In this issue:
Roots of the Trinity
David Clayton
The doctrine of the Trinity has been, from the moment it was first
introduced into the Christian faith, a subject of heated debate and
fierce controversy. Today many centuries later the situation is no
different. Still there is argument and division concerning this doctrine
which its advocates have declared to be a “great mystery.”
Sometime, during the first four hundred years after the death of
Christ, this doctrine crept into the teachings of popular Christianity.
While it was officially embraced and defined at the Council of Nicea (AD
325), there seems to be evidence to suggest that even before this time
it had already insinuated itself into the thinking of some Christians.
However, what is absolutely certain is that this doctrine was not
introduced into the Christian Church until more than a century after the
death of the last of the apostles. The Encarta Encyclopedia describes
its introduction into Christianity in the following way:
Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as
three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are united in one
substance or being. The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New
Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father….
The term trinitas was first used in the 2nd century, by the Latin
theologian Tertullian, but the concept was developed in the course of
the debates on the nature of Christ. In the 4th century, the doctrine
was finally formulated…
The Encyclopedia Britannica states that “The doctrine developed
gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”
(Article – Trinity). The doctrine, according to these articles, was
“developed” during the first four centuries AD. Now think carefully.
Protestants believe in the Scripture. Catholics believe in Tradition
plus Scripture. Protestantism says, “all necessary truth is taught in
the Scriptures.” Catholicism says, “no, the Church continued to discover
and proclaim more truth over the centuries (tradition).” It is upon
this basis that the Roman Catholic Church claims that its teachings are
above the Scripture. This doctrine of the Trinity falls right into the
camp of Catholic tradition, rather than Scripture. Therefore the
following statement by a Roman Catholic was quite justified: “Our
opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically
which is not explicitly stated in Scripture . . . . But the Protestant
Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity for which
there is no such precise authority in the Gospels.” (Life Magazine, Oct.
30, 1950)
Yet, as we examine the doctrine of a three-in-one God more carefully,
an even more startling fact comes to light. The doctrine of a
trinitarian god existed for many centuries before it was embraced by the
“Christian Church” in the first four centuries AD.
The Papacy has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the
monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the
Triune God, with three heads on one body. The Babylonians had something
of the same. Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of such a
triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria. The accompanying cut of
such another divinity, worshipped among the Pagans of Siberia, is taken
from a medal in the Imperial Cabinet of St. Petersburg, and given in
Parson’s “Japhet.”…. In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner,
in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is represented with three heads
on one body, under the name of “Eko Deva Trimurtti,” One God, three
forms.” In Japan, the Buddhists worship their great divinity, Buddha,
with three heads, in the very same form, under the name of “San Pao
Fuh.” All these have existed from ancient times. While overlaid with
idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient
nations of the world…. ((The Two Babylons – by Alexander Hislop,
p.17,18)
Over and over again as we examine the beliefs of ancient pagan
religions which existed for hundreds of years before Christ came to this
earth we find a trinity being worshipped. If the doctrine of the
trinity was not understood by the people of God until several hundred
years after Christ, where did the heathen religions get the idea from?
Benjamin Wilkinson, who wrote the book, “Truth Triumphant,” proposed an
interesting answer:
“The revelations of the Old Testament had disclosed the Trinity. “In a
disfigured and uncouth semblance” Zoroaster proclaimed his species of a
trinity. He placed at the head of his celestial hierarchy Ormazd (or
Ahura-Mazda), the great wise spirit, and Ahriman, the supreme evil
spirit, who was the coeval and rival god of darkness dwelling in the
bottomless pit of night. With them he associated in a marked way,
Mithra, the god of light, who was the sun and an embodiment of sun
worship. As the sun was neither in the heavens nor on earth, but swung
in an intermediate position between heaven and earth, so Mithra was the
great mediator. When Mithraism had overspread the Roman Empire, Mithra
was said to be the champion of sinners, the companion after death, and
the guide of the soul into the heaven of heavens.” (Truth Triumphant,
p.120 – by Benjamin Wilkinson)
In the book, “The Two Babylons,” the same suggestion is made by the author, Alexander Hislop:
“While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a trinity was
universal in all the ancient nations of the world, proving how
deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject
which comes out so distinctly in Genesis …. the triune emblem of the
Assyrian divinity shows clearly what had been the original patriarchal
faith.” (The Two Babylons – p.18)
Just in passing, I would like to say that it had been my impression
that Benjamin Wilkinson was a non-trinitarian. However, his statement
above seems to indicate otherwise. Be that as it may, both he and
Alexander Hislop have made the unreasonable suggestion that the heathen
nations received their concept of a trinitarian God from the early
Hebrews.
One of the outstanding characteristics of the doctrine of the Trinity
is that it induces in those who embrace it a lack of logic and simple
common sense which is appalling. This fact has been impressed upon my
mind several times as I have seen the unreasonable and illogical way
that some have gone about to try to prove, justify and rationalize the
doctrine of a Trinitarian God. (see article on page 8).
I have never heard anybody who attempted to defend the Trinity come up
with an explanation which made sense. Most of the attempts revealed a
lack of clear thinking, and the above suggestion is a clear example of
this. Did the heathen nations receive their concepts of a Trinitarian
god from the Hebrews? Does it make sense to suggest that they did? Is
there any evidence to suggest that they were imitating the children of
Israel in their ideas of a three-in-one God? What are the facts of the
matter? Let us examine them.
DID THE ISRAELITES EVER BELIEVE IN A TRINITY?
One of the primary beliefs of Judaism is that there is only one God.
This is not a new belief for the Jews, but has been one of their
foundational beliefs from their very beginning as a nation. They do not,
and have never believed in, or taught the doctrine of a God who was
made up of three parts or persons.
It has been said that the Hebrew word, “elohim,” signifies a plurality
of persons within the godhead, since it is the plural form of the word,
“el (god).” However, what is very significant is the fact that although
this is a Hebrew word, the Hebrews themselves who best understand their
own language, have never, and still do not believe in a plurality of
Gods, or in a Trinitarian godhead. In fact, the schema, “hear O Israel,
the Lord thy God is one Lord,” contains the very word, “Elohim,” yet it
is the immovable basis upon which the Jews anchor their concept of a
single God who is one great Being. The Hebrews who then had the most
complete revelations from, and the highest conceptions of God had
absolutely no concept of a Trinitarian God but rather stridently
insisted upon the very opposite. Surely it bears thinking about that the
people whom God chose, and to whom He revealed Himself most fully, had
absolutely no concept of a Trinity, while the heathen all around them
had this concept. Did these heathen have a better understanding of the
nature of God than did the Jews?
Of striking significance is the fact that in several of these heathen
trinities, the third person of the trinity was an evil representation
whose description could only equate him with Satan. Let us look for
example at the trinity of gods which was worshipped in ancient Egypt, in
Persia and even today, in the Hindu faith of India:
IN EGYPT:
From the 1st dynasty (c. 2525-2775 BC), Horus and the god Seth were
perpetual antagonists who were reconciled in the harmony of Upper and
Lower Egypt. In the myth of Osiris, who became prominent about 2350 BC,
Horus was the son of Osiris. He was also the opponent of Seth, who
murdered Osiris and contested Horus’ heritage, the royal throne of
Egypt…. (Encyclopædia Britannica – art. “Horus”)
Seth was represented as a composite figure with a canine body,
slanting eyes, square-tipped ears, tufted (in later representations,
forked) tail, and a long, curved, pointed snout….
Originally Seth was a sky god, lord of the desert, master of storms,
disorder, and warfare—in general, a trickster. Seth embodied the
necessary and creative element of violence and disorder within the
ordered world…. (Encyclopædia Britannica – art. “Seth”)
IN PERSIA:
According to Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda created the universe and the
cosmic order that he maintains. He created the twin spirits Spenta
Mainyu (Mithra) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman)—the former beneficent,
choosing truth, light, and life, the latter destructive, choosing
deceit, darkness, and death. The struggle of the spirits against each
other makes up the history of the world.
In Zoroastrianism as reflected in the Avesta, Ahura Mazda is
identified with the beneficent spirit and directly opposed to the
destructive one. He is all-wise, bounteous, undeceiving, and the creator
of everything good. The beneficent and evil spirits are conceived as
mutually limiting, coeternal beings, the one above and the other
beneath, with the world in between as their
battleground…..(Encyclopædia Britannica – art. “Ahura Mazda”)
Ahriman, ANGRA MAINYU (“Destructive Spirit”)
The evil spirit in the dualistic doctrine of Zoroastrianism. His
essential nature is expressed in his principal epithet—Druj, “the Lie.”
The Lie expresses itself as greed, wrath, and envy. To aid him in
attacking the light, the good creation of Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord,
Ahriman created a horde of demons embodying envy and similar qualities.
Despite the chaos and suffering effected in the world by his onslaught,
believers expect Ahriman to be defeated in the end of time by Ahura
Mazda. Confined to their own realm, his demons will devour each other,
and his own existence will be quenched…..
The origin of evil is traced in Zoroaster’s system to an exercise of
free will at the beginning of creation, when the twin sons of Ahura
Mazda entered into an eternal rivalry. One, Spenta Mainyu {Mithra}
(Bounteous Spirit), chose good, thus acquiring the attributes of truth,
justice, and life. The other, Angra Mainyu {Ahriman} (Destructive
Spirit), chose evil and its attendant forces of destruction, injustice,
and death….(Encyclopædia Britannica – art. “Ahriman”)
IN INDIA:
Hindu Trinity
The book “The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals” says regarding a
Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: “Siva is one of the
gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other
two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of
maintenance…. To indicate that these three processes are one and the
same the three gods are combined in one form. “-Published by A.
Parthasarathy, Bombay.
….Vishnu is often regarded as a special manifestation of the
preservative aspect of the Supreme and Shiva as that of the destructive
function. Another deity, Brahma, the creator, remains in the background
as a demiurge. These three great figures (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva)
constitute the so-called Hindu Trinity (Trimurti, “the One or Whole with
Three Forms”). This conception attempts to synthesize and harmonize the
conviction that the Supreme Power is singular with the plurality of
gods in daily religious worship …. (Encyclopædia Britannica – art.
“Hinduism”)
…Historians show that at this time (c. 500 B.C.) the Hindu priests
changed their teachings and adopted the adorable conception of a loving
heavenly Father. A new literature sprang up, and innumerable tractates
were written to place Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and
Siva (the destroyer), the Hindu trinity, on a par with Jehovah. These
more abstract and less materialistic concepts of religion were the
beliefs of the Brahmans and the educated classes, but they left the
masses to their coarse idolatry. (Truth Triumphant, p.126 – by Benjamin
Wilkinson)
THE THIRD PERSON
In these versions of the Trinity we find the following striking elements.
(a) A creator-god who is good and merciful.
(b) In two of these versions we find another god who is his son, who is also a good being.
(c) A third god (in some cases who was also the son of the father and
brother to the second god) who is evil and who makes war against the
father and the son.
Can we miss the significance of this? Is this the concept of the
Trinity which the heathen supposedly adopted from the Jews? The Hebrew
Scriptures do reveal three beings who may be equated with the above
descriptions but they most definitely do not constitute a trinity.
(a) God the Father the supreme ruler of the universe. Absolutely and totally good.
(b) Michael, the chief Prince (Dan. 10:13; 12:1), the Lord (Ps.110:1),
the Son of the Father (Prov. 8:22-31; 30:4), also absolutely and
totally good.
(c) The enemy, Satan, the accuser and destroyer (Job 1:6; 2:7) The
serpent (Gen. 3:14,15) The fallen angel (Isa. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:12-19)
who rebelled against, and makes war against God and His Son.
These heathen concepts of the Trinity, rather than pointing to a true
Trinity, actually reveal very clearly the falsehood of the trinitarian
doctrine and unmasks its origin.
There was one who made war against the true God and His Son. One who
is an enemy of all righteousness. This being greatly desired to be a
part of a trinity. In fact, he was the third highest authority in
heaven.
Lucifer in heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God’s dear Son…. {SR 13}
This, however was not good enough for him. He desired to be equal with
the Son of God and in an attempt to achieve this he rebelled against
the Father and His Son. This person was Satan, the adversary, the
destroyer.
(Rev 12:7-8) And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels
fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, {8} And
prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
It is this same Satan who clearly appears in the heathen trinity as
the third being in the godhead. What Satan could not achieve in heaven,
he achieved on earth – worship as the third person in a Trinitarian
godhead.
The heathen nations did learn something from the Hebrews, but it was
not the doctrine of a Trinitarian god. How could they? The Hebrews did
not believe in a Trinity! What they did learn was the truth of a cosmic
conflict between God, His Son and a powerful heavenly being named
Lucifer who aspired to godhood. Satan, through his heathen worshippers
easily distorted the facts so that he appeared as a member of the
godhead, a brother of the Son of God, and therefore, worthy of worship.
What a terrible tragedy that this heathen concept should have so
completely permeated Christendom that the Trinity is now the first
foundational belief of nearly every Christian denomination!!
Today Christendom worships a third “god.” In fact, this “god” truly
receives the greatest attention these days of all the members of the
so-called Trinity. He is called the “Holy Ghost,” but holy he is not. He
leads Christians into the most uncouth demonstrations and the most
inappropriate, and even indecent behaviour. Yet he is worshipped as the
Lord and giver of life. Who is this “third member of the Trinity?” It is
the same person whom the Hindus worship as Shiva, the god of death and
destruction; whom the Persians worshipped as Ahriman , the evil brother
of the god Mithra. He is the same god that the Egyptians worshipped as
Set, or Seth, the evil half brother of the god Horus. In other words, it
is Satan himself.
ENTRY INTO CHRISTIANITY
As we have already seen, this doctrine of the Trinity was not taught
in the New Testament. It was taught by neither Jesus nor His disciples.
The testimony of historians is that it “developed gradually” during the
first four centuries of the Christian era. When we realize that the
doctrine of a triune god was prevalent among the heathen of that time
and that this doctrine, rather than being a direct teaching of the Bible
was “developed” during the years of the great apostasy by the very
power which was responsible for wedding paganism with Christianity, we
may justifiably begin to have grave doubts concerning the Christian
origins of the trinity.
The historian, Edward Gibbon in the preface to his book, ” History of Christianity,” stated:
“If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that
Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first
Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the
incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets,
invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being
worthy of belief.” (History of Christianity – by Edward Gibbons)
History has been so doctored and distorted by the religious bias of
mainstream religion that it is very difficult to find many historians
who will give a clear, truthful picture of the influences which led to
the introduction of the trinity into Christian belief. However, again we
find another historian, Siegfried Morenz, in his book, “Egyptian
Religion,” stating:
“The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . .
Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the
singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a
direct link with Christian theology.”(Egyptian Religion, – Siegfried
Morenz)
In the fourth century AD a controversy arose concerning the teachings
of Arius, a Christian priest of Alexandria, Egypt. The Encyclopedia
Britannica, comments thus on the teachings of Arius:
…It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. Arius’
basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and
immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. Because
the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated, so the Son
cannot be God…..
According to its opponents, especially the bishop Athanasius, Arius’
teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since
worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian
concept of redemption since only he who was truly God could be deemed to
have reconciled man to the Godhead.
The controversy seemed to have been brought to an end by the Council
of Nicaea (AD 325), which condemned Arius and his teaching and issued a
creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief. This creed states that the
Son is homoousion to Patri (“of one substance with the Father”), thus
declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. In
fact, however, this was only the beginning of a long-protracted
dispute.(Encyclopedia Britannica: Article – Arianism)
This Arian controversy was really the focal issue which led to the
formal adoption of a trinitarian creed by the Roman Catholic Church. The
definitive statement was drafted at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
where the writings and teachings of Arius were condemned and the view of
God promoted by the other side was adopted as the orthodox Christian
position. However, as we will see from the following quotes, the view
finally accepted was not adopted solely on the basis of its faithfulness
to Scripture. The men involved in making the final decision had other
factors influencing their beliefs.
PLATO’S INFLUENCE
In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was
interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God.
In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness
of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as
stressed by the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced
Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both
parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of
substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no
wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the
metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no
foundation in the New Testament—such as the question of the sameness of
essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine
persons. (Encyclopedia Britannica: Article – Christianity)
As we can see, the proponents of the view which was finally accepted
as orthodox, and which is the accepted view today, were influenced by
the teachings of the Greek philosopher, Plato. They belonged to the
“neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school.”
The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence:
“The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities
dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic
trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine
persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s
conception of the divine trinity… can be found in all the ancient
religions.”
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy:
“The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from
Greek Fathers, who… were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by
the Platonic philosophy… That errors and corruptions crept into the
Church from this source can not be denied.”
The Church of the First Three Centuries says:
“The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late
formation; … it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that
of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; … it grew up, and was
ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing
Fathers.”
Please read the following quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica
carefully. Consider the issues as they are stated. There is a lot of
truth there, but a few misconceptions completely distorts the truth.
The basic concern of Arius was and remained disputing the oneness of
essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, in order to
preserve the oneness of God. The Son, thus, became a “second God, under
God the Father”—i.e., he is God only in a figurative sense, for he
belongs on the side of the creatures, even if at their highest summit.
Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already
played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century—namely, the so-called
angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the
descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in
Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince
Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed
to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of
the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is
not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he
is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with
the same aim—i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian
concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a
new, more sublime form of polytheism ….
The main speaker for church orthodoxy was Athanasius of Alexandria,
for whom the point of departure was not a philosophical-speculative
principle but rather the reality of redemption, the certainty of
salvation. The redemption of humanity from sin and death is only then
guaranteed if Christ is total God and total human being,…
The final dogmatic formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine in the
so-called Athanasian Creed (c. 500), una substantia—tres personae (“one
substance—three persons”), reached back to the formulation of
Tertullian. In practical terms it meant a compromise in that it held
fast to both basic ideas of Christian revelation—the oneness of God and
divine self-revelation in the figures of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit—without rationalizing the mystery itself…. (Encyclopedia
Britannica: Article – Christianity)
Why, you may ask, did it have to become a question of, “was He
creature, or was He God?” Why wasn’t the plain, biblical middle ground
taken? He was not a creature. He was the divine SON of God! Again we
find an answer in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon
the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was
foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the
continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance
likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New
Testament—such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or
similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons. (Encyclopedia
Britannica: Article – Christianity)
The argument was based on philosophical concepts, not on the word of
God. However, if one slight adjustment was made to Arius’ teaching, it
would have been perfectly in harmony with Scripture. All that was needed
was the correction that Jesus was not a created Being, but was the
begotten Son of God, thus being fully divine and so fully able to effect
man’s salvation from sin.
Please note that even though the council formally declared that Jesus
was “begotten, not made,” the statement that He was of the “same being”
as the Father made a mockery of the term begotten. Since He was of the
same substance, of the same being, then He could not have been the Son
of God in any understandable sense. Arius was closer in saying that
Father and Son were of “similar” but not the “same” substance.
This then, is the root of the Trinitarian belief. This is how it made
its way into the teachings of Christianity. From this beginning the
doctrine of the Trinity has steadily and relentlessly insinuated itself
into the beliefs of nearly all of Christendom so that today, there is
scarcely a Christian group which is not infected with its insidious
poison in one way or another. Learned theologians refer to it as one of
the “eternal verities” of the Christian faith (see Movement of Destiny –
p.35,36). So powerfully has it permeated the thinking of men that a
failure to accept it will result in a religious group being instantly
labeled as a cult.
Yet, the truth is overwhelmingly plain to those who are willing to
honestly examine the evidence. God help us to be true to our
consciences. “All truth is safe and nothing else is safe.” May we be
faithful to it, regardless of tradition and popular opinion.
Is the Gospel Trinity Based?
by Colin Gyles
Is the gospel based on a concept of God as a Trinity? A brief look at
the gospel and its implications on the one hand and the Trinity and its
implications on the other hand should provide a basis for a reasonable
answer to this question.
First consider the gospel. If the Christian gospel were to be
summarized in a single Bible verse, that verse is universally
acknowledged to be John 3:16 – ‘For God so loved the world that He gave
His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish
but have everlasting life.”
From the gospel the following realities are brought to view:
(1) A God who loves (2) A God who can and does have a Son (3) A Son
who was begotten (4) A Son who could be and was given (5) A Son who
could and did die. By God giving His Son is understood that God gave His
Son to die wherein humanity should have died. (6) The believer who is
most precious and dearly loved. Such love elicited from God the
sacrifice of His only begotten Son and elicited from the Son of God the
unselfish sacrifice of himself- a double sacrifice of Father and Son.
Next consider the Trinity. The Trinity teaches that there is one God;
and that one God is Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit. A primary
supporting tenet is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are absolutely (in
every sense) co-equal persons.
From the Trinity the following implications are evident:
(1) The Father-Son relationship is not literal. To make the Son
absolutely co-equal with His Father eliminates all possibility of the
one being begotten of the other. That which is presented to humanity as
the measure of God’s love for us – namely the sacrifice of His only
begotten Son for our sakes is all but nullified if Jesus is not truly
and literally the begotten Son of God.
(2) Jesus did not truly die. If Jesus is absolutely co-equal with “the
blessed and only Potentate Who only hath immortality” (1 Tim. 6:15,16),
who absolutely cannot die, then Jesus did not truly die, but continued
to live on some different plane while appearing to be dead. This would
make all our professions about death and resurrection of Christ mere
vanity and illusion.
The Trinity denies the most fundamental tenets of the gospel and
therefore cannot be reasonably held as a foundation on which the gospel
is based. The biblical basis of the gospel is that Jesus is the Son of
God (Matt. 16:16-18).
Finally, the identity of the Holy Spirit will be established. Unlike
the Trinity concept which holds the Holy Spirit as a co-equal person who
is distinct from Christ, the Bible identifies the Holy Spirit as the
glorified manifestation in which Jesus would return to be with His
followers.
The Greek word (Parakletos) which is translated Comforter (John 14:16)
is the same Greek word (Parakletos) which is translated Advocate (1
John 2:1). Thus, the one who is the Comforter is the same one who is our
Advocate who promised “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world” (Matt. 28:20) and is the same one who offers to live in human
hearts, saying “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock” (Rev. 3:20).
Accordingly, Jesus said “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come
to you.” (John 14:18).
Cumbered by the form of humanity, Jesus could not be at more than one
place at the same time. He first had to be glorified and thus enabled to
divest himself of the form of humanity. This is why He said that the
Holy Spirit could not come if He did not go away (John 16:7) and it was
declared that “the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was
not yet glorified” (John 7:39). Jesus prayed “O, Father glorify thou me
with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was.” John 17:5. The Holy Spirit is really the glory of the Father
which is given to the Son and through the Son communicated to
believers. Jesus promised another Comforter because it was in another
manifestation that He would return to offer further comfort.
Thus, in yet another instance the trinity concept is contrary to the
gospel since it denies that Jesus is Himself the Comforter. But most
fundamentally, it denies that Jesus is truly the Son of God and that
Jesus truly died. The gospel is therefore not based on a concept of God
as a Trinity, but rather on the concept of one Supreme Being who has a
divine Son. May each professed Christian worship God in accordance with
the revelation that He has given of Himself because “this is life
eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3.
(This article was contributed by Colin Gyles. You may contact Colin by
writing to him at: God’s Love, P.O. Box 542, Kingston 10, Jamaica W.I.)
Once To Every Man And Nation
Once To Every Man And Nation
comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood,
for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah,
offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
‘Twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble
when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit,
and ‘tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses,
while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue
of the faith they had denied.
By the light of burning martyrs,
Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever
with the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties,
time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward,
who would keep abreast of truth.
Though the cause of evil prosper,
yet ‘tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow,
keeping watch above His own.
James Russell Lowell
Trinitarian Confusion
Sometime ago someone emailed me a copy of the following article.
This article was actually taken from a book written on the subject of
the Trinity, and in this article the author attempts to explain the
Trinity. We have reprinted the article here, because it brings out some
of the inconsistencies of the doctrine and illustrates the illogical
arguments which must be used when one attempts to justify the doctrine
of a Trinitarian God. Ironically this article was written by a man named
(of all things) James White!! We have taken the liberty of numbering
the paragraphs for easy reference.
A Brief Definition of the Trinity
by James White
1. I know that one of the most oft-repeated questions I have dealt
with is, “How does one explain, or even understand, the doctrine of the
Trinity?” Indeed, few topics are made such a football by various groups
that, normally, claim to be the “only” real religion, and who prey upon
Christians as “convert fodder.” Be that as it may, when the Christian is
faced with a question regarding the Trinity, how might it best be
explained?
2. For me, I know that simplifying the doctrine to its most basic
elements has been very important and very useful. When we reduce the
discussion to the three clear Biblical teachings that underlie the
Trinity, we can move our discussion from the abstract to the concrete
Biblical data, and can help those involved in false religions to
recognize which of the Biblical teachings it is denying.
3. We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the
Trinity is in the first place – hence, accuracy in definition will be
very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one
eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is
shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and
the Spirit.
4. It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being” and
“person.” It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are
three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So
what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between
being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also
recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of
the “being” of man—human being. A rock has “being”—the being of a rock,
as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal
attributes as well. That is, we recognize both “what” and “who” when we
talk about a person.
5. The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal
beings—God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have
emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think
of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good
of “catkind.” Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite
being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son
and Spirit. One what, three whos.
6. NOTE: We are not saying that the Father is the Son, or the Son
the Spirit, or the Spirit the Father. It is very common for people to
misunderstand the doctrine as to mean that we are saying Jesus is the
Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way say this.
7. The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that is the Trinity are as follows:
1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.
2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture – the Father,
the Son, and the Spirit.
These Persons are never identified with one another – that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.
3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being
fully deity—that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity
of the Holy Spirit.
One could possibly represent this as follows:
8. The three sides of the triangle represent the three Biblical
doctrines, as labeled. When one denies any of these three teachings, the
other two sides point to the result. Hence, if one denies that there
are Three Persons, one is left with the two sides of Full Equality and
One God, resulting in the “Oneness” teaching of the United Pentecostal
Church and others. If one denies Fully Equality, one is left with Three
Persons and One God, resulting in “subordinationism” as seen in
Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Way International, etc. (though to be perfectly
accurate the Witnesses deny all three of the sides in some way—they
deny Full Equality (i.e., Jesus is Michael the Archangel), Three Persons
(the Holy Spirit is an impersonal, active “force” like electricity) and
One God (they say Jesus is “a god”—a lesser divinity than Yahweh; hence
they are in reality not monotheists but henotheists). And, if one
denies One God, one is left with polytheism, the belief in many gods, as
seen clearly in the Mormon Church, the most polytheistic religion I
have encountered.
Hopefully these brief thoughts will be of help to you as you “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Our Comments on The Article
The first illogical, false and deceptive thing
this writer tries to do is to distort the meaning of the word, “being”.
He says in paragraph 3 that there is one “being of God” shared by three
persons. Here He means a classification of being, or a kind of being.
However, He tries to make the word “being”, which clearly refers to an
individual, refer to more than one. To every individual of a certain
kind. In paragraph 4 he continues to build on this false definition. He
says, “we speak of the ‘being’ of man—human being. A rock has
‘being’—the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc.” When we refer
to human being, are we referring to all humanity? The “being” of all
mankind? Or are we referring to an individual? Is the word “being” a
collective noun, meaning a group of persons, or does it mean a single
entity? Of course it means one! If we referred to more than one, we
would say, “human beings! Because a being is an individual. More than
one individual are beings. Now this man tries to give the word, being, a
different meaning, but it does not fit. If we accept this man’s
definition them when we say human being, we would be referring to all
humans! However, if “human being” means one individual, then, “divine
being” must also refer to one individual.
This is clearly the way the word “God” is used in Scripture. Not as a
collective noun, referring to a classification of being, but rather as
the personal name of an individual Being who, over and over is referred
to as “He.” A single person. Not a group, a committee or an agency.
In paragraph 5 he again tries to pull the wool over our eyes when he
says, ” the Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal
beings …. God, man and angels. This is deliberate deception. If we are
speaking of classifications, we must, to be consistent say, “godkind (or
divinity), mankind (or humanity) and angelkind. If we are speaking of
several, then we must say, “gods, men and angels.” If we say “God, man
and angel (not angels)” then we are clearly referring to individuals.
Sometimes we do use the word man in a generic way, to refer to mankind.
However, it is clearly understood that this is not the common usage of
the word, and that when it is used in this way, it actually means
mankind. The same thing applies to the words God and angel. They can
also be used in the generic sense, but this is not the common usage of
the words and it certainly is not the way the word God is used in the
Scriptures except in one or two instances (John 1:1). In the vast
majority of cases the word God clearly and unarguably refers to a single
individual who is referred to as He, rather than them.
By this definition, when we say there is only one God, what we mean is
that there is only one kind of being who may be called God. Not that
there is one individual. The problem is that every false, polytheistic
religion could agree with that, because even the heathen believe in gods
who are of a different nature than men. They believe that their gods
are beings who are of a different kind than men. This does not mean that
they believe in only one god, even though they may believe in one kind
of god. The fact that they believe in several individuals within their
concept of godkind, makes them polytheists and sets them in opposition
to the clear biblical truth, “the Lord thy God is one Lord.” The same
applies to this teaching. One kind of being called God, but several
persons with the title is polytheism, even if we give it the title of
Christian.
The logical conclusion of this warped reasoning is found in the last
sentence of paragraph 5 where he refers to God as a “what,” while the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “whos.” It hardly needs to be said that
this kind of garbage is far removed from the simple Biblical truth that
God is an individual person, our Father. A He, not a what.
In paragraph 7 under subsection 2, again we have a glaring untruth to
catch and deceive the unwary. It says, “These Persons are never
identified with one another – that is, they are carefully differentiated
as Persons.” Is this true? It is true where the Father and His Son are
concerned. They are never identified with each other. They are very
clearly two distinct and separate persons with one being God, and the
other His Son. But what about the Holy spirit? What do the following
quotes mean?
(Eph 4:4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
(2 Cor 3:17) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
(John 14:16-18) And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever …. I will not
leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
(John 17:23) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one…
Finally, the diagram: By using one untruth and one half-truth, the
author has come up with a convenient, but very false picture which is
only a clever device for illustrating a falsehood. The three sides are
supposed to represent three “biblical truths. However, the Bible does
not teach “three persons,” as one side indicates. Furthermore, the other
side which reads, “equality of persons,” needs a modification. The
Father and Son are equal in nature and character as the Scriptures
clearly teach. However, they are not equal in authority as the
Scriptures also clearly teach. Hence, subordinationism (if this means
the Son is subject to the Father) is true. Also, since the Father comes
to us in the form, or the “mode” of the Holy Spirit, then this is also
true as far as the identity of the Holy Spirit is concerned.
“All who love not the light must hate him who is continually labouring to pour it upon them.” –Wesley
Frontline
Things Don’t Change Much: Two extracts from the Journal of John Wesley
Encounter with a “Churchman”
Between Doncaster and Epworth I overtook one who immediately
accosted me with so many and so impertinent questions that I was quite
amazed. In the midst of some of them concerning my travels and my
journey, I interrupted him and asked, ” are you aware that we are on a
longer journey; that we are travelling towards eternity?” He replied
instantly, “oh I find you! I find you! I know where you are! Is not your
name Wesley? Tis pity! Tis a great pity! why could not your father’s
religion serve you? Why must you have a new religion?” I was going to
reply, but he cut me short by crying out in triumph, “I am a Christian! I
am a Christian! I am a churchman! I am a churchman! I am none of your
culamites;” as plainly as he could speak; for he was so drunk he could
but just keep his seat. Having then clearly won the day, or as his
phrase was, “put them all down,” he began kicking his horse on both
sides and rode off as fast as he could.
The Doctrine of Perfection
The more I converse with the believers in Cornwall, the more I am
convinced that they have sustained great loss for want of hearing the
doctrine of Christian Perfection clearly and strongly enforced. I see,
wherever this is not done, the believers grow dead and cold. Nor can
this be prevented, but by keeping up in them an hourly expectation of
being perfected in love. I say an hourly expectation; for to expect it
at death, or some time hence, is much the same as not expecting it at
all.
Open Face is published bi-monthly and is sent free to all who desire to receive it.
David Clayton: Editor and Publisher
P. O. Box 23 Knockpatrick
Manchester, Jamaica W.I.
Phone: (876) 904-7392
email: david@restorationministry.com
