Having just come off a week of treading the immeasurably deep waters concerning the impassibility of God, we’ve traded in questions about the nature of our God for questions about the relationship within our God. The water has not gotten any more shallow, and as I read the material this week, I found myself encountering the same sort of human struggle to understand what is simply not human. We are yet again resigned to speak about God in analogy, as we always will be until Christ’s return.

The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was a crucial development for the Christianity we know today. It’s possible to surmise that, had the victors of the Arian Controversy been reversed, the path we have taken to arrive at the doctrine as we know it would have been far longer. Though the doctrinal victory came through political means, I do not think that any theology wherein Christ Jesus is less than God or the Holy Spirit suffers the same fate could withstand true biblical scrutiny.

That all being said, I do think that we can empathize with Arian’s position, because we are just as human as he was. A God who begets another would seem to naturally have dominion over it, or be of a higher substance, to use the terminology of antiquity. After all, our experience in this world tells us that our creations do not rise to be equal to us. The humanity and suffering of Christ were (and obviously still is) a problem, as the sovereignty of God is assailed by a simplistic interpretation of Christ on the cross. Lastly, we can imagine Arian’s fear that Christianity will fall into polytheism by declaring Christ as of the same substance of God as the rumblings of Trinitarian doctrine begin to circulate.

The Arian point of view, in my estimation, ultimately suffered from a need to define God by human terms. Primarily Arian seems to have thrust upon God humanity’s constraints of time and creation. Arian suggests that there existed a time before Christ existed, but this cannot be merely assumed without thrusting the constraints of time upon God. We struggle to conceive of God’s unbegotten nature, being left to merely repeat the fact as God has revealed it to us. We also cannot assume that God’s action of creation functions within the constraints of human creation, including the language of the “begotten Son.”

We are constrained by analogy at every turn with God because we simply cannot describe what we can’t understand. God is also self-constrained to analogy if He chooses for our nature to remain unchanged. This is the failings of human language, which we saw in much the same way last week with the subject of impassibility. God’s chosen means of revelation gives us what we need to have faith, which requires Him (again, if we are to remain constrained by these human bonds of reason) to leave some things visible through the mirror, dimly. (1 Cor 13:12)

The damage to Christianity caused by a Christ who is not God would be irreparable. Christ’s being God fully completes His work on the cross, as there can be no greater sacrifice given in our place. How can Christ the man be of high enough value that He can rectify the chasm between God and humanity created by our sin? There is only one who is righteous enough to bear that burden, and it Christ fully God.

Much of the contemporary Christian community knows little about the formation of the New Testament Canon and perhaps has little incentive to discover more about it. There is much more security in the idea that God has ensured His Word rests between the cover of the “good book” than in the history that suggests that the work of man was involved in its creation. The canon was heavily influenced by the early adoption of the codex as a literary technology and a way of using this technology to speak to the value of its contents.

Technologically, the invention of the codex was of great importance in the historical creation of the NT canon. While codices were used outside of Christian literary culture, the extant codices dated to the first four centuries are comprised of 70% Christian writings. (Hurtado, 56) The use of the codex by Christianity was not accidental; it served the purpose of binding together the multiple books it contained, physically and theologically. As these bound volumes were circulated, they inherently lent credit to each other, and by extension, discredited other writings of the same category. In the case of the Gospel accounts, the non-canonical Gospels of Peter or Thomas were never bound together with the canonical four. (Elliot, 107)

Writings that were left out of these collections suffered blows to their reputation and relative status, despite the fact that they were still read aloud and reference by patristic authors. It is notable that extant versions of these non-canonical writings appear more often in book roll form by percentage than their canonical siblings. It seems that early Christians had a preference to use the book roll for these types of texts. (Hurtado, 56)

Written texts hand copied and distributed afar bring their own dangers, and so a canon became necessary to legitimize a singular understanding of the faith. The canon’s creation also served to facilitate the transmission of what had largely been an oral tradition by providing an intertextual explanation to the reader. (Aichele, 51) As canon has the innate effect of legitimizing some views while delegitimizing others, it is no coincidence that the creation of the canon happened alongside the establishment of Christianity as the religion of Rome. As the formerly persecuted became powerful through Constantine, they found themselves capable of eliminating heterodox beliefs and structuring a foundation on which Christianity could stand. (Aichele, 56)

By the 4th century, the New Testament canon had been principally established, but the choices made before this time were unquestionably influential on the final product. The attributed author and the acceptance and proliferation within the broad Christian community are perceived to have been some of the most critical factors, but the use of the codex and the decisions concerning inclusions and exclusions of texts in these codices had pre-shaped that conversation.