups."

[DeClercq 1967, 793]

Athanasius, was an ardent defender of the homoousios position and followed the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God.

From there he had concluded the Son and Spirit Who shared the unity must have the same essential substance.

The Cappadocian Fathers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians.

The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes was the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the realization — three Persons as God(?) — must share the same identical substance also. By using the term “homoousios” the Cappadocian Fathers "never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons."

[Ward 1955, 58]

They both came to the conclusion, although they used different terms, what they meant to say was the same.

The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).

The same time as Athanasius and Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement — another development was taking place — the Romans of the East and the Romans of the West were coming to a better understanding of each other’s theologicalterminology.

At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was — Condemned.

Under the Eastern Emperor, Valens (364-378) “homoeism” still had the imperial favor.

In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed.
At the Council of Sirmium (378 AD), with support of the Western Emperor, Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed.

Then a series of laws passed (379-380 AD) and the Emperor prohibited Arianism throughout the Western region.

In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor Theodosius I, all exiled Bishops under Valens were to return to their Holy Sees. In 381 AD he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states: "the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established."

[Davis 1987, 126]

In 380 AD Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism came in 381 AD at the Council of Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church."

[DeClercq 1967, 793]


The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battle between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.


1. The Christ "son" was created by the Father - "Out of nothing."

2. The Christ "son" was not God in a strict sense — but by grace and in name only.

3. The "Father" God and Christ "son" DID NOT share the same substance.

4. The "son" being a creature is subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of God’s Will.

Terminology difficulties kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.

The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, of identity, to claim the Council said the Father and Son were identical, thereby invalidating the Council.

The Arians then started producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead to breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to what term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (alike in substance).

The Imperial Government of Rome’s obvious involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios (similar) on the Church by Emperor Constantius, the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the Emperor.

The persecution of both the Homoiousians (alike in substance) and the Homoios (similar) forced them to begin to dialogue. The two great representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, found theological grounds for their eventual agreement.

Now the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian (TRINITY) downfall.


[1] Catholic — (Greek, it means; “universal”)

[2] Gnostics - (meaning;  knowing secret or hidden knowledge"; lit., “those who know”) mystic order of Christianity, known for giving up all worldly matters, living apart from society and being reclusive, fasting and remaining celibate. Forerunners of the Sufi orders found amongst some Muslims today.


The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Vol. 1. Arianism, by V.C. LeClercq.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Vol. 8. St. Lucian of Antioch, by P. W. Harkins.

Davis S.J., Leo D. 1987. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc.

Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York: Harper and Row.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913.

The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 1, Arianism, by William Barry.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 11, Councils of Nicaea, by H. LeClercq.

Ward D.D., Bishop J.W.C. 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray and Co. Limited

Yusuf Estes 1999, "Bible: A Closer Look", our online encyclopedia of Islam, known as


Need permission to post comment