THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST

The Key to having "both the Father and the Son"

ISBN 0-9844153-7-8

Published by:
Associated Bible Students
P. O. Box 92
Clawson, MI 48017 USA
www.bibletoday.com
CONTENTS
Introduction

1. Let us Reason Together

2. The Trinity Emerges Gradually
3. The Holy Spirit Misunderstood
4. Further Scriptural Harmony
5. Confronting Gnostic Heresies
6. Readings from the Inspired Word of God
7. Views of the Early Church Fathers

Summary and Conclusions

Appendix: Translations of the Greek αρχη (arche or arkee)
Endnotes
References
Introduction
"The Doctrine of Christ"
"Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine
of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine
has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9, RSV)
"The doctrine of Christ" was clear in John’s time. He was unwilling
to receive any contrary thinking. John held uncompromisingly to this
doctrine, saying, "If any one comes to you and does not bring this
doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting;
for he who greets him shares his wicked work" (2 John 10, 11,
RSV). In this booklet, we will discuss the false teaching John was
addressing. Suffice it to say here, it did not include a defense of the
doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity concept was foreign to the early
Church and did not emerge until the third and fourth centuries.
Through time this "doctrine of Christ" has developed into a theology
meaning something different from that which was held by John and
the entire early Church.
The Christian Church started out exclusively Jewish and, as such,
had a singular God. "The Lord our God is one Lord" is the basic
concept of the Jewish faith (Deuteronomy 6:4). This was universally
accepted and stressed by Jewish authorities from ancient times.
They understood the Old Testament Scriptures to portray God as
truly singular in being, and they consistently rejected any other
characterization. With one voice, Jehovah was believed to be the
only all-powerful, unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-existing
One—the one true God.
There is little doubt the Christian religion started out with this original
concept of God. The Church of England, in the Book of Common
Prayer, presents the Apostles’ Creed as a Unitarian Creed, which it
affirms was the belief of the Church during the first two centuries.
This Unitarian Creed is still quoted in many churches today. (We
should distinguish between the Unitarian Creed, which presents God
as a single being, and the Unitarian Church, which believes Jesus is
not the son of God but only the son of Joseph and Mary.)
In the fourth century, under Constantine (A.D. 325), the Nicene, or
Semi-Trinitarian concept, was forged making Jesus and God one in
substance. Then in the fifth century, the Athanasian, or Trinitarian
Creed, came along, adding the holy Spirit, to complete the Trinity
doctrine. Though called the Athanasian Creed, it is now generally
admitted to have been composed by some other person. It is
noteworthy that the word Trinity nowhere appears in the Bible.
More importantly, the early Church debates of the Apostolic Era
were centered on keeping newly converted Gentiles from being
brought under the Jewish law. There were no ongoing debates on
whether Jesus and God were two persons in one. Yet since the
early Christian Church was mostly Jewish, any deviation from the
"Lord our God is one Lord" foundation would have taken enormous
discussion and debate.
The formulators of the Athanasian Creed well knew they had to
meet the singular requirement: "The Lord our God is one Lord"
(Deuteronomy 6:4). How could they make three persons into one?
Some of the best minds forged this explanation—"There are not
three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated,
and one incomprehensible." It was an explanation that did not
explain. With such incantation of words, they presented their case
and, apparently, prevailed. They claimed the One God was three
persons, yet only One God. No wonder they said it was
"incomprehensible."
There was subtlety here. God himself, in one sense, is
incomprehensible, in that He is above and beyond our grandest
conceptions. (In another way, He is not incomprehensible, because
we are created in His image with the ability to reason and think in
the same mode, though vastly inferior to the divine.) Many people
will grant that in one sense God is "incomprehensible," and
therefore, by association, they propose that the doctrine about God
is "incomprehensible." They shift the "incomprehensible" from the
person of God to a doctrine made by men about God. Yet, "the
doctrine of Christ" was clear and comprehensible in John’s time.
Jesus Presented Himself to Israel Covertly
Jesus did not go about declaring he was the "Christ" or the
"Anointed One." He did not encourage his disciples to do so. Jesus
inquired, "Who do men say that the son of man is" (Matthew 16:13-
20)? The answers were: Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
Nothing very dramatic, was it? Nobody guessed he was the
"Christ"—much less God. No!—not even His disciples. Jesus
asked, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter’s answer pleased our
Lord—"You are the Christ [Anointed], the Son of the living God."
That was correct. Only by the aid of the holy Spirit was Peter able
to speak thus.
But notice what the holy Spirit did not suggest: It did not imply Jesus
was God—not even the vaguest hint of it. The holy Spirit owed us
the truth, and it gave us the truth. "You are the Christ [Anointed],
the Son of the living God." They were then charged, "Tell no one." If
denied from presenting Jesus as the Christ, would they present Jesus
as God? Did the holy Spirit tell Peter a half-truth about the Christ?
The "doctrine of Christ" is: Jesus is the "Anointed" One. The Jews
knew only priests, kings and some prophets were anointed, and it
was strictly forbidden to make or use the special "holy anointing oil"
improperly (Exodus 30:31-33). Jesus was not a Levite and,
therefore, could not be of the Levitical Priesthood. He was,
however, of David’s line and could be anointed "King." Before his
death, Jesus rode into Jerusalem saying, "Tell the daughter of Zion,
Behold, your king is coming to you" (Matt. 21:5-16).
In Jesus’ last encounter with the Pharisees, he asked: "What do you
think of Christ? Whose son is he?" They knew Christ (Messiah, the
Anointed) was spoken of as the Son of David and that David
looked for a son he would call Lord. They answered: "The son of
David." Jesus said, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit,
calls him Lord" (Matthew 22:42, 43, RSV)? We ask: Did David
believe he would father a son who would be God himself? Would
he father God? Certainly not! David, through the Spirit, was
showing that the Messiah of promise would be born of David’s
royal line and, by faithfully laying down his life as the ransom price,
would be raised as Lord of both the living and the dead. (See
Romans 14:9.) This would be the Father’s reward for His son
Christ Jesus, to enable him to carry out his great future work as
Judge and Mediator in the Millennial Kingdom.
If the doctrine of Christ meant Jesus was God, the holy Spirit failed
to make this known. The title "Anointed" is never applied to God.
That would be a sacrilege. The greater always anoints the lesser.
God is above all. He anoints, but is not anointed—nor can He be.
We repeat: God is never called anointed! Never ever! It would be a
grave impropriety to do so.
We Have Found the Messiah (The Anointed)
Andrew found his brother Simon and said, "We have found the
Messiah [Christ, the Anointed]" (John 1:41). That is what they were
looking for—the Anointed One of God—certainly not God. When
they met Jesus, he did not tell them to take off their shoes because
they were standing on holy ground, as Moses was instructed to do
(Ex. 3:5). Jesus simply said, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou
shalt be called Cephas [Peter] (John 1:42)." We find no instance
where they fell at Jesus’ feet worshiping him, nor of Jesus looking
for such worship. As a matter of fact, we are told "Even his brothers
did not believe in him" (John 7:5, RSV). They did not believe Jesus
was the Messiah, and certainly they did not believe he was the God
of Moses. Could they be God’s brothers? Surely not! (See
Hebrews 2:11, 12.)
Jaroslav Pelikan’s Observation
Jaroslav Pelikan, sterling Professor of History at Yale University,
who is called "The Doctrine Doctor," is quoted saying: "You are not
entitled to the beliefs you cherish about such things as the Holy
Trinity without a sense of what you owe to those who worked this
out for you. . . . To circumvent St. Athanasius on the assumption
that if you put me alone in a room with the New Testament, I will
come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, is naive."1 The renowned
Doctor of Doctrine is telling us the Trinity cannot be found by open
study of the New Testament. He is admitting that it is not a doctrine
of clear Biblical statement. Rather, the Trinity is a doctrine of
inference, not of statement. That is why the Trinity has such troubled
acceptance. We could add to Dr. Pelikan’s statement and say that if
you placed 10,000 people in rooms with New Testaments, they
would not find the Trinity. We also have not found it.
The churches have had consistent trouble with unbelief in the Trinity.
We quote Larry Poston, writing for Christianity Today, who looked
into why the average age of Christian conversion was 16 years old
whereas the average age of Muslim conversion was 31. His
explanation in part was: "The Muslim is not asked to give credence
to allegedly ‘irrational’ concepts such as the Trinity, the Incarnation.
. . . If one does consider it essential that concepts such as the Trinity
be explained before conversion, are the common presentations of
these teachings adequate?"2
Can you have a rational explanation of an "irrational" concept? Mr.
Poston cannot be a rational believer in the Trinity, and there are
more like him. Such members within the church find themselves put
upon to accept something that is inherently not understandable. The
Athanasian Creed tried to present the Trinity not as "three
incomprehensibles" but "one incomprehensible." As much as Mr.
Poston would like to see a more adequate explanation of the Trinity,
it is unlikely that anyone will come up with a clear explanation of it.
The early Christian Church converts were mostly adult men and
women. Mr. Poston must believe the modern church attracts
members in their teens because mature minds are less inclined to
accept irrational tenets. We must not conclude that everyone who
professes belief in the Trinity teaching is necessarily a wholehearted
believer. Some are silent doubting Thomases or, even worse, it is
mandatory they confess the Trinity in order to be a member of a
church denomination or that they put down theologically
programmed answers to become degreed ministers. Forced belief
was the stock and trade of religious oppression, but it has proved
ineffective in making true believers out of people. "A man convinced
against his will is of the same opinion still."
For Those Who Have Doubts About the Trinity
The purpose of this writing is not for those who have no doubts
about the Trinity. That is their fixed belief. Nothing we could say
would penetrate their patriotic zeal for the Trinity. However, if you
are one with gnawing doubts about it, and wish to satisfy your
reason and heart, then this message may be very helpful. You may
be glad to know early Christians did not believe in the Trinity, so
you have lots of company. Also, there are increasing numbers in the
churches today who sincerely doubt it, including some of the
scholars as well.
Mr. Poston is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this
subject. Quoting another source: "A fruitful cause of error in ancient
and also modern times is owing to an attempt to explain or illustrate
this [Trinity] doctrine, forgetting that it is a mystery to be received on
faith, which cannot, from its own nature, be rendered intelligible to
man’s intellect."3 We may also here quote H. M. S. Richards, in a
Voice of Prophecy Radio Broadcast, who similarly said, "[Trinity] is
basic in our faith. . . . None of us can understand it. It’s a divine
mystery, but gloriously true."4 No wonder children are prepared to
believe it more readily than adults.
Three Classes of Trinitarians
The tendency is to group all Trinitarians into one group. Such is not
the case. Actually, there are three groups in the Christian world
professing belief in the Trinity.
(1) The Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church believe in
Apostolic succession. They believe the Word of God is being
developed on an ongoing basis through a continuous chain of
apostles from our Lord’s time until now. Hence, they are not
embarrassed to accept the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and
the Athanasian Creed even though contradictory. They do not need
a strong Biblical basis for their beliefs because they can accept a
council of bishops’ or a pope’s statements as a basis for belief.
They believe God invests his truth in an ongoing body of apostles to
define and clarify the faith. Hence they accept the fact that the early
Church had a Unitarian God concept which evolved into the Trinity.
They believe the Trinity just developed over time as the outgrowth
of continued apostolic revealment.
(2) Then there is the Protestant Modernist and those who believe in
Contemporary Religion. Their belief is that man makes known his
understanding of God on an ongoing basis. In each time and place,
men have presented their concepts of God. They hold that the Bible
was created by men who presented their opinions about God in
their time and place, and men have a right to continue presenting
their growing conceptions of God and truth. Such do not believe the
Bible to be the inspired Word of God but merely an attempt to
define God in ancient times. Hence they do not waste too much
effort trying to harmonize it or understand it. They feel man must
continue writing his own Bible as he progresses. In this camp the
range of belief is incredibly diverse, and the real question with many
of these is not if they believe in the Trinity, but do they, in fact,
believe in God. However, in that they do not openly oppose the
Trinity or the Bible, but are quite permissive of both, they are
acceptable in the Christian community.
(3) The last group are the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals who
believe the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant. To this we agree.
This group is uncomfortable with the fact that the Nicene Creed was
created in the fourth century and the Athanasian Creed in the fifth
century. That is an embarrassment to them because they feel the
Bible is their sole basis of belief. Hence, having accepted the
Athanasian Creed, they become revisionists of history and try to
rewrite it so they can teach the early Christian Church believed it.
They also comb through the Bible looking for some support of
Trinitarianism. Some of their assertions make the Catholics, the
Modernists and Contemporary religionists a bit uncomfortable. As
badly matched as these three groups are, they are amazingly tolerant
of each other in this regard.
Two Witnesses
In John 8:13-18 (RSV) the Pharisees were having a little skirmish
with Jesus. They said, "You are bearing witness to yourself; your
testimony is not true." Here you are, just a plain ordinary person,
going about making claims. Why should anyone believe you? After
all, we are learned and taught in rabbinical schools, and why should
we be concerned with your testimony? Jesus answered, "Even if I
do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence
I have come and whither I am going. You judge according to the
flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true. . .
. In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear
witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me."
If they wanted two witnesses, Jesus gave them two witnesses—God
and himself. We might ask, why didn’t he give them three witnesses,
as provided for in Deuteronomy 19:15, by adding the holy Spirit?
Evidently because the holy Spirit was not a person. God and Jesus
together make two, no more, no less: 1 + 1 = 2. That is pure math
as taught by Jesus.
"They Have Taken Away My Lord"
Remember Mary, standing at the empty tomb. As she stood there
weeping, two angels asked her, "Woman, why are you weeping?"
She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I
do not know where they have laid him" (John 20:13, RSV). Now,
she was not looking for her deceased God. God does not and
cannot die. She was looking for her Master or Teacher, or at least
for his remains. Her only mistake was to look for the living Jesus
among the dead after he was resurrected. We might say the same.
The Trinitarians have taken away the living Lord and we do not
know what they have done with him. If he is the God of Moses,
then what has happened to our Lord Jesus? We would not have an
elder brother. How could the Absolute God say, "I will proclaim thy
name to my brethren" (Hebrews 2:11, 12, RSV)? Only Jesus could
speak of us as his brethren, and only he is privileged to thus
proclaim the Father’s name to us.
God never ever called anyone His brother. He has no brothers or
sisters. Jesus taught us to address God as "our Father." Our
resurrected Lord Jesus is not "ashamed to call us brethren." God
has given us the "Spirit of Sonship"—that makes Him "our Father."
God is not our "brother." The Trinity concept has taken away our
Lord Jesus—our Elder Brother, and we do not know what they
have done with him. We cannot find him in this doctrine. God’s
voice in two Gospels said, "This is my beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17;
Mark 9:7). If Jesus is a Son and we are sons of God, then we are
brethren. Why have they taken away our brother? What have they
done with him?
Will a "Holy Quaternity" Replace the "Holy Trinity?"
In 431, the Council of Ephesus issued the dogma that Mary was to
be honored as Theotokos, the God-bearer or Mother of God. The
Nicene, or semi-trinitarian creed, was formed in 325. A century
later they declared Mary officially to be the Mother of God. Once
Jesus was declared to be God, it is only logical to conclude Mary to
be God’s mother. If that be so, then King David was a great, great
grandfather of God. Commenting on Mary’s elevated position of
worship, Kenneth L. Woodward in a Newsweek article wrote: "In
place of the Holy Trinity, it would appear, there would be a kind of
Holy Quartet, with Mary playing the multiple roles of daughter of the
Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit."5 Dr. R.
C. Wetzel says in his evaluation of the Council of Nicaea called by
Constantine in 325: "The Trinity was established as: God the Father,
the Virgin Mary, and Messiah their Son."6 Strange that Mary should
be replaced by the holy Spirit and now resurface again with a view
of being part of a "Holy Quarternity."
Today, Mary is again on the minds of many Catholics. The Pope
receives an average 100,000 requests a month requesting that he
exercise the power of papal infallibility to proclaim that Mary is
"Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate for the
People of God." If the present pope yields to religion by polls and
consensus, rather than by Scriptures, perhaps he will make such a
proclamation. However, Catholic theologians wish this whole idea
would just go away. It is Scripturally indefensible. In 1 Timothy 2:5
we are told: "There is one God and one mediator between God and
man, the man Christ Jesus." That says it all. If the Pope makes Mary
a "Co-Redemptrix" they will be equally hard pressed to defend it
Scripturally.
Protestants know the Bible does not say that Mary is the mother of
God, yet if they teach Jesus was God then Mary must be God’s
mother. They are uncomfortable with this. The best answer they
have is that the Bible does not say Mary was God’s mother. But
then, the Bible does not say there is a Trinity. Note the insightful
quote from Newsweek Magazine:
"Prof. Marguerite Shuster of Fuller Theological Seminary in
Pasadena, Calif., analyzed more than 3,000 sermons. . . . Out of
this huge sample, only 20 sermons focused on the Trinity itself. The
sermons, Shuster says, reveal considerable confusion in the
preachers’ understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Many
preachers, she finds, confuse the work of the Holy Spirit with that of
Jesus. Others collapse the Trinity into one God who operates in
different modes—an ancient Christian heresy. Still others preach as
if Christians worshiped three gods, not one—a heresy that the
stringently monotheistic Muslims have always accused Christianity of
teaching. As particularly egregious examples, Shuster cites such
sermon titles as ‘You Need Three Gods in One’ and ‘God Speaks
Through Many Voices.’ In one sermon, Billy Graham himself
confesses that while he believes in the Trinity, ‘Don’t ask me to
explain it. I can’t.’"7
If the trinity teaching is so important, why is it that so many
preachers can’t seem to get it right? If the preachers seemed to be
confused, what about the congregations? What if the Pope adds
Mary as the "Co-Redemptrix?" How will this affect Protestants?
This is fallout from the trinity theology. Can anything so complicated
and incomprehensible be true?
Chapter I
Let Us Reason Together

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." (Isa.
1:18, KJV)
John 1:1 is the rallying point of Trinitarians. But in defense of the
Bible Students’ non-Trinitarian reading of this verse, we quote from
The Bible Translator, a periodical sent to Trinitarian scholars:
"If the translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible
translation . . . would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-
word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who
heard early Christian language, Theos en o Logos, might have
seemed a perfectly sensible statement. . . . The reason why it is
unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine
thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."1
Please note their observation that, as a word-for-word translation,
"it cannot be faulted." As a matter of fact, in Acts 12:22 (Herod’s
voice is a god’s voice) and Acts 28:6 (Paul is called a god), the
translators supplied the article "a" to the word theos in both
instances. They just happen to think this would be contrary to
John’s thought in John 1:1. That is a very subjective conclusion.
John 1:1, 2 reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with [ton, the] God, and the Word was God. The same was in
the beginning with [ton, the] God." A word-for-word Greek
rendering of John 1:1, 2 is: "In [a] beginning [arche] was the Word,
and the Word was with the God, and [a] God was the Word. This
was in [a] beginning with the God." Trinitarians tried to level the field
by leaving out the article (ton) "the." In the King James, as in many
other translations, all references to God are equal to the English
reader. You do not get the contrast between the emphasized God
spoken of twice and the unemphasized God referring to the Logos.
Yet consider how later in this chapter (John 1:18), in the same
context, a clear distinction is drawn between these Gods apart from
mere grammatical emphasis: "No man has seen God at any time; the
only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has
explained Him." (New American Standard Bible, Marshall
Interlinear, etc.) Clearly, there is a "begotten God" and a begetter
"God." Hence, John 1:1 must be understood in a manner that
harmonizes with this verse.
To be convincing, the Trinitarian must prove that "God" in John 1:1
has supreme signification in all three of its uses. We quote from an
orthodox Trinitarian, Dr. G. C. Knapp: "It (the appellation Logos,
here translated Word), signifies, among the Jews and other ancient
people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals
Himself to men, and makes known to them His will. In this passage
the principal proof does not lie in the word Logos (‘revealer of
God’), nor even in the word theos (‘God’), which, in a larger sense,
is often applied to kings and earthly rulers, but to what is predicated
of the Logos."2
Using such reasoning, is it possible to prove Jesus is the supreme
God from this passage? Does the passage in fact say that the Logos
God has parity with the God? Without parity, he cannot be the God,
nor can he be one-third God. What beginning is John talking about?
God has no beginning or end, for He is "from everlasting to
everlasting" (Psa. 90:2). So what "beginning" is the Logos identified
with? Rev. 3:14 supplies the answer: "The Amen, the faithful and
true witness, the beginning [arche] of the creation of the [ton] God."
Some say that the word "beginning" (arche) is rendered
"principality(ties), magistrates, at the first, first estate, corners," etc.
and that this gives Rev. 3:14 a different meaning. Whether our Lord
was the beginning, first, or principal "creation of God," how would
that change his being a created being before all others? In the King
James, the Apostle John’s use of the word arche is consistently
translated "beginning." In the Appendix we submit every usage of
arche in the New Testament by John and other New Testament
writers as listed in The Englishman’s Concordance. Please note its
uses and how "beginning" is an appropriate translation. It is only
because translators have seen the threat this poses to the Trinity that
they have labored to change the intent of that word in this verse.
But, let us assume that the Trinitarians are correct on John 1:1. Let
us presume the Logos was Jehovah (or Yahweh God). What is
John then telling? If John believed the Logos was the God of
Moses, why would John say the "Logos was with God, and the
Logos was God"? What God was the Logos with? Why place a
mark on eternity and say that was the beginning and the Logos was
there? If he really wanted to prove the Logos was God, he should
have said, "See this mark. It is the beginning. Now, the Logos was
here before that beginning as the God, for He was the God." To
place the Logos at the mark called beginning and not before the
"beginning" weakens their whole position.
The following texts delineate this truth—that God always existed
and that a beginning in time is associated only with the Logos:
God "from everlasting to everlasting." Ps. 90:2
Christ Jesus "in the beginning was the Word . . ." John 1:1
"The Lord created me at the beginning of his work." Prov.
8:22, RSV
Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no
mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when
the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the
Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention
the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to
support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed through the Bible using
every possible text to prove their point. In the overwhelming
majority of texts used, you find them doing the same thing as in John
1:1, using arguments that God and Jesus are one, hoping we will not
notice that none of their proof verses include the third part necessary
– the holy Spirit. The idea is to get people so involved in the
discussion that they will forget the holy Spirit is not mentioned.
Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rational proof.
In order to prove the Trinity doctrine, it is necessary to find Biblical
statements of the oneness of being of Father, Son and holy Spirit.
Even if we could prove the Father and Son were one being, would it
give us a Trinity?
To call God "Christ" gives them a name but not a Christ [an
Anointed One]! We ask again, "What have you done with Christ?"
Where is he? You cannot have three absolute Gods and one
absolute God. The moment you do, you must redefine absolute. The
moment you define God as Christ, you replace Christ. God can
never be less than God!
Why Must the Savior be a God-Man?
The Trinity concept insists that Jesus had to be a God-man to be the
Savior. If he was a mere man, they say, how could he take upon
him the sin of the whole world? It sounds good to make such
extravagant claims about Jesus. Generally, we cannot pay sufficient
homage to our Savior for his great sacrifice, so why not go all out in
our claims for him? To some extent that is how the Trinity was
started, countering claims that Jesus was just a mere man. As the
defense of our Savior was made, so the claims for him grew and
became exaggerated – from being a perfect man and Son of God,
until at last the ultimate claim was made that he was in fact God.
Then followed the super patriotism and the cry "To the fire" with
those who dare claim Jesus someone less than God. History records
John Calvin burned (roasted) Michael Servetus at the stake for not
believing the Trinity. As they lit the flames, Michael Servetus cried
out, "Oh thou Son of the eternal God have pity on me." One
observer said, We might have had pity on him if he had said, "Oh
Eternal Son of God." Why is church history so lacking in mercy and
kindness and so mean?
"By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one
to another" (John 13:35). If only God’s people had served their
God as well as they had their Church organizations, how much
kinder Church history would be. In a Church bent on world
conquest, there is little love or kindness to be found. Our country
was born to provide refuge from religious persecution.
Jesus Christ the "Ransom for All"
We read in 1 Tim. 2:5, 6: "The man Christ Jesus; who gave himself
a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." What is the ransom?
The Greek word for ransom is antilutron – defined by Dr. Young
as "a corresponding price."3 One perfect man was a substitutionary
sacrifice for the perfect man Adam, who forfeited his life along with
the human race in him. However, the Church fathers lost sight of the
true meaning of the ransom. When this happened, there was no
holding back the ground swell of extravagant claims about Christ.
Anything less than calling Jesus God was considered demeaning.
For the sake of argument, let us go along with this exalted claim that
Christ is God—a claim neither he nor Scripture makes. Let us
accept their claim that he was God and, therefore, God died for us.
May we ask, How could an immortal God die?
Did the Absolute God die? The creed maintains Christ was "very
man." Hence, to call God "Christ" gives them a name, but not a
Christ. It was the "very man" Christ who died. No matter how they
define it, they have only a "very man" who died. How, then, did
"very God" die? God is immortal, death-proof. God could not die;
only some flesh form could die. Despite the semantics, they come
away with only a perfect "human sacrifice." That is exactly what we
believe and claim.
Dr. Adam Clark, a Trinitarian, says, "Two natures must ever be
distinguished in Christ: the human nature, in reference to which he is
the Son of God and inferior to him, and the Divine nature which was
from eternity, and equal to God."4 He also disallows that Jesus
could be begotten from eternity, saying: "To say that he [Christ] was
begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase
eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which
has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time. Son
supposes time, generation, and father."5 In other words, it was
only the human flesh of Christ that died. Hence, they do not have an
infinite sacrifice, because it was the inferior Son who died. So
where, oh where, is the infinite sacrifice of God?
Unless the complete Trinity died on the cross, Trinitarians have but a
very man for their savior. While Trinitarians insist Jesus was wholly
God and wholly man, their burden is to prove this and also to show
that both God and man died on the cross. The Bible does not say
this. Theologians have labored long and hard to compensate for
what is not clearly stated in the Word. Did Jesus ever say he would
give his flesh and deity for man as a ransom? No. He said, "The
bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world" (John 6:51). Then could he take his flesh body back after
giving it? What would have become of his ransom if taken back
after it had been given?
Dr. Adam Clark renders Psalm 8:5: "Thou has made him little less
than God." He refers to this verse in Heb. 2:7, and applies it to
Jesus, saying, "For a short while, he was made lower than the
angels, that he might be capable of suffering death."6 If Dr. Clark’s
assertion were true, Jesus was less than God or lower than the
angels. How could he be "less than God" and still be Absolute God?
This presents a problem in logic.
A Mighty and Infinite Sacrifice With Small Results
Let us allow that Christ’s sacrifice was infinite as claimed. We are
allowing this without a Scriptural basis, for nowhere does the Bible
say Jesus’ sacrifice was infinite. It does not say he suffered more
than all mankind. It does not even say he suffered more than any
man. Even Isaiah 52:14, which speaks of his "visage" and "form"
being marred "more than any man," does not fulfill the infinite
suffering assertion. It is not wise to say more than the Scriptures say.
We are allowing such reasoning only to see where it leads.
Now, allowing for the most extravagant sacrifice for sin, we ask,
How come so few are saved? How come, when salvation has been
reduced to just making a "confession for Christ," the vast majority of
mankind are not accepting Christ? The churches, for some 1500
years, have entreated the world. They have carried on bloody wars,
imposed the "holy(?) inquisition," employed the powers of the state,
threatening damnation and eternal fire on those slow to respond—
torturing, killing, maiming—all in vain. The vast majority of the world
is not Christian in any sense of the word, and the part called
Christian is suspect of being mostly a field of "tares" (Matt. 13:24-
30). Would God provide such a powerful salvation, requiring only
the faintest acceptance, and still somehow fail to save the vast
majority of those purchased?
Even when telling people that Christ has purchased their ticket to
heaven and all they have to do is accept it, still the world at large is
unsaved. How come this mighty salvation fails? More than two-
thirds of the world are without Christ. And the part that accepts
Christ might have a goodly number of "tares" among them, who are
the planting of the Wicked One. How could something so
overpowering be so ineffective? With such an overwhelming
salvation, how is it that most people are lost?
The claim that Jesus had to be God to pay for every man’s sins,
who, according to their theology, is to be tortured forever and ever
if unsaved, means that Jesus would have endured the fires of
theological hell for every man, woman and child that eternity would
inflict upon them—a very sadistic concept. They claim he had to be
God to do this. This whole claim is totally unscriptural. The Bible
says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to
you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the
blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). Again
we read: "Without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22).
This shedding of blood requires the death of the victim, not merely
suffering. If people could atone for their sins by suffering, then the
Hindu and Eastern religions, wherein people afflict themselves,
laying on spikes, putting hooks in their flesh and staring at the sun
until blind, would certainly commend themselves to God by buying
remission for their sins. Even the pre-reformation Christian theology
with its flagellations should not then have been discarded. The world
already endures such great suffering because of sin. As we look out
into the world, our hearts ache for humanity. How they need the
hope of Christ’s glorious Kingdom on earth, when all men will be
lifted up and blessed as God pours out His "spirit upon all flesh"
(Joel 2:28). All of this will be possible by Christ’s death on the
cross. Let us see how.
Our Claim!
Our understanding of Scripture is that Jesus died as a perfect man
providing a "corresponding price" for father Adam. He died a
substitutionary death for Adam. All who are in Adam, therefore, will
be ransomed, released from the condemnation of death. It stands to
reason that if Adam did not possess everlasting life (and he didn’t
because he died), then Christ’s ransom sacrifice can restore to
Adam and all men only what he lost before he sinned. Adam had an
opportunity to live everlastingly if he obeyed God, but failing in this,
he died. Christ’s ransom sacrifice can only bring Adam, and all in
him, another opportunity to attain everlasting life.
Two classes, the Church and the world, will be privileged to benefit
from Christ’s death. During the Gospel Age, the True Church
receives justification to life and, upon "overcoming," will receive a
heavenly reward. The world will be released from Adamic
condemnation during the Millennium. Christ will be their Mediator (1
Timothy 2:5, 6). How can he mediate between God and man if he is
God? A Mediator must always be a third party! When the world is
nurtured back to human perfection and their reconciliation with God
shall have been accomplished, they will then be delivered to God,
the Father. When Christ’s mediation is completed, then shall "The
King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of
the world" (Matt. 25:34). The Mediator’s work shall have been
accomplished. See 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.
Mankind, which had been driven from Eden, will return to an Edenic
Paradise on earth. We have all that is required—the perfect man
Christ Jesus as our Savior and tremendous results from two
salvations—the Church now, and the world of mankind in Christ’s
kingdom here on earth. Therefore all men will be benefited from
Christ’s sacrifice. That is as it should be.
And in the final picture, the Divine Christ will be subject to the
Father, with all "overcomers" of both the Gospel Age and the
Millennium received back into favor with God (1 Corinthians 15:24-
28). Then God will be all in all. What could be sweeter?
"Are You the Christ?"
In Jesus’ illegal trial at night, while Peter was still there, they asked
Jesus –"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus
said, "I am" (Mark 14:61, 62). If Jesus was truly the Absolute God,
didn’t Jesus owe them that information? The reason Jesus was
crucified was because he was the "Christ, the Son of the Blessed." If
Jesus proclaimed himself to be Absolute God, they would have had
a perfect right to put him to death according to their understanding
of the Mosaic Law: "You shall have no other Gods before me" (Ex.
20:3). Oddly, they crucified Jesus for claiming to be the "Son of
God," exactly what he admitted being, while they themselves
claimed, "We have one Father, even God" (John 8:41).
If the disciples believed Jesus was God, they would not have
believed his death. How could they if they held any concept of his
being God? God is eternal! Their immediate problem after his death
was accepting the truth that God raised Jesus from the dead—
Thomas being the last to believe. Later, they became witnesses to
his resurrection, saying to the Jews, "Ye denied the Holy One and
the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed
the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead" (Acts 3:14,
15).
"Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen."—The
Jerusalem Bible
The above quoted subhead is from Romans 9:5. Several interesting
commentaries on this verse may be found in the literature. A
Catholic Dictionary states: "We have the strongest statement of
Christ’s divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew]
T[estament]."7 But establishing Christ’s divinity is not the same as
establishing the Trinity. The King James reads, "Whose are the
fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." No one would argue Jesus is
not "God blessed." To argue that this statement makes him God the
Father is pressuring this verse to say something more than it does.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
comments on this verse: "Even so, Christ would not be equated
absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature,
for the word theos [God] has no article. But this ascription of
majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The more probable
explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to
God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul."8 A
Catholic Dictionary comments: "There is no reason in grammar or
in the context which forbids us to translate ‘God, who is over all, be
blessed for ever, Amen.’"9 The Revised Standard Version so
renders it—"God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen."
Hence, we see, there are rational thinkers who try to prevent the
spread of hasty and unwarranted conclusions. Some Trinitarians are
in constant and labored activity reading Trinity into verses so eagerly
that it is needful for their fellow theologians to try to temper some of
their excesses.
There is another strange fact of Trinitarian behavior. They seldom
inform the laity of the host of criticisms and corrective evaluations
from within the walls of religious academia. They vent most of their
anger and frustration upon those who openly and honestly confess
not believing the Trinity based on personal Bible study. They
endeavor to malign these by calling them improper names or even
failing to recognize such as Christians.
In Acts 11:26 we are told the disciples of Jesus were "called
Christians first in Antioch." If this be so, how could they be called
Christians who knew nothing of the theological Trinity which did not
become defined until the fifth century? How is it that those who
believe in the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit are not recognized
as Christians today if they say they do not believe the
"incomprehensible" Trinity? Perhaps the old desire to persecute and
stigmatize those who differ still exists latently in the hearts of some.
Insecurity can surely lead to unchristian behavior.
Chapter II
The Trinity Emerges Gradually
"The time will come when men will not put up with sound
doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather
around them a great number of teachers to say what their
itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away
from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3, 4, NIV)
After the Church lost the pristine vision which it held in the
beginning, these last two creeds were formed. The Athanasian, or
Trinitarian Creed, became the largest and most confusing creed of
all. It became necessary for salvation to believe this creed—making
this a threatening theological statement. Please notice the unitarian
concept of God was a statement of belief without threatening
overtones. Notice how the Creed becomes more foggy and
"incomprehensible" as it endeavors to incorporate Trinity concepts.
Additionally, as it swells to more than a statement of belief, it then
threatens any not accepting this foggy concept with perishing
"everlastingly."
When Jesus rendered his final report to his Father, it only required
three words—"It is finished" (John 19:30). Nothing more needed to
be said. Notice, however, when the one-talented, unfaithful servant
rendered his report, it required 43 words, and he was just as much
a failure after his explanation (Matt. 25:24, 25). The Unitarian
Creed required only 115 words to make itself known; the Nicene
Creed required 230 (twice as many words to make God and Christ
one); and the Athanasian Creed required 702 words to explain the
"incomprehensible" Trinity. If the number of words used proved the
case, the latter is clearly the winner. But it is not by much speaking
that we shall be heard.
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary states: "The word Trinity is not
found in the Bible. . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology
of the church till the fourth century. . . . Although Scripture does not
give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the
elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine."1 That
is partially correct. Theology indeed is responsible for constructing
the doctrine. But we firmly believe that the "elements" of Scripture
alluded to here were never intended to provide a framework for
such a dogma.
The following is found in The Book of Common Prayer on Three
Creeds of the Church of England:
The Apostles’ or Unitarian Creed
Being the Creed of the first two Christian centuries.
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth:
"And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by
the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under
Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he descended into
hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he
ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the
Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick
and the dead:
"I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general)
Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the
resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen."
The Nicene, or Semi-trinitarian Creed:
Principally drawn up by the Council of Nice in A.D. 325, the
clause concerning the Holy Ghost in brackets [ ] having been
affixed to it by the Council of Constantinople, in A.D. 381,
except the words [and the son], which were afterwards
introduced into it."
"I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven
and earth; and of all things visible and invisible.
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God;
begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of (or from) God;
Light of (or from) Light; Very God of (or from) Very God;
begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by
whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation,
came down from heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of
the virgin Mary; and was made man; and was crucified also for us
under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, and was buried, and the third day
he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: and he shall
come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose
kingdom shall have no end.
"And I believe in the Holy Ghost, [the Lord and Giver of life; who
proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and
the son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the
prophets].
"And I believe one catholic and apostolic church: I acknowledge
one baptism for the remission of sins: and I look for the resurrection
of the dead; and the life of the world to come. Amen."
The Athanasian, or Trinitarian Creed
Long ascribed to Athanasius, a theologian of the fourth
century, but now generally allowed not to have been composed
until the fifth century, by some other person.
 "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
hold the Catholic Faith; which faith except every one do keep whole
and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
"And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship One God in
Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor
dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father,
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the
Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all
one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is,
such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost, the Father uncreate, the
son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father eternal, the
Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal; and yet they are not three
eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three
incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one
incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son
Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three
Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but
one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the
Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like
as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every
person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the
Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The
Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of
the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy
Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created nor
begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers;
one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore or after another, none is greater or
less than another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal
together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the
Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.
He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also
believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right
faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father,
begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of his
mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a
reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as
touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his
manhood; who, although he be God and man, yet is he not two, but
one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by
taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion
of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and
flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ: who suffered for
our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the
dead; he ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the
Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead; at whose coming all men shall rise again with
their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they
that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have
done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which
except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Glory be to the
Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the
beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."
"The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that
which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought
thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved
by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."—Article VIII. of
the Church of England: taken from the Book of Common
Prayer. [In the Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States of America, Article VIII. reads as follows:
"The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the
Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed;
for they may be proved by most certain warrants of
Scripture."]2
Dual Natures
Greek philosophy was a serious threat to the early Christian Church.
Paul said, "Greeks seek wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:22, RSV). To
counter this, Paul said, "I did not come proclaiming to you the
testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:1, RSV).
Apparently, there were those who did. Greek philosophy was kept
out of the Bible, but not out of theology. As the church fathers
strove for preeminence, they found the high-sounding wisdom of
Greek philosophy a cutting edge for distinguishing themselves. When
the religious debates spilled over before the Roman emperors, what
better tool could be used than Hellenistic philosophy interwoven
with Christian doctrine? Greek and Mid-eastern philosophies were
pervasive, and when someone like Constantine listened to the
controversy between Arius and Athanasius, the strong pagan
influence was certain to have an effect.
Constantine had ostensibly converted to Christianity, and he
intended to use the new religion to solidify the empire. Earlier he had
raised a symbol of Christ seen in a vision ("P" fixed in the center of
an "X"—the first two letters of "Christ" [ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ] in the Greek) as
a new imperial standard and used it to gain victory in a key battle
against pagan forces. He believed he had heard a voice from heaven
saying, "In this sign conquer."3 If the symbol (also called a
"Christogram") actually represented two gods, he might have
thought it all the better. If Christ were really both man and God,
flesh and spirit, that would be closer to Greek philosophy and the
pagan trinity models. It would make the new religion all the more
attractive to the masses.
The Nicaean Council
Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read:
"The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor Constantine
and held in the imperial palace under his auspices. Constantine
viewed the Arian teachings—that Jesus was a created being
subordinate to God—as an ‘insignificant’ theological matter. But he
wanted peace in the empire he had just united through force. When
diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around
220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally
acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.
"The expression homo ousion, ‘one substance,’ was probably
introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today’s Spain). Since
he had great influence with Constantine, the imperial weight was
thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it turned out, however,
Nicea alone settled little. For the next century the Nicene and the
Arian views of Christ battled for supremacy. First Constantine and
then his successors stepped in again and again to banish this
churchman or exile that one. Control of church offices too often
depended on control of the emperor’s favor."4
Why would anyone look to the fourth century for truth, particularly
in view of our Lord’s great prophecy covering the period of his
absence and return, saying, "Take heed that no man deceive you"
(Matt. 24:4)? Without a doubt, this was where the Church had lost
its way. It was shamelessly prostituted before the ambitious Roman
emperor. It is important to know that while Constantine accepted
Christianity and became the Pontifex Maximus of the Church, he
also continued to function in all the pagan ceremonies, as paganism
had deep roots in the Roman Empire and would not pass away
overnight. Julian succeeded Constantine to the throne, and he was a
devout pagan, although a noble one. Rome became a melting pot of
paganism and Christianity—not a good mix.
Wrong conclusions are easily reached about the Nicaean Council. It
is easy to conjure up images of a united group of bishops with only
two in dissent, endorsing wholeheartedly the Athanasian proposition
uniting the Father and Son into two parts of one deity. Nothing
could be further from the truth. We quote the following:
"They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those
of his opponents; that is to say, they were merely competent to
establish negations, but lacked the capacity, as yet, to give their
attitude of compromise a positive expression. . . . True, at Nicaea
this majority eventually acquiesced in the ruling of the Alexandrians;
yet this result was due, not to internal conviction, but partly to
indifference, partly to the pressure of the imperial will—a fact which
is mainly demonstrated by the subsequent history of the Arian
conflicts. For if the Nicaean synod had arrived at its final decision by
the conscientious agreement of all non-Arians, then the confession of
faith there formulated might indeed have evoked the continued
antagonism of the Arians, but must necessarily have been
championed by all else. This, however, was not the case; in fact, the
creed was assailed by those very bodies which had composed the
laissez-faire centre at Nicaea; and we are compelled to the
conclusion that, in this point the voting was no criterion of the inward
convictions of the council. . . . For it was the proclamation of the
Nicene Creed that first opened the eyes of many bishops to the
significance of the problem there treated; and its explanation led the
Church to force herself, by an arduous path of theological work,
into compliance with those principles, enunciated at Nicaea, to
which, in the year 325, she had pledged herself without genuine
assent."5
This tells us, in effect, the body of bishops who voted for this Creed
were not unanimously believers in it. Hence, the vote testified to
weakness of character and the human tendency to get on the
bandwagon for the sake of expediency. What else would make one
vote for something not truly believed and which would later be
assailed by them?
When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor
Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary until
the close of this council. We quote the following:
"A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, ‘for the
ministers of God’ . . . No one of the bishops was absent from the
imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can
possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle,
were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords.
The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and
went into the most private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of
them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others
took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of
the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared more like a dream than a
reality."6
We cannot help but contrast this event with the occasion when
Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of this world and their glory
and then said, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and
worship me" (Matt. 4:9, RSV). It seems the Devil had more success
with these bishops than he did with our Lord. Yes, Constantine now
had most of the bishops in his pocket, and from there we see the
church merged with the kingdoms of this world, trying to make
believe that this was the kingdom of God.
Pagan Models of Trinity
The Trinity concept presented by Athanasius was essentially
borrowed from other ancient religions. John Newton (Origin of
Triads and Trinities) writes: "With the first glimpse of a distinct
religion and worship among the most ancient races, we find them
grouping their gods in triads." He then proceeds to trace the strong
Trinitarian beliefs which were common in ancient India, Egypt, and
Babylon as examples.
Regarding ancient India he states: "The threefold manifestations of
the One Supreme Being as Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva was thus sung
of by Kalidasa (55 B.C.):
"‘In these three persons the One God is shown,
Each first in place, each last, not one alone.
Of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, each may be
First, second, third among the Blessed Three.’"
In speaking of ancient Egypt, Newton quotes Professor Sayce
(Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures) as follows: "‘The
indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian
dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity.
The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us
again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt.’" Newton continues:
"And now we see some meaning in the strange phrases that have
puzzled so many generations in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds,
such as ‘Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not
Made, Being of one Substance with the Father.’ These are all
understandable enough if translated into the language of the Solar
Trinity [worshipped in ancient Egypt], but without this clue to their
meaning, they become sheer nonsense or contradictions. . . . The
simplicity and symmetry of the old sun Trinities were utterly lost in
forming these new Christian Creeds on the old Pagan models. . . .
The [pagan] trinities had all the prestige of a vast antiquity and
universal adoption, and could not be ignored. The Gentile converts
therefore eagerly accepted the Trinity compromise, and the Church
baptized it. Now at length we know its origin."7
What a revelation—that portions of the Nicene and Athanasian
Creeds were plagiarized from pagan sources—word for word and
exact phrases, lifted right off the papyri and inscriptions of ancient
Egypt! Should this knowledge not leave a little chill among those
subscribing to these creeds?
Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to History of Christianity: "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."8 Gibbon is an historian’s historian. He
would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his
evaluations.
Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G. Wells
writes: "We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was
torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that
the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine."9 The fact that the
Trinity did not originate with the Apostles should be of grave
concern to all Christians. The Church of England freely admits the
Unitarian Creed was believed in the first two centuries. In view of all
these facts, we cannot help but wonder why anyone would feel
secure in accepting the doctrinal developments of the fourth and fifth
centuries and forsake the pristine teachings of our Lord and the
Apostles.
In Matthew 13:24, 25 we read: "The kingdom of heaven is likened
unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men [the
Apostles] slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat,
and went his way." How can one leave the Apostolic Era to find
truth without risking being contaminated and choked by "tares"? The
"tares" sowed were the work of the enemy. The "tares" that
sprouted and grew were results of false teachings that begat "tare"
Christians. Hence, all Bible-believing Christians need to be aware of
the risks involved in leaving the Apostolic Era of doctrinal purity and
of coming under the influence of the "tare" seeds of error spread by
the Adversary.
Chapter III
The Holy Spirit Misunderstood
"When he [the truth-giving Spirit] comes, he will guide you into
all truth. For he will not speak his own message—on his own
authority—but he will tell whatever he hears [from the Father]
. . . He will honor and glorify me, because he will draw upon
what is mine and will reveal it to you." (John 16:13, 14, KJV
and Amp.)
Of the three components of the Trinity doctrine, the so-called holy
Ghost (or Spirit) is certainly the least understood. The holy Spirit is
assigned equality in relationship with the Father and the Son and is
spoken of as "God the Holy Spirit." As such, it is necessary to
conceive of this entity as a distinct person—the Third Person in the
Trinity equation—with attendant powers and capabilities to
distinguish it from the others. Yet such a concept is impossible to
prove from the Scriptures and certainly was not held by early
Christian believers for three hundred years after the death of Christ.
Jeremy Taylor has written: "That the Holy Ghost (Spirit) is God is
nowhere said in Scripture; that Holy Ghost (Spirit) is to be
invocated is nowhere commanded, nor any example of its being
done recorded."1 Well spoken. Who has a right to say what is not
stated in Scripture? One clearly stated Scripture verse would have
more weight than a mountain of theology. Until such a verse can be
produced, Trinitarians have an impossible burden. An incantation of
words and never-ending theology is no substitute for a weighty Bible
text or a "thus saith the Lord."
Biblical Designations of the Spirit
In the Bible, there are various titles and definitions that are applied
to the holy Spirit. As these are carefully studied, it becomes evident
that all of them describe characteristics that stem from God and
Christ and do not necessitate an additional personality. Many are
also reflected in the life of the Church. Note these examples.
"The Spirit of God" (Matt. 3:16)
"The Spirit of Christ" (1 Pet. 1:11)
"The Spirit of Holiness" (Rom. 1:4)
"The Spirit of Truth" (John 14:17)
"The Spirit of a Sound Mind" (2 Tim. 1:7)
"The Holy Spirit of Promise" (Eph. 1:13)
"The Spirit of Meekness" (Gal. 6:1)
"The Spirit of Understanding" (Isa. 11:2)
"The Spirit of Wisdom" (Eph. 1:17)
"The Spirit of Glory" (1 Pet. 4:14)
"The Spirit of Counsel" (Isa. 11:2)
"The Spirit of Grace" (Heb. 10:29)
"The Spirit of Adoption" (Rom. 8:15)
"The Spirit of Prophecy" (Rev. 19:10)
Even the most avid Trinitarian would find it necessary to define
"Spirit" in most usages as an influence or power. Personhood of the
Trinity just does not fit into these descriptions. So the Trinitarian
must use two definitions when referring to "Spirit" in the Bible: one
meaning the Third Person of the Trinity and the other as an influence
or power. Unless the meaning is continually defined in each verse,
the reader is left uncertain as to what is meant.
There is another side to this matter which is very revealing. There is
also an "unholy spirit" that is referred to frequently in the Scriptures.
This spirit is described in opposite terms to that of the holy Spirit.
Note the following:
"The Spirit of Fear" (2 Tim. 1:7)
"The Spirit of Divination" (Acts 16:16)
"The Spirit of Bondage" (Rom. 8:15)
"The Spirit of Antichrist" (1 John 4:3)
"The Spirit of the World" (1 Cor. 2:12)
"The Spirit of Slumber" (Rom. 11:8)
"The Spirit of Error" (1 John 4:6)
Would anyone propose to add personhood to these spirits or to
suppose that these various designations, unitedly considered, prove
there is another evil being apart from Satan, the adversary of God?
Not very likely, because it is commonly recognized that these terms,
which generally signify the wrong spirit, all have their chief
exemplification in Satan. A separate personality is not required, nor
are a host of personal spirits needed to justify the listings. We submit
that for consistency a similar conclusion should be drawn in regard
to the various references to the holy Spirit as well.
A Variety of Operations
In Scriptural usage, various actions and operations of the holy Spirit
are illustrated. Some were manifested from earliest times, such as in
creation; others became evident in succeeding ages as God’s plan of
salvation unfolded. Yet all of them can be shown to emanate from
God Himself or from His Son Christ Jesus and do not require an
additional personality.
Early in Genesis, this Spirit was evidenced in God’s creative power,
as He brought into existence the earth, the oceans teeming with life
(Gen. 1:2), plants and animals, and finally man himself. In later times,
the operation of God’s Spirit expanded in various ways, especially
as it was directed toward the Church. Believers in Christ were
begotten of the Spirit as they entered their new consecrated life and
were privileged to become the sons of God (John 3:3, 7; 1 John
5:4, 18). Other manifestations of the Spirit are seen in its thought-
creating power (2 Pet. 1:21), its life-giving or quickening power
(Rom. 8:11) and its transforming influence (1 Cor. 6:11). In none of
these instances is a separate personality required to carry out these
functions.
Other usages of the Spirit in Scripture are equally revealing. Joel
2:28 reads, "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh." This is a
wonderful reference to that future day when God’s Kingdom is fully
established on earth and all mankind will have the opportunity of
growing in the knowledge of God and His ways of righteousness.
Does this mean that a person is to be poured out? If the Trinity is
inseparable as an entity, does this mean that God and Christ and the
holy Spirit are to be poured out on all flesh? Surely not! Such a
usage helps us to grasp the correct meaning of the holy Spirit as the
power or influence of God.
The believer is also admonished to be "filled with the Spirit" (Eph.
5:18). This is certainly commendable, and all of us should desire to
have more and more of the Spirit that we may be drawn into a
closer relationship with our Lord. But how could we be filled with
another person? One might be filled with such qualities as wisdom
and faith, but hardly with the Spirit if it were an actual person. Note
how the Scriptures treat all of these as qualities (not persons) and
relate them to each other: "Look ye out among you seven men of
honest report, full of the Holy Ghost [Spirit] and wisdom. . . . and
they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost
[Spirit]" (Acts 6:3, 5). Joy is another quality with which the believer
is to be filled, and it likewise is linked with the filling of the Spirit
(Acts 13:52). To insist on the personality of the holy Spirit in these
examples merely produces one paradox after another, all of which
are wholly unreasonable and unnecessary in the light of Biblical
truth.
We could also say that it is entirely proper to pray for the holy Spirit
to operate in our lives (Luke 11:13), but not to pray to it! Never
once in Scripture is an example given of someone praying to the
holy Spirit, and never once is anyone urged to do so. Jesus taught
clearly that prayer was to be directed to the Father in heaven, and
he provided a model of such prayer for his disciples to follow. (See
Luke 11:1-4.)
A Missing Factor in the Equation
The efforts of Trinitarians to give personality to the holy Spirit has
proved to be an extravagant and futile exercise. Most of their
writings expend nearly all their energy in trying to prove that certain
Bible texts equate God and Jesus. Very little can be found to defend
the holy Spirit directly in their Trinity concept because it is nearly
impossible to do.
By far, the one text most alluded to and thought to be a "Trinity
fortress" was 1 John 5:7. However, even the most ardent
Trinitarians must concede that the words "The Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" are not truly the Word
of God but are spurious—merely an interpolation. The Revised
Version and all modern translations omit the verse, since it is not
contained in any Greek manuscript prior to the fifth century and is
not quoted by any of the early Church fathers. Evidently it was
added by an over-zealous scribe who thought the Trinity concept
needed a substantial boost in the Scriptural record; but surely this
attempt merely betrays the weakness of the argument.
Unless Trinity can be Scripturally established with all three persons
in one entity—including the holy Spirit—the case simply sinks
beneath the waves.
Use of the Personal Pronoun
It is noted by some that there are abundant references in Scripture
where the holy Spirit is referred to using the personal pronoun "he."
Even our Lord Jesus, in alluding to the work of the holy Spirit,
according to the King James Version, used these words: "I will pray
the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may
abide with you for ever. . . . But the Comforter, which is the Holy
Ghost [Spirit], whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach
you all things" (John 14:16, 26, italics supplied by us). Does this not
prove that the holy Spirit is a person? A study of the Greek text in
this and other instances shows this not to be the case. Here the
word for Comforter is parakletos, which in the Greek language is
masculine in gender and, therefore, needs to be placed with a
masculine pronoun for grammatical purposes only.
John 16:13 is another text which properly engages masculine
pronouns to describe the holy Spirit. It reads: "Howbeit when he,
the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he
shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall
he speak: and he will show you things to come" (italics supplied).
Again, this gives the impression that the Spirit is a person,
designated with "he" and "himself." But this is not the correct
thought, for it is simply a follow-up of good Greek grammar
matching a masculine subject with equivalent pronouns. In again
referring to the "comforter" or "helper" aspect of the Spirit, there
was a consistency in using the masculine pronoun "he" rather than
the neuter "it." This usage shows adherence to the rules of Greek
grammar and provides no proof that the holy Spirit is a person.
On the other hand, when the word "spirit" is from the Greek
pneuma, the grammatical application changes, and the neuter
pronoun "it" is appropriately used. Whereas this rule is generally
hidden by the translators, the Catholic New American Bible says,
regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for ‘Spirit’ is neuter, and
while we use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most
Greek MSS employ ‘it’" (bold supplied). Note the following
Scriptural examples where the Greek pneuma is used and is referred
to by the neuter pronoun "it": John 1:32—"John bare record, saying,
I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode
upon him." In Rom. 8:26 (if this passage is applied to the holy Spirit)
—"Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not
what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh
intercession for us."
Thus seen, the attempt to prove the "Spirit" is a person because
masculine pronouns sometimes are used in referring to it is neither
scholarly, consistent, nor honest.
Possible Personality Traits
Finally, due to the wide-ranging applications of God’s Spirit, there
are some Bible texts that at first might be construed as endowing it
with personality. The Spirit, for example, is portrayed as "speaking"
in Heb. 3:7, and "bearing witness" in Heb. 10:15. Nonetheless,
other Scriptures clarify the matter for us. Whereas the Spirit may be
described in a loose sense as speaking, in reality it does this through
actual persons, such as God or the believer. The warning against
provoking God through unbelief, which is ascribed to the holy Spirit
in Heb. 3:7, is clearly shown in Ps. 95:6-11 to have been the voice
of God originally raised as an expression of God’s anger against the
Israelites in their wilderness journey. Likewise, the lovely picture of
the establishment of the New Covenant with the house of Israel,
which is attributed to the witnessing of the holy Spirit in Heb. 10:15,
is really shown to be a consequence of a direct "thus saith the Lord"
in Jer. 31:31-33. Hence the holy Spirit has no personal voice of its
own and must operate through other personalities, such as God,
Christ and the believer.
An approach similar to this can be used in properly harmonizing
other texts that in varying degree may appear to endow personhood
to the Spirit. For example, compare "tempt the Spirit of the Lord"
(Acts 5:9) with the clearer "tempt the Lord thy God" (Matt. 4:7);
and again, "filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) with the more
understandable "the Spirit of God dwelleth in you" (1 Cor. 3:16). It
is only reasonable to expect that on a matter of such weighty
consequence, bearing on the true nature and identity of the holy
Spirit, the Scriptures themselves can be relied upon to furnish
satisfying truth. And thus we actually perceive examples of God’s
Spirit at work, in so arranging the holy Scriptures and granting the
needed guidance and help in properly understanding them, for which
we are grateful.
Some Notable Admissions
In summing up our case for the holy Spirit as the power or influence
of God, we would like to quote from some Catholic authorities:
A Catholic Dictionary: "On the whole, the New Testament, like
the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power particularly
in the heart of man."2
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The OT clearly does not
envisage God’s spirit as a person . . . God’s spirit is simply God’s
power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it
is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. . . . The majority of
NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is
especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of
God."3
The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nowhere in the Old Testament do
we find any clear indication of a Third Person."4
Catholic theologian Fortman: "The Jews never regarded the spirit as
a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament
writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the
Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power."5
Placing these comments into the overall context of Catholic belief,
we appreciate the sincerity of these admissions, while at the same
time recognizing their acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, as based
upon church authority and tradition. We quite agree that God’s
Spirit is "something, not someone." Our purpose in excerpting these
quotations is to point out the candid admissions that are made in
respect to the lack of Biblical evidence to support the personhood
of the holy Spirit.
Chapter IV
Further Scriptural Harmony

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman

who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word
of God." (2 Tim. 2:16, NIV)
God (‘Elo-him’) in Plural Form
The reasoning is presented that the Old Testament Hebrew word
for God is often in plural form. To the Trinitarian mind, this is
supposed to prove that God is a composite of three beings
somehow congealed into one identity. It never had such a
connotation to the Jewish writers of the Old Testament. They did
not believe in a Trinity. It is an enigma to them that, after the fact,
some Christians come along and prove the Trinity where none
existed in the minds of the writers of the Old Testament. Trinity
never was in their thinking, and therefore it was not in their ink quills.
Commenting on Gen. 1:1, where God is mentioned in the plural as
‘elohim,’ Dr. Rotherham says: "It should be carefully observed that,
although ‘elohim’ is plural in form, yet when, as here, it is construed
with a verb in the singular, it is naturally singular in sense; especially
since the ‘plural of quality’ or ‘excellence’ abounds in Hebrew in
cases where the reference is undeniably to something which must be
understood in the singular."
Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone writes on this matter in his
Synonyms of the Old Testament: "Many critics, however, of
unimpeachable orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines
as Cajetan [a theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among
Protestants were content to stand, and to take the plural form as a
plural of majesty, and as indicating the greatness, the infinity, and
the incomprehensibleness of the Deity."1 The truth on this matter is
clearly perceived by many scholars, but it is hard to restrain some
hard-pressed Trinitarians from stretching the truth to prove the
unprovable.
It should be mentioned also that the Hebrew "elohim" is used to
describe pagan gods such as Dagon (1 Sam. 5:7) and Marduck
(Dan. 1:2). These were singular gods. No one has claimed they
were triune gods. Hence, it seems many Trinitarian scholars wince at
excesses of their brethren. The higher ground for the Trinitarian is
still that the Trinity is not understandable, nor explainable, and must
simply be accepted as a theological mystery. This is especially
difficult for fundamentalist Bible believers to accept. They find this
an uncomfortable posture in which to be.
"Immanuel" and the "Mighty God"
Isaiah 7:14 reads: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel." We shall not enter the discussion
as to whether this verse may have had a fulfillment other than to our
Lord Jesus. Be that as it may, we have Matthew’s application of this
verse being fulfilled in Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:23). It is, therefore, on
Apostolic authority, applied to our Lord, and that should be the end
of all strife. However, when it came time to give our Lord a name,
he was not called Immanuel, meaning "God with us," but Jesus,
"Savior" (Matt. 1:25). Hence, the name is a title, very much as the
Son of God or the Son of Man. If God was sending His only
begotten Son to dwell with men, that surely would be a sign that
God was with us, lifting up His countenance upon us and being
gracious to us. Even today we use the expression, "God be with
you." No more than this need be implied in Isaiah 7:14.
Isaiah 9:6 gives our Savior the title, "The mighty God." But the
Jewish writers were not saying that the Messiah would literally be
Jehovah. If judges of Israel were called "gods," as in Ps. 82:1-7,
what would be earthshaking about calling Jesus the "mighty God"
(Hebrew, ‘El Gib-bohr’)? Notice, he is not called ‘El Shad-dai,’ a
term exclusively applied to Jehovah. Further, "God" in the Isaiah text
is the Hebrew EL, defined by Dr. Strong as "strength; as adj[ective]
mighty; espec[ially] the Almighty (but used also of any deity)."2 The
fact that the same word (EL) is used in Isa. 57:5 in describing idols
shows indeed that it is a general term used to describe any mighty
being and, hence, quite appropriately may be applied to our Savior,
Jesus, in Isa. 9:6.
The following sources offer additional comments on Isa. 9:6 and Ps.
82:1-7: The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "Even these exalted titles
did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to
be none other than God Himself."3 And the Cyclopedia of Biblical,
Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, by McClintock and
Strong, says: "Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from
the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive. . . . We
do not find in the Old Test[ament] clear or decided proof upon this
subject."4
Scriptures with Groupings of Three Titles
Some Bible texts mention three subjects in continuity and have been
seized upon as proof of the Trinity. In 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 are
found Spirit, Lord and God; 2 Corinthians 13:14 lists Christ, God
and the Holy Ghost [Spirit]; Galatians 4:4-6 lists God, Son and
Spirit of his Son; Ephesians 4:4-6 lists Spirit, Lord and God and 1
Peter 1:2 lists God, Spirit and Jesus Christ. If we were to accept
such logic as proof of the Trinity, then we would be led to believe
that Peter, James and John are a Trinity because they are listed
together. (See Luke 9:28.) 1 Timothy 5:21 says: "I charge thee
before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels." Does
this make angels a part of the Trinity?
Then there is the great commission text, "Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son,
and of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" (Matt. 28:19). However, sentiment
is mounting that this text is a forgery. In every other instance where
baptism is mentioned in the New Testament, it is shown to be in the
name of Jesus. Further, many of the early Church fathers, in quoting
this passage, leave out the Trinitarian formula and say simply "in my
name"; that is, in the name of Jesus alone the baptism was to be
carried out. In 1960, The British & Foreign Bible Society published
a Greek Testament, and in Matt. 28:19 the phrase "in my name" is
given as an alternative reading, with Eusebius cited as the early
Church authority.
Let us note what some theologians have to say on this matter:
Dr. Adam Clark, a Trinitarian, in commenting on Matthew 28:19 as
proof that the Father, Son and holy Spirit were three persons, says:
"‘But this I can never believe.’ I cannot help that—you shall not be
persecuted by me for differing from my opinion. I cannot go over to
you; I must abide by what I believe to be the meaning of the
Scriptures." He then shows how the New Testament believers in
Acts 2:38; 8:16 and 19:5 were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus alone.5 Also, G. Kittel, in his Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, states forthrightly: "The N[ew] T[estament] does
not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic
formulae of the NT."6 Hence, there is such a thing as trying too hard
to use Scriptures to infer meanings not intended, and some scholars
refuse to do that.
"My Lord and My God"
One verse often used in an attempt to prove the Trinity doctrine is
John 20:28. "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord
and my God." First, let us notice Thomas did not mention the holy
Spirit. He would have needed to do so for this verse to sustain any
Trinity connotation. Failing in this, it becomes, at best, a stool with
only two legs—not good to stand on. This verse reveals Thomas’
happy response on finding his Master appearing before him. He was
slow to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, and it took this personal
interchange with the Master to make a true believer out of him. He
was the last of the Apostles to have been honored with a visit from
the Master after his resurrection. This probably hurt his feelings to
think that so many others had met with the resurrected Lord and he
had not been so blessed.
Thomas resolved: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the
nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand
into his side, I will not believe [in his resurrection]" (John 20:25).
Did Thomas believe that it was God the Father who was dead?
Surely not. But if he believed Jesus was God, how could he believe
that it was Jesus who was dead? Yet if anything at all is clear, it is
that Thomas did believe Jesus was dead and was overjoyed to find
him alive.
When Jesus offered to fulfill all the necessary conditions to make
him believe his resurrection, Thomas cried out, "My [the] Lord and
my [the] God" (John 20:28). God here is a translation of the Greek
THEOS, which is defined by Dr. Young as "God, a god, object of
worship."7 It is a general term in the New Testament, used
frequently to denote the Heavenly Father (such as in Matt. 27:46,
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," and in many
additional places). However, it is also used to depict other beings,
whether good or bad. THEOS is used to describe Satan, "the god
of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4), the saints, "gods, sons of the Most High"
(John 10:34, 35, from Ps. 82:6, RSV), idols, or fabricated "gods
who will go before us" (Acts 7:40), and heathen gods, "the gods
have come down to us in human form!" (Acts 14:11, 12). Hence,
THEOS is quite general in its application in Scripture, and the fact
that it is occasionally used of Jesus should not be taken as proof that
he was God the Father. Such usage alone is not conclusive to
warrant such a distinction.
The Jews had earlier accused Jesus of blasphemy because, being a
man, he made himself "God"—but this was a false and exaggerated
accusation against Jesus which he never is recorded as saying.
Jesus’ response was, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,
and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father
hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because
I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:34-36). Even to be called
God was not earthshaking. Jesus pointed out that those to whom the
Word of God came were called "gods." (The original early
manuscripts were written with all capitals. Hence, translators must
decide whether to capitalize or not.) But Jesus did clarify who he
was. He said, "I am the Son of God."
Did Thomas now believe something different than Jesus claimed for
himself? If those to whom the word of God came were called
"gods," what would be extraordinary about Thomas calling Jesus
"My Lord and my God"? Herod’s voice was called "god’s" voice,
and Paul was called "god" (Acts 12:22; 28:6). This, undoubtedly,
was a very emotional moment for Thomas and certainly not an
attempt on his part to offer advanced theology. The fact that he says
"the Lord" and "the God" seems appropriate to his emotional state
wherein he accepts Jesus as his resurrected "the Lord" and "the
God." His very Jewishness prohibits us from concluding he thought
Jesus was "God the Father." He could not possibly have fused Jesus
and God the Father into one. Jesus had been his "Lord" (or
"Master"), and now, believing his resurrection, he accepts him as his
"God" (or "mighty one").
In addition to the foregoing, there is an alternative explanation that
should be considered. This was an emotion-filled moment for
Thomas, a moment about which he had spent much time in prayer to
God. It may be that Thomas was merely crying out to God, his
Father, "My Lord and my God" as an exclamation for answering his
prayers. Today, people cry out "My God" in moments of
overwhelming sorrow or joy. Jesus cried out, "My God, my God"
on the cross. This may be what Thomas meant by his expression on
this occasion. There is nothing to preclude this thought. One thing
we know, his assertion did not include the holy Spirit, and therefore
the Trinity cannot have been implied.
The Apostle John, who wrote his Gospel long years after Pentecost,
likewise did not believe Jesus was God. John quotes Jesus’
reminder to Mary, saying, "I ascend to my Father, and your Father;
and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17). Jesus had the same
Father and God as Mary. Additionally, John sums up his lesson
covering these momentous events, saying, "But these are written,
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31). The
Apostle Thomas was a Jew who held to the view that the "Lord our
God is one." To argue that he forsook his Jewish religious training at
the moment in question and received Jesus as (the) God the Father
is an unlikely scenario. John, who is aged and serene while writing
his Gospel, summarizes this entire chapter saying, "Jesus is the
Christ, the son of God." That’s what he wanted us to believe—and
that’s what Thomas believed as well.
"In Three Days I Will Raise It Up"
In John 2:19 we read: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up." The argument is made that Jesus was God and that he
raised himself from the dead. This is said in spite of the clear and oft
repeated statement of Scripture that "God raised him from the
dead." (Please see our Bible readings in Chapter VI.) The testimony
of Scripture is so complete and overwhelming that God raised Jesus
from the dead that there cannot be any shade of doubt about it.
Now let us examine some of our Lord’s statements on this to see if
they can be harmonized. In Matthew 17:22, 23, Jesus said,
speaking of his approaching death: "The Son of man shall be
betrayed into the hands of men: and they shall kill him, and the third
day he shall be raised again." (See also Luke 9:22; Matt. 16:21.)
The angels quoted our Lord’s words to the women who witnessed
his resurrection, saying: "Remember how he spake unto you when
he was yet in Galilee saying, the Son of man must be delivered into
the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise
again. And they remembered his words" (Luke 24:6-8). These
verses fit in with the Bible testimony that God raised Jesus on the
third day.
However, in John 2:19, Jesus said, in response to the Jews’ request
for a sign from him: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up." John quotes Jesus and then gives the proper
understanding of Jesus’ words. He says, "But he spake of the
temple of his body" (John 2:21). Here the aged John is suggesting
what Paul confirms: "For as the body is one, and hath many
members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are
one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized
into one body. . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in
particular" (1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 27). Further insight is provided in 2
Cor. 4:14, which reads: "Knowing that he which raised up the Lord
Jesus shall raise up us also by [with, through] Jesus, and shall
present us with you." In John 6:44 we read a similar thought: "No
man can come to me, except the Father . . . draw him: and I will
raise him up at the last day." This shows that God’s power would
not be exercised independently but through Jesus in the resurrection
of the Body of Christ.
Hence it is Jesus who will take an active role in raising his Church
from the dead. John shows in 14:2, 3 when that will be. He says:
"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and
receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." So
it is at Jesus’ second advent that his faithful followers will be
rewarded. Other Bible texts detail the timing of the Church’s
resurrection yet further. Peter declares that "One day is with the
Lord as a thousand years" (2 Pet. 3:8). If we divide the time from
man’s creation into one-thousand year days, Jesus was crucified
and resurrected on the fifth (thousand year) day. If he returns in
three days to raise his body members, counting inclusively from the
fifth day, we arrive at the seventh (thousand year) day, which is the
grand Millennial Day of blessing.
Now let us examine John 2:19—"In three days I will raise it up"—
from another standpoint. The disciples had come to regard Jesus’
death and resurrection as a precursor of their own resurrection.
They remembered his promise: "Because I live, ye shall live also"
(John 14:19). Hence we read: "When therefore he was risen from
the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them;
and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said"
(John 2:22). We must remember that before Pentecost, Jesus’
disciples did not entertain a heavenly hope. The last thing they asked
our risen Lord before he ascended was: "Lord, wilt thou at this time
restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Subsequently, they
came to realize they were to be a part of the body of Christ and that
God would "raise up us also by Jesus" (2 Cor. 4:14). That is what
they remembered Jesus’ words to mean.
Challenges of Interpretation
Some while back, a 31-page booklet entitled "Should You Believe
the Trinity?" was circulated, which caused quite a stir in Trinitarian
circles. Robert M. Bowman, Jr., rose to the occasion and wrote an
entire book in reply entitled Why You Should Believe in the
Trinity. His work enables one to see how a Trinitarian studies the
Bible and how he comes to his conclusions. It demonstrates that an
effort can be made to defend the Trinity and that Bible verses may
be used in an endless array to justify said beliefs. Yet, despite a
valiant overall effort, Mr. Bowman clearly falls short of the mark in
at least one direction—and that is in clarifying the doctrine for us.
After attempting at length to explain the unfathomable mystery of the
Trinity, he finally admits in summary: "The choice is therefore
between believing in the true God as he has revealed himself,
mystery and all, or believing in a God who is relatively simple to
understand but bears little resemblance to the true God. Trinitarians
are willing to live with a God they can’t fully comprehend."8
Most of his arguments pertain to Bible verses where God and Christ
may be, with a little effort, fused into one Being. The hard part was
in adding the holy Spirit to make Trinity complete. He says, to lay
the foundation for his argument: "The Holy Spirit is nothing less than
God himself. God is present everywhere, so he has no problem
controlling his works. He needs no force outside himself to do his
works, nor does he need to emanate some of his own energy to
places far from his presence in order to ‘be there.’"9 Unfortunately,
he asserts God is "everywhere" without a Bible citation. One must
suppose this is accepted in theology. However, our Lord Jesus
taught us to pray, "Our Father, which art in heaven" (Matt. 6:9).
Jesus could have helped theology if he taught us to pray: "Our
Father, which art everywhere," but he did not say this.
Such reasoning comes close to New Age theology which teaches
that God is everywhere and in everything and if we identify with the
earth, sun, water, etc., we become a part of God. The wise man
said: "God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words
be few" (Eccl. 5:2). When Moses wished to see God’s glory, God
caused a representation of Himself to pass before Moses. The
restriction was that Moses would see God’s "back parts" (Ex.
33:23). How could a God who is everywhere be represented by
God’s glory as it passed by? How long would it take for
everywhere to pass before Moses? Also God is said to dwell in
"light which no man can approach unto" (1 Tim. 6:16). If God is
everywhere, he must also be in the dark holes of the universe. How
could it be said: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1
John 1:5)?
If God is everywhere, then Jesus is everywhere and so also the holy
Spirit. This raises a question in logic. In John 14:3, Jesus promises:
"I will come again." How does someone who is everywhere come
again to somewhere? Jesus also promised in John 15:26: "But when
the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you . . . he shall
testify of me." How do you send someone who is everywhere? Why
would you need to? How can everywhere be moved to
somewhere?
Mr. Bowman asserts God "needs no force outside himself to do his
works, nor does he need to emanate some of his energy to places."
It is doubtful if many theologians would back such an extravagant
assertion. This would seem to rule out any use of the holy Spirit as
the mind, influence, power, etc., of God. For a case in point, God
says: "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh" (Joel 2:28). How could
a God-person, who is everywhere, be poured out on "all flesh"?
Logic and common sense require even Trinitarians to read certain
verses with the same meaning as non-Trinitarians. That is the hard
part of arguing against the Trinity; it seems everyone defending it has
some different ideas.
Greater minds than his have struggled to find the formula to merge
three persons into one and have conceded that, after having done
their best, their concepts were "incomprehensible." Mr. Bowman
concludes the same, as we have observed: "Trinitarians are willing to
live with a God they can’t fully understand." The Trinity is a doctrine
of inference—not of Biblical statement. We doubt that many
theologians would support his position that it is unnecessary for the
Spirit ever to be a power or influence or the mind of God. His
position seems untenable here.
Finally, every Christian must realize that there is nothing they believe
that cannot be assailed by someone somewhere. The Devil quoted
the Bible trying to beguile our Lord. The Judaizing Jews quoted
Scripture verses to bring Gentiles under the Law. Were they
sincere? Probably, but misinformed. There is not a single doctrine
believed by any Christian which is not assailed with vigor and even
sometimes with forceful presentations. What do we do in such an
event? We can close our mind to all discussion and retreat to our
trenches. That is probably good if indeed our belief is well-founded
in the Word. There definitely is a cloud over the Trinity which is very
troubling to many, and we trust that such will be blessed by this
presentation.
Chapter V
Confronting Gnostic Heresies
"Turn away from godless philosophical discussions and the
opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge[GNOSIS],
which some have professed and in so doing have wandered
from the faith." (1 Tim. 6:20, NIV and NJB)
When the Apostle John spoke of those who do not "abide in the
doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9), what false teaching was he refuting?
We believe he was confronting a particular false teaching being
advocated in his time and place. As mentioned earlier, the Trinity
doctrine was not yet formulated, and John was not confronting it. It
was not troubling the Church at that time. In Acts 15 the early
Church did have a heated conference of elders and Apostles, but it
addressed the issue of Gentiles coming into the Church and being
pressured to keep the Jewish Law Covenant. The council ended
with a very clearly-worded message: "For it seemed good to the
Holy Ghost [Spirit], and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden
than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well" (Acts
15:28, 29).
Now, you would think if the Trinity was even faintly mentioned in
Church teachings, it would need some clarification. Certainly, those
of the Priesthood (Acts 6:7) who had become believers and who
were trying to bring Gentiles under the Law would have raised
eyebrows at any teaching beclouding the one-God concept of the
Jewish Law. The leadership of the Church were all mainly Jews
carried over from the Law arrangement. Yet not one word emerged
about a tripersonal deity. How could the Trinity not have been
mentioned in this conference, or in the Bible itself, if it was an
essential doctrine for Jews and Gentiles alike to believe?
John’s Gospel, as well as his epistles, are believed to have been
written toward the close of the first century. McClintock & Strong
on "John," says:
"Ephesus and Patmos are the two places mentioned by early
writers, and the weight of evidence seems to preponderate in favor
of Ephesus. Irenaeus . . . states that John published his Gospel
whilst he dwelt in Ephesus of Asia. Jerome . . . relates that John was
in Asia . . . Theodore of Mopsuestia . . . relates that John was living
at Ephesus when he was moved by his disciples to write his Gospel.
"The evidence in favor of Patmos comes from two anonymous
writers. The author of the Synopsis of Scripture, printed in the
works of Athanasius, states that the Gospel was dictated by John in
Patmos, and published afterwards in Ephesus. . . . [Another] author
. . . states that John was banished by Domitian to Patmos, where he
wrote his Gospel."1
Quoting McClintock and Strong, on "John, First Epistle," we read:
"It has been conjectured by many interpreters, ancient and modern,
that it was written at the same place as the Gospel. The more
ancient tradition places the writing of the Gospel at Ephesus, and a
less authentic report refers it to the island of Patmos . . . it was
probably posterior to the Gospel, which seems to be referred to in 1
John 1:4. Some are of the opinion that the Epistle was an envelope
or accompaniment to the Gospel, and that they were consequently
written nearly simultaneously."2
These comments suggest John’s writings were the writings of his old
age. Having outlived the other Apostles, John could see the essential
fabric of Christianity beginning to be subjected to intellectual
Hellenistic philosophy and gnosticism. John was the last Apostolic
outpost defending the "faith which was once delivered unto the
saints" (Jude 3). He was dearly loved by the brethren of that time,
but not by all. "Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence
among them, receiveth us not" (3 John 9). It is hard to believe
anyone would not receive John in the Christian community.
However, ambition and power-lust were running high, and hence
even the beloved Apostle found himself put upon. This should make
us wary of accepting beliefs not originating in Apostolic times.
Confessing Jesus Christ Is Come in the Flesh
John, in his epistles, as well as in his gospel writings, was dealing
with certain gnostic heresies that had started to trouble the early
Church. In 1 John 4:3, we read: "And every spirit that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is
that spirit of antichrist." What was John addressing here? For an
answer we quote McClintock & Strong:
"Irenaeus says, ‘Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by
the supreme God, but by a certain power (Demiurge) separate from
Him, and below Him, and ignorant of Him. Jesus he supposed not
to be born of a virgin, but to be the son of Joseph and Mary, born
altogether as other men are; but he excelled all men in virtue,
knowledge, and wisdom. At His baptism, the Christ came down
upon Him, from God who is over all, in the shape of a dove; and
then He declared to the world the unknown Father, and wrought
miracles. At the end, the Christ left Jesus, and Jesus suffered and
rose again, but the Christ being spiritual, was impassible.’"3
This view presents Jesus as a mere man fathered by Joseph, who
later became possessed by Christ at Jordan and deserted by Christ
before Jesus was crucified. Hence, Christ did not come in the flesh,
nor did he suffer in the flesh, but simply took possession of a man
named Jesus from Jordan and left him before he was crucified.
Under this teaching, Christ neither suffered nor died. It was Jesus
the man who suffered and died and was resurrected. This concept
may have arisen from the practice of demons entering fleshly bodies
to possess them, such as evidently was fairly commonplace in Jesus’
day.
We refer again to McClintock & Strong on Cerinthus:
"The account of Irenaeus is that he [Cerinthus] appeared about the
year 88, and was known to St. John, who wrote his Gospel in
refutation of his errors. Irenaeus, on the authority of Polycarp,
narrates that the Apostle John, when at Ephesus, going on a certain
day to the bath, and finding Cerinthus within, fled from the building,
saying ‘Let us even be gone, lest the bath should fall to pieces,
Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, being within.’"4
This scrap of history would confirm John’s unwillingness to have any
interchange or contact with one who was introducing such mind-
beguiling errors into the Churches. Yet, the point to be noted is that,
even while the Apostle John still lived, various forms of gnostic
errors affecting the nature of Christ were indeed infecting
Christianity. What would happen when all the Apostles fell asleep?
Surely, no one would logically expect truth to triumph.
Jesus taught—"While men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares
among the wheat, and went his way" (Matt. 13:24-30). What were
the "tares" the enemy sowed? Errors or false teachings which would
subvert true Christianity. Yes. Even before the Apostles fell asleep,
the Devil was busy trying to infuse gnostic beliefs among the people
of God. Paul confirms this, saying, "The mystery of iniquity doth
already work" (2 Thess. 2:7). We must always remember, these
false teachings were kept out of the Bible, but not out of the Church.
What was to be a "wheat field" turned into a field of "tares," the
planting of the Wicked One. The Parable of the Wheat and Tares
(Matt. 13:24-30) was given by the Master to foretell what would
follow the death of the Apostles. For anyone to go to the fourth and
fifth centuries to seek the truth is to ignore this clear warning of
Jesus.
Docetae—Docetism
Docetism appeared in the latter half of the second century. It was, in
fact, only another form of gnosticism. McClintock & Strong,
commenting on Docetae, say:
"In order to remove the author of all good from all contact with
matter, which they conceived to be the same as evil, they called in
the aid of Oriental philosophy in order to people the space between
God and matter with a vast succession of superhuman beings as
mediators between God and the world. These, emanating from the
Deity, were called aeons; among these the highest rank was
assigned to Christ. Here, however, they seem to have split. ‘Many
imagined that Jesus was a mere man, and maintained that the aeon
Christ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and left him
immediately before his crucifixion, so that Christ was not, in fact,
subjected to pain and death; while others held that the body, with
which Christ appeared to be invested, was not really human and
passable, but unsubstantial or etherial, or, at least immaterial: these
last were called Docetae.’ (Waddington’s Hisory of the Church,
p. 74, 75). They denied the whole humanity of Christ, regarding it
only as a deceptive show, a mere vision.
"Docetism was a most subtle element, which wrought variously
before it had any discernible concentration in any leading men or
sects, and it infused its unreal and fantastic leaven into various
Gnostic sects, and other later ones which grew out of Gnosticism. It
was a deep, natural, rationalistic, pseudo-spiritualistic, anti-
incarnation element."5
The errors introduced by Cerinthus did not disappear, but infected
the Church heavily in the second century. It was these errors that
were leavening the lump, and to offset them, both truth and
additional errors were used to put down these gnostic teachings.
The hardest thing is to defend the truth without exaggerating matters.
The Devil does not care which ditch one gets into, as long as one
leaves the strait and narrow path of truth.
Gnosticism in the Church
The early Christians did seek knowledge of spiritual things. Paul
says some were given the "word of knowledge (gnosis) by the same
Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:8). There was a proper knowledge that came to
saints of that day, and then there were supposed superior
knowledge and insights that were nothing more than heretical
gnosticism. The Church was put upon by these claimants of superior
knowledge. McClintock & Strong, on Gnosticism, say:
"The name Gnosticism has been applied to a variety of schools
which had sometimes little in common except the assumption of a
knowledge higher than that of ordinary believers. . . . They seldom
pretended to demonstrate the principles on which their systems
were founded by historical evidence or logical reasonings, since they
rather boasted that these were discovered by the intuitional powers
of more highly endowed minds, and that the materials thus obtained,
whether through faith or divine revelation, were then worked up into
ascientific form according to each one’s natural power and culture.
Their aim was to construct not merely a theory of redemption, but of
the universe—a cosmogony. No subject was beyond their
investigations. Whatever God could reveal to the finite intellect, they
looked upon as within their range. What to others seemed only
speculative ideas, were by them hypostatized or personified into real
beings or historical facts. It was in this way that they constructed
systems of speculation on subjects entirely beyond the range of
human knowledge, which startle us by their boldness and their
apparent consciouness of reality."6
Most of the controversies of the early Church were Judaistic in
nature, but evidence is found early on of heretical influences that
affected the brotherhood. Quoting again from McClintock & Strong
on Gnosticism:
"The heretical gnosis did not make its appearance with an
uncovered head until after the death of the apostles, but . . . that it
previously worked in secret. . . . While most of the heresies of that
period were Judaistic, there was an obvious difference between
those reproved in the Galatian churches and those noticed in the
epistles to the Colossians and Timothy. The latter are treated much
more mildly, and we readily perceive that they must have been much
less developed and less subversive of the Christian system. They are
expressly called (1 Tim. 6:20) a false gnosis, and were
characterized by empty sounds without sense and subtle oppositions
to the truth, a depreciation of the body, and a worship of angels
(Col. 2:18, 23), and interminable genealogies and myths (1 Tim.
1:4). These seem more akin to Jewish than to heathen speculations,
and imply not the completed Gnosticism of the second century, but
the manifest germs of Docetic emanations and Gnostic dualism."7
It is easy to see how such forces at work within the early Church
were like leaven that needed an incubation period before it
"leavened the whole." While the leaven was rising, it induced a
power struggle among the bishops, some for truth and some for
error and, more often than not, a struggle for preeminence and
power. To secure these, one needed some platform that played well
and would seduce the largest numbers. Later, the seduction was
directed toward the Emperor Constantine, for the imperial power
would make or break the bishops. Those who contended for the
faith "once delivered unto the saints" became merely voices crying in
the wilderness (Jude 3).
To believe that most Church leaders were the great preservers of
the "faith once delivered to the saints" is to believe the unbelievable.
The Great Wall of China was built to keep out invading enemy
forces. However, the wall was breached three times within the first
century of its construction—in each instance from within. Once we
leave the Apostolic Era and the Word of God, it becomes stormy
and treacherous.
What John Was Confronting
The Apostle John, in his Gospel, was filling in details left out in other
Gospel accounts as well as lightly addressing some subtle errors of
that era. In John 1:1-18, we find John refuting gnostic heresies. He
shows that Jesus was a spirit who was "with God" and who
subsequently became flesh. He says, "And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (vs. 14).
This is a plain statement of fact. Jesus was "made flesh." He did not
possess another’s body or form, but he was, in fact, "flesh." Neither
was he a mixture of natures—spirit and flesh. He was "flesh." Peter
confirms this truth, saying, "Being put to death indeed in flesh, but
made alive in spirit" (1 Pet. 3:18, Rotherham). The gnostic teaching
that Christ was a composite of spirit and flesh did finally emerge.
But the Bible is quite clear that Jesus was made "flesh." It does not
say he assumed a fleshly body and then left it. He died on the cross
and was raised from the dead by God on the third day (Matt. 28:7;
Acts 2:31, 32).
John 1:18 reads, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten son [some authorities read God], which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared him." Men did see Jesus. No man has
ever seen God, nor can they and live. Jesus, then, is the revealer of
God, the one through whom we may know the Father.
What did John mean when he said: "Whosoever transgresseth, and
abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth
in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (2
John 9)? Why didn’t he add: "hath the Father and the Son and the
holy Spirit"? Obviously, John was not dealing with any part of the
Trinity when he wrote these words. He was meeting the errors of
Cerinthus and gnosticism, which were beginning to surface in that
very early era when the Apostles still lived. He was endeavoring to
prevent Cerinthus and his deceived followers from bewitching the
Church with their Satan-inspired, beguiling errors.
The battle did not cease after the Apostles fell asleep. The Church
of God became infested with philosophy, gnostic dualisms, docetic
emanations, etc. The stage was being set for the dualism of God and
Christ to be fused into one substance, composed of spirit and flesh
simultaneously. Because these earliest errors had to do with the
nature of Jesus Christ in human flesh and his relationship to God, it
became increasingly difficult to separate fact from fancy. A thick
cloud of confusion settled upon Christians. As a result, theologians
left the simplicity of the unitarian God of the first century and fused
Jesus and God into one Being in the fourth century.
At last in the fifth century, the Trinity was born even while the
Christian Church began its descent toward the Dark Ages. If at least
we could see the Church moving toward more brotherly love and
kindness after the Trinity concept took root, we could sense that
something good had emerged. But such was not the case. The
picture that emerges is of a Church steeped in worldliness, pomp
and ceremony, leaving the purity and simplicity of its early faith far
behind. Even worse are centuries filled with bloodletting and
ruthlessness that followed, with the Church bent on world conquest.
All contrary religious thought was stifled as the Church grasped for
total world-control.
Hellenistic Influences in the Church
Hans Kung writes:
"If we take the New Testament as a criterion, we cannot deny that
the Council of Nicaea certainly maintained the New Testament
message and did not Hellenize it totally. But it is equally beyond
dispute that the council remained utterly imprisoned in Hellenistic
concepts, notions and thought-models which would have been
completely alien to the Jew Jesus of Nazareth and the earliest
community. Here in particular the shift from the Jewish Christian
apocalyptic paradigm [beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared
by the members of a given community] to the early church
Hellenistic paradigm had a massive effect."8
There is little doubt that after the Hellenization of the Church, it
would have been unrecognizable to early Jewish Christians.
When the Church became Hellenized, it became a tool for
Constantine. Hans Kung says:
"He not only convened the ecumenical council but directed it
through a bishop whom he had commissioned, with the assistance of
imperial commissioners; he adjourned it and concluded it; by his
decision the resolutions of the council became imperial laws.
Constantine used this first council not least to adapt the church
organization to the state organization. . . . It was now clear to
Constantine, the political strategist, that the imperial church needed
more than just the more or less varied confessions of faith of the
individual local or provincial churches. It needed a uniform
‘ecumenical creed,’ and this was to be the church law and imperial
law for all the churches. He believed that only in this way could he
ensure the unity of the empire under the slogan ‘one God—one
emperor—one kingdom—one church—one faith.’"9
While Constantine was using the Church for his own political
agenda, it must be remembered that, although confessing to be a
Christian, he was actually a ruthless opportunist. He still presided at
all pagan festivities, commissioned many of the new Churches to be
adorned with pagan artwork, and was responsible for murdering
members of his own family. In 326 A.D., long after his "conversion,"
he had his wife, Fausta, and his eldest son, Crispus, put to death.
When convinced that his own death was near, he received baptism
from Eusebius of Nicomedia, in 337 A.D. He had delayed baptism
to the end, since he felt he could not avoid committing "mortal" sin
during his lifetime, and such sin after baptism was considered to be
unforgivable.10 This was the man who forced his will upon the
Nicene Council, dictated the wording of its creed, and thereby
directed the doctrinal course of the Church for centuries to come.
But is this the kind of man to whom we should be entrusting our
most sacred beliefs?
Hans Kung makes another observation:
"Nor did Paul want to replace Jewish belief in one God with a
Christian belief in two Gods. Rather, he always regarded the Jesus
who had been exalted by God’s spirit to God as subordinate to this
one God and Father: as the Messiah, Christ, image, Son, of the one
God. So his christocentricity remains grounded in and culminates in
a theocentricity: ‘from God through Jesus Christ’—‘through Jesus
Christ to God.’ To this degree Paul’s christology is directly
compatible with Jewish monotheism."11
We realize, too, that Paul was not opposed by his Judaizing Jewish
brethren because of his presentations of God. It was his opposition
to bringing Gentile Christians under bondage to the Law
arrangement that incurred their ire.
We quote again from Hans Kung:
"We should note that whereas the Council of Nicaea in 325 spoke
of a single substance or hypostasis in God, the starting point in the
381 Council of Constantinople was three hypostases: Father, Son
and Spirit. There has been much discussion in the history of dogma
as to whether the transition from a one-hypostasis theology to a
three-hypostasis theology is only a terminological change or—more
probably (as the temporary schism in Antioch between old and new
orthodox shows)—also involved an actual change in the conceptual
model. At all events it is certain that we can speak of a dogma of the
Trinity only after the Second Ecumenical Council in
Constantinople."12
There is little doubt when Trinity became a Church dogma. For
those willing to accept the Council of Constantinople as the basis of
their faith, we wish them well, but our conviction is that Christians
should be free to believe only what was taught by the Apostles.
Trinity a Recognized Stumbling Block
When the Church united with the Roman powers, it seemed certain
that the conquest of the world lay before it. Rome was the leading
power of the world, and the Church was able to march under two
banners—Christ and Rome. It was seemingly invincible. Why did it
fail? Hans Kung says:
"A main cause of the failure of Christianity seems to have lain in the
inadequate foundation of the dogmas of christology and the Trinity.
The Catholic theologian Hermann Stieglecker, who gives an
admirable account of the theological controversies between
Christians and Muslims in his book on The Doctrines of Islam,
rightly regards this lack as one of the most serious causes of the
collapse of Christianity, particularly in its homelands, in the Near
East and North Africa. It was in fact simpler to believe in the One
God and Muhammad, the Prophet after Jesus. In addition, however,
there were also the lamentable internal divisions within
Christianity."13
Christianity was born in the Middle East, and for the churches to
have lost that whole area is most painful to them. While a few
churches are now tolerated there, what hope is there in regaining
what the Muslims have taken? The Trinity, which seemed a popular
route to take in conquest of the world, has turned out instead to be
a great impediment. That is why Hans Kung and a host of men like
him are trying to break out from this "incomprehensible" Trinity
concept. No matter how it is explained, no matter how it is qualified,
no matter how it is propped up, its inherent weakness remains—it is
unreasonable and consequently incomprehensible.
An Overview of the Controversies Concerning Christ
Let no one come away thinking that only two views of Christ have
existed. The controversies were many. We quote from Christian
History:14
Those Believing Jesus Was Either Divine or Human
"Docetists, e.g., Gnostics: The divine Christ would never stoop to
touch flesh, which is evil. Jesus only seemed (dokeo, in Greek)
human and only appeared to die, for God cannot die. Or, in other
versions, "Christ" left "Jesus" before the Crucifixion.
"Apollinarians: Jesus is not equally human and divine but one
person with one nature. In Jesus’ human flesh resided a divine mind
and will (he didn’t have a human mind or spirit), and his divinity
controlled or sanctified his humanity.
"Modalists, a.k.a. Sabellians: God’s names (Father, Son, Holy
Spirit) change with his roles or ‘modes of being’ (like a chameleon).
When God is the Son, he is not the Father. There is no pemanent
distinction between the three ‘persons’ of the Trinity, otherwise you
have three gods."
Those Believing Christ May Be Special, But Not Divine
"Ebionites: For these conservative Jewish Christians, God is one,
and Jesus must be understood in Old Testament categories. Jesus
was merely a specially blessed prophet.
"Adoptionists, a.k.a., dynamic monarchianists: No denying
Jesus was special, but what happened is this: at birth (not
conception) or baptism, God ‘adopted’ the human Jesus as his
special son and gave him an extra measure of divine power
(dynamis, in Greek).
"Arians: The Son as Word, Logos, was created by God before
time. He is not eternal or perfect like God, though he was God’s
agent in creating everything else."
Those Believing Christ Has One Nature
"Monophysites, e.g., Eutychians: Jesus cannot have two natures;
his divinity swallowed up his humanity ‘like a drop of wine in the
sea.’
Those Believing Christ Was Two Persons
"Nestorians: If you dismiss Jesus’ humanity like that, he cannot be
the Savior of humankind. Better to say he has two natures and also
two persons: the divine Christ and the human Christ lived together in
Jesus."
The Orthodox View: (The Majority View, Right or Wrong)

"Trinitarians: Jesus is fully human and fully divine, having two

natures in one person—‘without confusion, without change, without
division, without separation.’"
Every inquirer for truth should know how widespread, divisive and
confusing these controversies were before the Trinitarians were able
to crush the opposition, taking over schools of learning much as
evolutionists have done in our day. The law at work here might be
likened to that of the Wild West, where the man with the fastest
draw became the established authority. History records that the
Church "was racked by feuding, recriminations, and downright
treachery. . . . Bishops turned against one another, often mounting
intricate intrigues to promote their theological viewpoints. To win the
day, or just to survive, churchmen needed both a theologian’s
wisdom and a politician’s savvy."15
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and called a saint by his followers,
is an outstanding example of a Trinitarian leader noted for his strong
stand against Arianism. But consider the kind of man he was—
ruthlessly and tenaciously opposing Arius, the kindly, intelligent and
popular presbyter in Alexandria, who courageously defended the
early Church view of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God.
Athanasius, in contrast, staunchly upheld the Nicene Creed, "was
incapable of compromise, and believed that anyone who disagreed
with him was not only wrong but also evil." He was harsh and
acrimonious in manner and was known for being "autocratic in his
dealings with dissenters in his church." He was variously accused of
employing black magic, attempting to levy improper taxes for
priestly vestures, and even of rape and murder. Called before a full
ecclesiastical council at Tyre in 335, just ten years after Nicea, he
was deposed as bishop and thereafter was exiled no less than five
times. Yet, despite all this, he is considered one of the Fathers of the
Church—solely because of upholding the "faith of Nicea."16
It is also common knowledge that the victor in the kind of strife that
occurred here is the one who controls the history of the period. The
evidence for the opposing view is methodically squelched or
distorted. In this instance, an effort was made to give the impression
that Trinity was the accepted Christian belief from the very beginning
of the Church, rather than the labored product of centuries of
theological squabble and fusion with pagan beliefs.
In retrospect, it seems odd that the one view which seems least
understandable, and the least logical, would be the one that claims
orthodoxy today. And yet we must not allow ourselves to be
overwhelmed by what the Apostle Paul termed "the godless chatter
and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [Greek,
GNOSIS], for by professing it, some have missed the mark as
regards the faith" (1 Tim. 6:20, 21, RSV). What a hollow victory for
Trinity to have carried the day with such an incomprehensible and
mysterious teaching.
Finally, when we turn to artwork, we find that artists created other
heresies when they tried to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity.
Medieval art depicted God with three faces and one body, which
really is modalism, which denies differences between the Father,
Son and holy Spirit. Another medieval Hungarian portrait showed
God on a throne with the holy Spirit as a dove resting upon Jesus,
who is portrayed as a man. This shows God as three separate
beings. Alas, nothing seems able to describe this mystery
adequately, even in artwork! Yet Jesus confidently taught us, "Unto
you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God" (Mark
4:11). And the Apostle Paul said, "We speak the wisdom of God in
a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the
world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew .
. . but God hath revealed . . . unto us by his Spirit" (1 Cor. 2:7-10).
Chapter VI
Readings From the Inspired Word of God
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for rebuking error, for correcting faults, and for
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully
qualified and equipped to do every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16,
17, KJV and TEV)
The following Scriptural references are a compilation of numerous
Biblical texts which state Jesus was the SON of God—not God
Himself. The fervent prayer is offered that this study will be a
valuable aid to those seeking to know the true identity of our Lord
and Master, Christ Jesus. Weigh the evidence with Bible in hand
and a prayerful honest heart. By the Lord’s grace, you may come to
see the facts long hidden by controlled theology. We are no longer a
"voice crying in the wilderness" on the "doctrine of Christ." Many
voices are now being raised together with clear Bible readings to
depict the harmony of the Bible on the nature of the man Christ
Jesus.
Please notice that the verses cited also contain typical Trinitarian
"proof" scriptures, as well as those of our own persuasion. Most of
the quotations are self-explanatory when one realizes the simple
truth, that Jesus was God’s only begotten son—a Lord and a god—
above all angels, who sits at the right hand of God. This should
become obvious as one objectively reads the presentations below in
their entirety.
Italicized words indicate the author’s emphasis to help the reader
"key in" on the main points. Sometimes a brief comment is supplied
to emphasize the scriptural point of logic. "A good honest heart" is
the prerequisite of every true Christian. (See Luke 8:15, RSV.) In
Jesus’ time, many did not follow their hearts, because they asked,
"Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (John
7:48). Of yet another class we read, "Many believed on him; but
because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should
be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more
than the praise of God" (John 12:42, 43). We must be honest to
God and to our own hearts be true.
All the citations are from the King James Bible.
Exodus 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there
shall no man see me, and live." (Many saw Jesus’ face and lived;
therefore, how could Jesus be God?) Compare John 5:36.
Psalms 110:1 "The Lord [Yahweh or Jehovah] said unto my
[David’s] Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool." (We note here that the instructions were
given by the Father [Jehovah] to the Son [David’s Lord]; this order
is never reversed in Scripture, with the Father always preeminent.
See p. 7 for comments on Matt. 22:42-43, wherein Jesus
discourses with the Jews on the meaning of Ps. 110:1.)
Proverbs 8:22-30 "The Lord possessed [created, see Strong’s]
me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up
from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When
there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no
fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the
earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a
compass upon the face of the depth: when he established the clouds
above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: when he
gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his
commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily
his delight, rejoicing always before him." See Rev. 3:14.
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be
called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God [El, Strong’s, #410,
‘strength, mighty, Almighty,’ applicable ‘to any deity’], The
everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." (Christ is appropriately
called "Father" from the standpoint of his becoming the second
Adam—lifegiver to the race—and "source of eternal salvation" (1
Cor. 15:47; Heb. 5:9). Christ is no longer a branch (receiver) but
the "root" (giver of life) in the regeneration (Rev. 22:16; Matt.
19:28).
Isaiah 42:8 "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I
not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." (God
does not give His glory to another. In contrast, Jesus invites the
saints to share his glory as a bride.) See Romans 6:3-6; 8:17, 18;
Col. 3:4; 1 John 3:2.
Dan. 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son
of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the
Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him."
Matt. 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (We note that it was the
Father, speaking from heaven, who indicated His good pleasure in
His Son upon the earth. Jesus always strove to be pleasing to his
Father, to carry out His will, and to receive His commendation and
approval. The Scriptures never reverse this relationship, always
giving the Father the preeminence.)
Matt. 4:1 "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness
to be tempted of the devil." (James 1:13 states "God cannot be
tempted!") See Luke 4:1, 2, 13.
Matt. 10:40 "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that
receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."
Matt. 16:16 "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God."
Matt 17:5 "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud
overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which
said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye
him."
Matt. 18:10 "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones;
for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the
face of my Father which is in heaven."
Matt. 20:23 "And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my
cup . . . but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to
give but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my
Father." (Jesus lacked authority in this matter.)
Matt. 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels of heaven, but my Father only." (This demonstrates that
God and Jesus are not equal in knowledge!) See also John 7:16;
12:50; 17:8.
Matt. 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and
prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (This verse
implies Jesus had one will and his Father had another. Two different
wills imply two different beings!) See also Matt. 26:42; John 5:19-
22.
Matt. 27:46 "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, La-ma
sa-bach-tha-ni? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?" (If Jesus were God . . . had he forsaken himself?
Is this logical? Clearly, Jesus was speaking to another being, his
Father.)
Matt. 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Jesus was given
power not previously possessed.)
Mark 1:24 "What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of
Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art,
the Holy One of God." (The unclean spirit knew Jesus was not
God but rather the Holy One of God.)
Mark 10:18 “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good?
there is none good but one, that is ‘God.’” (Jesus here refuses to be
considered coequal with God.)
Mark 12:36 "For David himself said by the Holy Ghost [Spirit],
The Lord [Jehovah] said to my [David’s] Lord, Sit thou on my
right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Hebrews 1:13
identifies the Lord Jesus as the one who sits on the right hand of the
Lord God.)
Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in
favour with God and man." (How and why should Jesus increase in
favor with himself?)
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten
Son [many manuscripts read "only begotten God"], which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
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." (The following verses confirm that Jesus
died for our sins! Rom. 5:10; Romans 14:9; Acts 3:15; Col. 1:15,
18; Rev. 1:5, 18; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 4:9, 14; Rev. 5:9)
John 3:34, 35 "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of
God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father
loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand."
John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given
to the Son to have life in himself."
John 5:30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge:
and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the
will of the Father which hath sent me." (Jesus was seeking another
being’s will—not his own!)
John 5:37 "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne
witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor
seen his shape."
John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own
will, but the will of him that sent me." (Two wills—two beings.)
John 7:16-18 "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If
any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it
be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of
himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent
him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him."
John 8:17-19 "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of
two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the
Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto
him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me,
nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my
Father also." (Note there was no third witness—only the Father and
the Son. Jesus omits the holy Spirit. Why?)
John 8:42-44 "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye
would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither
came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my
speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your
father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."
John 10:29 "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;
and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my
Father are one. (Note John 17:21, 22.) Then the Jews took up
stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works
have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye
stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we
stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a
man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in
your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom
the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye
of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (This
would have been the perfect place to state that he was, indeed, God
the Father.)
John 14:1 "Ye believe in God, believe also in me." (An unnecessary
injunction for those who believe in the Trinity.)
John 14:20 "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,
and ye in me, and I in you." (Would this make Jesus’ disciples a
part of the Trinity? Shown here is the oneness of the family of God
—not a oneness of person, but oneness of purpose and will.)
Compare John 17:21-22.
John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and
come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I
said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (How
can the Father be greater than Jesus, if Jesus and his Father are
equal? Admittedly, some Trinitarians recognize Christ was inferior in
flesh. Even so, then his sacrifice on the cross was less than God.
How could Jesus in flesh be "co-equal" with God?) See 1 Cor.
3:23; 11:3.
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
John 17:11 "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in
the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own
name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we
are." (If Christ’s true followers are to be "one" as are God and
Jesus, could that oneness be anything more than "oneness" of
purpose and will? Could we be a part of the Trinity? See also John
17:21-23.)
John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet
ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them,
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your
God." (Jesus had a God and brethren. God has no God and no
brethren!) See Eph. 1:17; Rev. 3:12; Mark 15:34; 1 Cor. 15:24
(Rotherham’s).
Acts 3:15 "And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised
from the dead; whereof we are witnesses." (Isn’t it logical to
conclude the one that was dead is separate from the One who
raised him from the dead?) See 1 Cor. 15:12-21; Acts 2:24; 5:30;
7:56; 13:34 and Col. 2:12.
Acts 7:55, 56 "But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost
[Spirit], looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God,
and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see
the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand
of God." (God and Jesus are twice depicted separately. Stephen
was "full of the Holy Spirit" but did not see the holy Spirit. God and
Jesus were not everywhere either, but Jesus was "standing on the
right hand of God" in heaven.)
Acts 12:22 "And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of
a god [theos], and not of a man." (King Herod was referred to as "
[a] god"— "a" is supplied by translators and is not in the text. This is
the same Greek word for god [theos] which in other places is used
of Christ. It is defined as "gods, objects of worship, judges," and is
used variously to depict Jehovah, Satan, the saints, and idols, as
well as Christ.) See also Acts 28:6—in reference to Paul.
Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the
flock, over the which the Holy Ghost [Spirit] hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own blood." (God is a Spirit and Spirits do not have flesh
and blood [Luke 24:39]. Rotherham reads: "With the blood of his
own [son]"; Revised Standard Version, footnote: "With the blood
of his own son"; Barclay: "At the price of the blood of his own
One.") See also Marshall’s Diaglott and Concordant.
Rom. 8:11 "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." See
Rom. 4:24; 7:4.
Rom. 8:17 "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-
heirs with Christ." (Could Christ be his own heir? How, then,
could we be joint-heirs with him?)
Rom. 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to
be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren."
Rom. 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
1 Cor. 8:5, 6 "For though there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to
us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we
in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we
by him." (All things are OF the Father and BY the son. Jesus is the
agent of God.) Compare Heb. 1:1, 2; John 1:2, 3; Col. 1:16, 17;
Gen. 1:26.
1 Cor. 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head
of Christ is God." (God, Christ, man and woman are all separate
entities.)
1 Cor. 15:27, 28 "For he [God] hath put all things under his feet.
But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he
[God] is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all
things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself
be subject unto him [God] that put all things under him, that
God may be all in all." (These verses distinguish two separate
beings: namely, the Father and His son. How could God place all
things under His feet to subdue all things, and then later become
subject to Himself? This defies reason.)
Eph. 1:20-22 "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him
from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly
places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and
dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but
also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his
feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church."
Eph. 3:9, 10 "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the
mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in
God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that
now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be
known by the church the manifold wisdom of God." (If Jesus was
God incarnate, what possible reason would God have had to create
all things from the beginning of time by Jesus Christ?)
Eph. 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in you all." (One God and Father of "all"—the "all"
includes Jesus.)
Philip. 2:5, 6 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ
Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God." (Revised Standard Version: "Who, though he
was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to
be grasped." Can anyone try to be equal with himself? Rather, Jesus
did not strive by vainglory to grasp God’s preeminence.)
Philip. 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death." (If Jesus were God,
who would God have to become obedient to? No one! Therefore,
this must be another entity, namely, his only begotten Son, clearly
distinguishable from the Heavenly Father.)
Col. 1:13-17 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we
have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every
creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones,
or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created
by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all
things consist."
1 Tim. 2:5-6 "For there is one God, and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom
for all, to be testified in due time." (A mediator is one who
endeavors to reconcile two opposing parties. Could Christ be God
and still mediate between God and men? Ransom here means a
"corresponding price." How could a God-man be the exact
equivalent of the perfect man Adam?)
1 Tim. 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God [hos, who] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up into glory." (Nearly all ancient MSS, and all the
versions have "He who," [referring to Christ] instead of "God," in
this passage. Sir Isaac Newton wrote a paper stating that this verse
is a false reading. The Concordant Bible, p.18: "In the Sinaitic there
can be no doubt that it originally read ‘who.’ A late corrector has
added ‘God’ above the line.")
Heb. 1:2-5 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he
made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the
express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of
his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the
right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better
than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more
excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any
time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And
again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
(If Jesus was God, how could he have "by inheritance obtain[ed] a
more excellent name?" Clearly, one does not inherit that which he
already possesses!)
Heb. 1:8, 9 "But unto the Son he [the Father] saith, Thy throne, O
God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the
sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated
iniquity; therefore God, even thy [Jesus’] God, hath anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (What "fellows" was
Jesus anointed above? Two Gods are involved here—the greater,
Yahweh, anointing the lesser, Jesus. This exaltation of Jesus takes
place after he demonstrates he "loved righteousness" and "hated
iniquity." No one contests that Jesus is a God. Remember, the
greater always anoints the lesser, as is here demonstrated.)
Heb. 2:10 "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by
whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the
captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (God the Father
has always been perfect and did not require the experience of
suffering to crystallize His character. Jesus, by way of contrast, did
require this development.)
Heb. 5:7, 8 "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up
prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that
was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things he
suffered." (Again, Father vs. Son, clear-cut distinctions are very
evident. The Father did not need to learn obedience; His Son did. In
his distress, Jesus prayed to his Father for strength and grace; it is
never the other way around.)
Heb. 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (If Christ
was God incarnate, is it reasonable that he should offer himself to
himself?)
Heb. 9:24 "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with
hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now
to appear in the presence of God for us." (Jesus functions as our
Advocate before the Father.)
Heb. 11:17-19 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up
Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only
begotten son, of whom it is said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be
called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from
the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure." (In this
scenario, Abraham was a type of God, and Isaac represented
Christ. Abraham thus pictured God’s willingness to sacrifice His
Son, Christ, to provide the ransom (John 3:16). Just as in the figure
Isaac was not Abraham, so Christ must be distinguished from God
as a separate being.) See Gal. 3:29; 4:28.
James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of
God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he
any man." (If Jesus was tempted, as in Matthew 4:1, and God
cannot be tempted, clearly they must be two distinct and separate
entities.)
1 Pet. 1:19-21 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb
without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained
before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last
times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up
from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might
be in God."
2 Pet. 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and
glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory,
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Whose
voice was this? Was God pleased with Himself or His Son?)

1 John 3:1 "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed
upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the
world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." (We are sons of
God, NOT the sons of Jesus. Note carefully this distinction. We are
brothers of Jesus, NOT of God. The Church is never referred to as
God’s brethren! Hebrews 2:11, 12; Romans 8:29).
1 John 4:2, 3 "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and
every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
is not of God: and this is that spirit of anti-Christ, whereof ye have
heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
(Could Christ in the flesh be half-human and half-divine? This is
what Cerinthus, a heretical teacher in the early Church, taught! Does
the Trinity come dangerously close to this teaching? Isn’t this a
strong basis for doubt of the Trinity?)
1 John 4:12-16 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one
another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby
know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath
given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the
Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him,
and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God
hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God,
and God in him." (Men did see Jesus, but not God. Those who love
one another in Christ are privileged to share a similar relationship
with God as does Jesus. Do you confess Jesus was God or the Son
of God?)
1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (Words in
brackets are spurious! They are not retained by any manuscripts of
earlier date than the seventh century and are not in the Revised
Version. One hundred and twelve of the oldest manuscripts do not
retain them. Trinity thus loses its supposed main Scriptural support.)
Rev. 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto
him [Jesus Christ], to shew unto his servants things which must
shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto
his servant John."
Rev. 1:5, 6 "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and
the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the
earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his
own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his
Father."
Rev. 2:27 "And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels
of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my
Father." (Jesus’ kingdom authority is received from the Father.)
Rev. 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple
of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him
the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is
new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God:
and I will write upon him my new name." (Jesus, in resurrected
glory, retains his relationship to his God and Father, highly honored
but always subordinate.)
Rev. 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans
write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the
beginning of the creation of God." (Could God be the beginning of
his own creation? Clearly, you cannot create yourself! Refer to Col.
1:15 and then compare God not having a beginning. Ps. 41:13;
90:1-2.)
Rev. 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my
throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father
in his throne." (Jesus did not have a throne co-eternal with the
Father. Only after overcoming was he enthroned, and thus also will
it be with his followers.)
Rev. 5:12 "Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was
slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and
honour, and glory, and blessing." (You receive power, etc., from
another, not from yourself! Why or how could you give yourself
something you already possess?)
Chapter VII
Views of the Early Church Fathers
"To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and for whom we live; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things, and through whom we live." (1 Cor. 8:6, KJV
and NIV)
If Jesus taught and revealed himself to be an uncreated "God the
Son" rather than the Son of God, it should have been universally
accepted by our early Church brethren. Their writings should show
the Trinity to be understood and developed from the very start of
the Apostolic Era. The fundamental doctrines of the Church were
not to be originated by those following the Apostles. God did not
give further revelations after their passing. (See Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor.
4:6; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 John 9, NAS.)
The doctrine of the Trinity, defined over a 264-year period from
The Council of Nice in A.D. 325 to The Third Synod at Toledo in
A.D. 589, states that there are three distinct persons of the same
spiritual nature—The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It is
claimed that all three persons are uncreated and share in
omnipotence, making them one. Therefore, the Trinity fails once it
can be established that (1) There was a time when the uncreated
Father was alone, (2) The Son, Jesus, was produced from the first
creative act of God, and (3) The holy Spirit is not a person, but the
power, the energy or force used by God (and in this sense is also
uncreated).
Let’s examine what the students of the Apostles, their friends, peers
and subsequent students had to say between A.D. 96–A.D. 320.
We present these historical readings, not as a foundation for Truth,
but simply to show that these early Christians had not come to
believe in the Trinity. To those who feel comfortable going to the
fourth and fifth centuries to establish this doctrine, we wish them
well, but we cannot leave the Apostolic Era to come over to them.
Biblically and historically, this early period is just too important to
abandon. We submit the following:
Clement of Rome: according to many Christian writers before the
Nicene Council, he is the Clement of Philippians 4:3. He was an
elder in the Rome congregation from about A.D. 92-101. His
Corinthian Epistle, written about A.D. 96, was held in high esteem,
considered by many to be equal to the writings of the Apostles and
was frequently used in their Sunday meetings. He was born about
A.D. 30 and died about A.D. 100.
"We know you alone are ‘highest among highest’ . . . You have
chosen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved son,
through whom you have instructed, sanctified and honored us. . . .
Let all nations know that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is
your son and that we are your people." To The Corinthians, Chap.
59, vs. 3, 4.
Ignatius of Antioch: was surnamed "Theophorus," meaning "God-
bearer," because of his gentle, kindly nature. He was an elder at the
Antioch, Syria, congregation and was a student of the Apostle John.
His authentic writings, being the short version of his seven epistles,
were written about A.D. 110. He was born about A.D. 50 and was
martyred A.D. 116.
"There is one God, who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ,
His son, who being His Word, came forth out of the silence into the
world and won full approval of Him whose ambassador he was." To
the Magnesians, Chap. 8, vs. 2.
". . . who also really rose from the dead, since his Father raised him
up,—his Father who will likewise raise us also who believe in Him
through Jesus Christ, apart from whom we have no real life." To
The Trallians, Chap. 9, vs. 2.
"You are well established in love through the Blood of Christ and
firmly believe in our Lord. He is really ‘of the line of David
according to the flesh’ and the son of God by the will and power of
God." To The Smyrnaeans, Chap. 1, vs. 1.
Polycarp: born about A.D. 69, was also a student of the Apostle
John, as well as a close friend of Ignatius of Antioch. He was an
elder at the congregation in Smyrna, Asia Minor, and wrote his
Philippian epistle before A.D. 140. He was burned at the stake
February 23, 155.
"Now, may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
Eternal Priest himself, Jesus Christ, the son of God, build you up in
faith and truth." To The Philippians, Chap.12, vs. 2.
". . . to Him who is able to bring us all in His grace and bounty, to
His Heavenly Kingdom, by His only-begotten child, Jesus Christ, be
glory, honor, might and majesty forever." Martyrdom, Chap. 20,
vs. 2.
Justin: called "Martyr" because of his martyrdom in A.D. 166, was
born about A.D. 107 in Rome. He was a heathen philosopher
converted to Christianity about A.D. 130. His first work, Dialogue
with Trypho, was written in A.D. 135 as Trypho, a Jew, was
fleeing Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt. He wrote between
A.D. 135 until just before his beheading.
"God begat before all creatures a Beginning who was a certain
rational power proceeding from Himself, who is called by the holy
spirit now ‘The Glory of the Lord,’ now ‘The Son,’ again
‘Wisdom,’ again ‘an Angel,’ then ‘God,’ then ‘Lord’ and ‘Logos;’
and on another occasion he calls himself ‘Captain.’" Dialogue with
Trypho, Chap. 61.
"We follow the only unbegotten God through His Son." First
Apology, Chap. 14.
"We assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar
manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above,
be no extraordinary thing to you who say that Mercury is the angelic
word of God." First Apology, Chap. 22.
"The Father of all is unbegotten . . . And His Son, who alone is
properly called Son, the Word . . . was with Him and was begotten
before the world. . . ." Second Apology, Chap. 6.
Tatian: born in Assyria about A.D. 110, was a student of Justin
Martyr. He wrote the earliest Bible commentary of the four Gospels
known to exist. Sometime he became the leader of the Encratite
sect of the Gnostics. Despite this, his writings give a semi-fair view
of Christian doctrines. He wrote between A.D. 161-170 and died
about A.D. 172.
"The Lord of the Universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of
all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone. .
. . And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos,
not coming forth in vain becomes the first-begotten work of the
Father and was the beginning of the world." To The Greeks, Chap.
5.
Melito: born about A.D. 110, was an elder at Sardis, Asia Minor,
from about A.D. 160-170 and a friend of Ignatius of Antioch as a
young child. He wrote between A.D. 165-70 and was martyred
A.D. 177. Only small fragments exist.
"There is that which really exists and it is called God . . . This being
is in no sense made, nor did He come into being, but has existed
from eternity." Apology 1: To Antonius Caesar.
"Jesus Christ . . . is perfect Reason, the Word of God, he who was
begotten before the light, he who is creator together with the
Father." Apology 4: On Faith.
Theophilus of Antioch: was born about A.D. 130 and was an elder
at Antioch, Syria, around A.D. 170-180. He wrote before A.D.
175 and died A.D. 181.
"God, then, having His own Word internal within His own womb
begat him, emitting him along with His own Wisdom before all
things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created
by Him, and by him He created all things." To Autolychus, Chap.
10.
Athenagoras: born in Athens of heathen parents in A.D. 134
wrote his work "Defense for the Christians" in A.D. 176 and
presented it to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, a fierce
persecutor of Christians, in A.D. 177. He died A.D. 190.
"We acknowledge one God uncreated, eternal, invisible,
impassable, incomprehensible, illimitable . . . by whom the universe
has been created through His Logos and set in order . . . I say ‘His
Logos’ for we acknowledge also a Son of God . . . He is the first
product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence, for
from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in
Himself, being from eternity endowed with spiritual reason, coming
forth as the idea and energy of all material things." Defense for the
Christians, Chap. 10.
Irenaeus: one of the most recognized early Christians, was born
A.D. 140 and was a student of Polycarp. He was an elder at the
Lyons, France, congregation from A.D. 178. He was well known
throughout the Western world of the time. He died in France A.D.
202. His writings can be dated from about A.D. 180.
"If anyone, therefore, says to us, ‘How, then, was the Son produced
by the Father?’ we reply to him, that no one understands that
production, or generation . . . no powers possess this knowledge
but the Father only who begat and the Son who was begotten."
Against Heresies, Book 2, Chap. 28, vs. 6.
Clement of Alexandria: born Titus Flavius Clemens A.D. 150,
was born, raised and became an elder at Alexandria, Egypt. He
wrote between A.D. 190-195 and died about A.D. 220. His
writings are valuable because once he was converted to Christianity,
he traveled throughout the Roman Empire to learn pure Christianity
from the oldest and most respected Christians alive.
"The best thing on earth is the most pious: perfect man; and the best
thing in heaven, the next and purer in place, is an angel, the partaker
of the eternal and blessed life. But the nature of the Son, which is
next to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect."
Miscellanies, Book 7, Chap. 2.
"He [Jesus] commences his teaching with this: turning the pupil to
God, the good, and first and only dispenser of eternal life, which the
Son, who received it of Him, gives to us." Salvation Of The Rich
Man, Chap. 6.
Tertullian: was born in Carthage, Tunisia A.D. 160, of Libyan
descent and a distant relative of Arius. His writings began about
A.D. 190, about 10 years before he joined the Montanist sect of
Christianity, who believed in continuing revelation [speaking in
tongues, healing , etc.] and a life of asceticism. He continued writing
until about A.D. 210 and died A.D. 230 in Carthage, where he was
also an elder.
"Before all things God was alone—being in Himself and for Himself
. . . the Word was in the beginning with God although it would be
more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient . . . For
although God had not yet delivered His Word, He still had him
within Himself . . . Now, while He was actually thus planning and
arranging with His own reason, He was actually bringing forth the
Word." Against Praxeas, Chap. 5.
"The Word, no doubt, was before all things. ‘In the beginning was
the Word’; and in that beginning he was sent forth by the Father.
The father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none;
nor can He be seen since He was not begotten. He who has always
been alone could never have order or rank." Against Praxeas,
Chap. 5.

Hippolytus: born about A.D. 160, was a student of Irenaeus. He

wrote about A.D. 220, dying August 13, 235, after being banished
to the Mediterranean island of Sardinia.
"If therefore, all things are put under him [Jesus] with the exception
of Him [God] who put them under him, he is the Lord of all and the
Father is Lord of him . . . And this indeed is said by Christ himself,
as when in the Gospel he confessed Him to be his Father and his
God. . . . He [Jesus] did not say, ‘I and the Father am one,’ but ‘are
one.’ For the word ‘are’ is not said of one person, but refers to two
persons and one power. He has himself made this clear when he
spoke to his Father concerning his disciples [in John 17:22-3] . . .
For Christ had spoken of himself and showed himself among all to
be as the Son . . . And as the author and fellow-counsellor and
framer of the things that are in formation He begat the Word . . . He
sent him forth to the world as Lord . . . And thus, there appeared
another beside himself . . . For there is but one power, which is from
the All; and the Father is the All, from whom comes this power, the
Word . . . and was manifested as the Son of God. All things, then,
are by Him and He alone is the Father." Against The Heresy Of
One Noetus, Chaps. 6, 7, 10, 11.
Origen: born of Christian parents A.D. 185 in Alexandria, Egypt,
Origen was the most prolific of all early Christian writers. Trained by
Clement of Alexandria, he was elected elder at the age of 18 when
Clement had to flee for his life. He was a friend of Hippolytus and is
distinguished for the first complete Bible commentary. In A.D. 253,
at age 70, he was captured, tortured and one week later died for his
faith.
"We next notice John’s usage of the article in these sentences. He
does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with
the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the
name of ‘God’ refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it
when the Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over all is
God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by
participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply ‘The God’
but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those
who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the
prototype." Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2.
Novatian: who was born about A.D. 200 is known for his work
that was posthumously titled Commentary on the Trinity. It was
written about A.D. 240, 18 years before his death in 258.
"God the Father and Creator of all things, who only knows no
beginning . . . when He willed it, the Son, the Word, was born . . .
But now, whatever he is, he is not of himself because he is not
unborn, but he is of the Father, because he is begotten . . . he owes
his existence to the Father . . . He therefore is god, but begotten for
this special result, that he should be god. He is also the Lord, but
born for this very purpose of the Father, that he might be Lord. He
is also an Angel, but he was destined of the Father as an Angel to
announce the great counsel of God . . . God the Father is God of all,
and the source also of His son himself whom He begot."
Commentary on the Trinity, Chap 31.
Arnobius: born A.D. 253 in Sicca, Algeria, was first an enemy of
Christianity. When converted, he became a teacher to many new
Christians in the West. He wrote Against the Heathen about A.D.
300 and died about A.D. 327.
"We Christians are nothing else than worshippers of the Supreme
King and Head, under our master, Christ . . . O greatest, O
Supreme Creator of all things invisible . . . You are illimitable,
unbegotten, immortal, enduring for age, God yourself alone, whom
no bodily shape may represent, no outline delineate . . . ‘Is that
Christ of yours a god, then?’ some raving, wrathful and excited man
will say. A god, we will reply, and a god of the powers of heaven,
and—what may still further torture unbelievers with the most bitter
pains—he was sent to us by the King Supreme for a purpose of the
very highest order." Against The Heathen, Book 1, Chaps. 27, 31,
42.
Lactantius: Lucius Coelius Firmianus Lactantius, born in Rome
A.D. 260, was a student of Arnobius. He was the teacher of
Emperor Constantine’s oldest son, Crispus. His work entitled The
Divine Institutes was written about A.D. 320. Eventually moving to
France, he died about A.D. 330.
"God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have
said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work
of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit whom He called
His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself
innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten,
however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being
called by the divine name." The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 6
Summary and Conclusions
Some 1600 years have passed since the Trinity was forged. In all
that time, no one has been able to provide a clear and logical
statement of it. It has begged an explanation in every age. Oddly
enough, no scholar or groups of scholars have been able to coin a
clear and workable formula that is an acceptable standard for all
time. Every explanation is flawed and needs more theology to clarify
it. Endeavors at clarification, more often than not, lead into a
labyrinth of words with the fog-level index going out of sight. And
there we would be left—hopelessly lost and struggling for truth.
The Trinitarians paradoxically operate on two levels. When reading
or quoting the Bible, both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians sound
alike. Both refer to the same verses, and their readings are similar.
As long as the Bible is adhered to, they are hard to tell apart. But
when the Bible is departed from and philosophical arguments are
introduced, a wide gap soon appears. Because the Trinity is a
doctrine of inference, and not of statement, it can be sustained only
as long as it is continually inferred from the Bible. Whenever the
Scriptures are merely read and quoted, the Trinity loses ground.
Hence, every so often, the doctrine must be "injected" into the
consciousness of the hearers lest they forget. The Trinity has to be
piped into Scripture before it can be piped out.
Everyone knows you do not get cider from cotton. Yet, in fact, you
can squeeze cider from cotton. However, you must first soak the
cotton with cider, and then, lo, and behold, you can squeeze cider
from cotton. That is how you may extract the Trinity doctrine from
the Bible. First, saturate the Bible texts to be used with the concept;
then squeeze it out. That is why Dr. Pelikan, who has been called
"perhaps the foremost living student of Church history," said, in
effect, no one could find the Trinity by just reading the New
Testament (see p. 8). You need the theologians to superimpose their
theology upon the Word before you can find it there.
In our brief consideration of this subject, we have found the
Scriptures unequivocally teach that "to us there is but one God, the
Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor. 8:6). These
are the two great personalities of the Bible, with the holy Spirit an
expression of their power and influence. The Father, always
supreme and preeminent, exists "from everlasting to everlasting."
The Son, the direct creation of the Father, was highly exalted for his
faithfulness in becoming the world’s redeemer; yet he always
remains in harmony with and in submission to his Father’s will.
It was also shown that Trinity as a concept was an integral part of
heathen religions many centuries prior to Christianity. The idea was
borrowed by some later theologians, who, during the third to the
fifth centuries, developed it into a basic dogma of the Christian
religion. The gradual emergence of the Trinity doctrine is freely
acknowledged by most historians, attested by its lack of Scriptural
support and demonstrated by the evolving sequence of the basic
creeds of the faith.
Hence, rather than being pure truth taught by Jesus and his
Apostles, the Trinity turns out to be Church dogma arising gradually
from the philosophy of men who attempted to fuse certain heathen
and Christian ideas together. It required many years to fashion and
shape it against the objections of many of the outstanding leaders of
the early Church, as we have noted. In the end, the effort prevailed,
a doctrinal theory was created, and it was given the blessing of
orthodoxy by official Church councils. Yet all of this does not make
it valid, for eternal truth is not the handiwork of man but stems only
from our immortal and all-wise God.
We opened this treatise with a discussion of the "doctrine of Christ."
We found this to mean that Jesus had come in the flesh and died in
the flesh. It holds that he was the "Anointed" of God, anointed King
of Kings and Lord of Lords, and also the abiding Melchizedek
priest. He is the glorious Bridegroom for whom the Heavenly Father
is selecting a bride during this Gospel age. As Christians, we hope
to be joined with our Master in the marriage of the Bride and the
Lamb. No Christian can anticipate marriage to God, but only to
God’s dear Son. In another figure, he is the vine and we are the
branches (John 15:5). And in yet another, he is the head of the body
of Christ of which the faithful believers are members (Col. 1:18). In
contrast, God is spoken of as being "the head of Christ" (1 Cor.
11:3).
Repeating our opening text, 2 John 9 (RSV)— "Any one who goes
ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have
God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the
Son." The lesson is clear. We cannot have access to the Father
apart from the doctrine of Christ—that he is the Anointed One of
God. When we accept the singular personhood of Jesus as God’s
Anointed, then by addition, we have two—both the Father and the
Son. Let us then abide in the doctrine of Christ. In so doing we shall
have the extravagant blessing of having both the "Father and the
Son"—and that is everything!
The Trinity was a theological attempt at fusion. Somehow, with the
incantation of words, the effort was made to fuse God, Jesus and
the holy Spirit into one. We get the feeling, sometimes, that many
scholars wish they had not done this, but like the leaning Tower of
Pisa, it will just have to remain a religious wonder until it falls of its
own weight and imbalance due to an unscriptural foundation.
Appendix
Translations of the Greek αρχη (arkee, arche) in italics.
(from Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament)
Here are the complete uses of the Greek word αρχη mentioned
in Chapter I. The reader may see how the word is used
throughout the New Testament. Please note how John 1:1 and
Rev. 3:14 use the word "beginning" in common usage. By
studying the various uses of the Greek word αρχη, the reader
may be properly informed.
Mat. 19: 4 which made (them) at the beginning
8 from the beginning it was not so.
24: 8 these (are) the beginning of sorrows.
21 since the beginning of the world
Mark 1: 1 The beginning of the gospel of
10: 6 from the beginning of the creation
13: 8 these (are) the beginnings of sorrows.
19 as was not from the beginning
Luke 1: 2 from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
12:11 unto the synagogues, and (unto) magistrates,
20:20 might deliver him unto the power and authority of the
governor.
John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word,
2 The same was in the beginning
2:11 This beginning of miracles
6:64 Jesus knew from the beginning who
8:25 I said unto you from the beginning.
44 was a murderer from the beginning,
15:27 with me from the beginning.
16: 4 not unto you at the beginning,
Acts 10:11 knit at the four corners, and let
11: 5 down from heaven by four corners,
15 as on us at the beginning.
26: 4 which was at the first among
Ro. 8:38 nor principalities, nor powers, nor
1Cor.15:24 have put down all rule and all
Eph. 1:21 above all principality, and power,
3:10 now unto the principalities
6:12 against principalities, against powers,
Phil. 4:15 that in the beginning of the gospel,
Col. 1:16 dominions, or principalities,
18 who is the beginning, the
2:10 the head of all principality,
 15 having spoiled principalities
2Th. 2:13 God hath from the beginning chosen
Tit. 3: 1 subject to principalities and powers
Heb. 1:10 Thou, Lord, in the beginning
2: 3 which at the first began to
3:14 if we hold the beginning of
5:12 the first principles of the oracles
6: 1 leaving the principles of the doctrine
7: 3 having neither beginning of days
2 Pet. 3: 4 from the beginning of the creation
1 John 1: 1 which was from the beginning,
2: 7 which ye had from the beginning.
-- ye have heard from the beginning.
13 him (that is) from the beginning.
14 known him (that is) from the beginning.
24 have heard from the beginning.
-- ye have heard from the beginning
3: 8 the devil sinneth from the beginning.
11 that ye heard from the beginning,
2 John 5 which we had from the beginning,
6 as ye have heard from the beginning,
Jude 6 angels which kept not their first estate,
Rev. 1: 8 the beginning and the ending,
3:14 the beginning of the creation of God;
21: 6 the beginning and the end. I will
22:13 Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
Endnotes
Introduction
1. Christianity Today, Mark A. Noll, "The Doctrine Doctor," Sep.
10, 1990, p. 26.
2. Ibid., Larry Poston, "The Adult Gospel," Aug. 20, 1990, p. 24.
3. Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 765.
4. The Voice of Prophecy radio broadcast, H. M. S. Richards,
speaker, Los Angeles, Dec. 20, 1958.
5. Newsweek, Aug. 25. 1997, p. 49
6. A Chronology of Biblical Christianity, Dr. R. C. Wetzel, p. 84
7. Newsweek, Apr. 13, 1998, p.58
Chapter I
1. The Bible Translator, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan. 1977.
2. Beach vs. Hickey on the Trinity, W. B. Beach and Y. Hickey,
quoting G. C. Knapp, pp. 60, 61.
3. Young’s Concordance, "Ransom," #3, p. 794.
4. Clarke’s Commentary on Luke 1:35, p. 360.
5. Ibid., p. 361.
6. Ibid., on Heb. 2:7, p. 696.
7. A Catholic Dictionary, on Rom. 9:5, p. 809.
8. The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology, on Rom. 9:5, p. 80.
9. A Catholic Dictionary, ibid.
Chapter II
1. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, R. A. Finlayson, "Trinity," Vol.
3, pp. 1597-8.
2. Some Account of the Origin and Progress of Trinitarian
Theology, James Forest, p. 9.
3. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, Gayle Visalli, editor, p.
209.
4. Christian History, Bruce L. Shelley, "The First Council of
Nicea," Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), 1990, p. 11.
5. Encyclopedia Britannica, "Nicaea, Council of," Vol. 5, p. 410.
6. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, The Council of Nice, Isaac
Boyle, p. 27.
7. Origin of Triads and Trinities, John Newton, pp. 20-21, 25-
27.
8. History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, preface.
9. Outline of History, H. G. Wells, p. 421.
Chapter III
1. Beach vs. Hickey on the Trinity, [authors are already listed
above], quoting Jeremy Taylor, p. 70.
2. A Catholic Dictionary, p. 810.
3. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, pp. 574, 575.
4. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 49.
5. The Triune God, Edward J. Fortman, pp. 6, 15.
Chapter IV
1. Synonyms of the Old Testament, R. B. Girdlestone, p. 22.
2. Strong’s Concordance, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, #410.
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 49.
4. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical
Literature, McClintock and Strong, Vol. IV, "John," pp. 551-2.
5. Clarke’s Commentary on Matt. 28:19, p. 284.
6. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel, p.
108.
7. Young’s Concordance, "God," #8, p. 419.
8. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman,
Jr., back cover.
9. Ibid., p. 13.
Chapter V
1. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical
Literature, McClintock and Strong, Vol. IV, "John," p. 949.
2. Ibid., "John, First Epistle," Vol. IV, pp. 951-2.
3. Ibid., "Cerinthus," Vol. II, p. 191.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., "Docetae," Vol. II, p. 844-5.
6. Ibid., "Gnosticism," Vol. III, p. 891.
7. Ibid., p. 893.
8. Christianity: Essence, History and Future, Hans Kung, p.
182.
9. Ibid., pp. 180-1.
10. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, pp. 231, 233, 236.
11. Christianity: Essence, History and Future, p. 113.
12. Ibid., p. 187.
13. Ibid., p. 343.
14. Christian History, Robert Payne, "A Hammer Struck at
Heresy," Issue 51 (Vol. XV, No. 3),1996, pp. 20-21.
15. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity, p. 225.
16. Ibid., pp. 225-6.
References
Addis, William E. and Arnold, Thomas. A Catholic Dictionary. St.
Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1960.
Beach, W. B. and Hickey, Y. Beach vs. Hickey on the Trinity.
Dayton, Ohio: Christian Publishing Association, 1867.
Bowman, Robert M., Jr. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1989.
Boyle, Isaac. The Council of Nice. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &
Co., 1879. From Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1984.
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Edited by Charles G. Herbermann, et
al. New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1912.
Christian History. Carol Stream, Ill.: Christianity Today, Inc.
Payne, Robert. "A Hammer Struck at Heresy." Issue 51, 1996.
Shelley, Bruce L. "The First Council of Nicea." Issue 28, 1990.
Christianity Today. Carol Stream, Ill.: Christianity Today, Inc.
Noll, Mark A. "The Doctrine Doctor." Sep. 10, 1990. Poston,
Larry. "The Adult Gospel." Aug. 20, 1990.
Clarke, Adam. A Commentary and Critical Notes on the New
Testament, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, (n.d.).
Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology. Edited by John
H. Blunt. London: Rivingtons, 1872.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.,
1952 edition.
Forrest, James. Some Account of the Origin and Progress of
Trinitarian Theology. Meadville, Pa.: Theological Press, 1853.
Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God: A Historical Study of the
Doctrine of the Trinity. London: Hutchinson and Co., Ltd., 1972.
Gibbon, Edward. History of Christianity. New York: P. Eckler,
1923.
Girdlestone, Robert Baker. Synonyms of the Old Testament,
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. J. D. Douglas, organizing editor.
Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1980.
Kung, Hans. Christianity: Essence, History and Future. New
York: Continuum, 1995.
McClintock, John and Strong, James. Cyclopedia of Biblical,
Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1890.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, Editorial staff of Catholic University
of America. Washington, D.C.: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
Colin Brown, general editor. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1976.
Newton, John. Origin of Triads and Trinities. Liverpool: Henry
Young & Sons, 1909.
Richards, H. M. S. The Voice of Prophecy Radio Broadcast. Los
Angeles, Dec. 20, 1958.
Strong, James. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. New York:
Abington Press, 1890.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel,
primary editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, editor and translator. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965.
Visalli, Gayla, editor. After Jesus. The Triumph of Christianity.
Pleasantville, N.Y.: The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 1992.
Wells, H. G. The Outline of History. Revised by Raymond
Portgate. Garden City, N. Y.: Garden City Books, 1920.
Young, Robert. Analytical Concordance to the Bible. New York:
Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1936.
"Adding up the Trinity"
In Christianity Today, April 28, 1997, p. 26, in an article entitled,
"Adding Up the Trinity," Immanuel Kant and Thomas Jefferson are
quoted on the subject of the logic and practical value of the doctrine
of the Trinity. "Kant, for example, argued the doctrine had no
practical significance. ‘The doctrine of the Trinity provides nothing,
absolutely nothing, of practical value, even if one claims to
understand it; still less when one is convinced that it far surpasses
our understanding. It costs the student nothing to accept that we
adore three or ten persons in the divinity. . . . Furthermore, this
distinction offers absolutely no guidance for his conduct.’"
"Jefferson seems particularly irritated by the complexities of
‘Trinitarian arithmetic,’ as he called it, a theological mathematics that
only served to blur our vision of who Jesus truly was: ‘When we
shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of the
Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we
shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask
from view the very simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall
have unlearned everything which has been taught since his day, and
got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall
then be truly and worthily his disciples.’"
The same article quotes Roderick T. Leupp on his book, Knowing
the Name of God: A Trinitarian Tapestry of Grace, Faith and
Community. "For most people and, sadly, for most Christians also,
the Trinity is the great unknown. The Trinity, to use a familiar
equation is viewed as a riddle wrapped up inside a puzzle and
buried in an enigma. A riddle, for how can any entity be at the same
time multiple (three) yet singular (one)? A puzzle, for the Trinity is so
clearly contrary to any rational thought as not to warrant a second
thought from sensible people. An enigma, for even if the Trinity
could be understood, of what practical value, even what religious
value, would it have for ordinary people?"
The article continues: "Not much, many of us might be tempted to
say. As Karl Rahner notes, ‘Despite their orthodox confession of
the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere
monotheists.’" So we find the Trinitarians very much in the same
posture as the evolutionists. The evolutionists control the schools,
the media and all the mind programming areas, but when all is said
and done, most students go to Church on Sunday and sing, "How
great Thou art." They are not true believers in the evolution theory.
So with the Trinity, people are programmed to believe the Trinity,
but worship God in a monotheistic way and praise Him for sending
His son to be our Redeemer.

ONCE in all history we meet a being who never did an injury, and
never resented one done to him, never uttered an untruth, never
practiced a deception, never lost an opportunity of doing good;
generous in the midst of the selfish, upright in the midst of the
sensual, and wise far above the wisest of earth’s sages and
prophets, loving and gentle, yet immovably resolute; and whose
illimitable meekness and patience never once forsook him in a
vexatious, ungrateful and cruel world. —Selected
Publications
Where are the Dead?
This 105 page booklet examines every Scripture in the Old and New
Testaments that contain the word “hell.” Gives original Greek and
Hebrew word definitions. $1.50

Why are you a Christian?

This 28 page booklet discusses the purpose of the Christian Walk and
the preparation of the Christian for future service to the world during
Christ’s reign. 75¢

I Will Come Again

This 79 page booklet presents a scholarly approach to the subject of our
Lord’s return. It lists the current signs of Christ’s return, including
Israel. 75¢

What’s this World Coming To?

This 39 page booklet examines the prophecies in Daniel 12 relevant to
current events today and outlines the outcome of present world troubles
and conflicts. 75¢

Studies in the Scriptures

This 6-volume set takes a refreshingly clear and unprejudiced approach
to studying the Bible. $15
• 5800 Scripture quotations
•Demonstrates the difference between symbolic and literal verses
•Covers every important topic in the Bible
•Brings out pertinent Hebrew and Greek word meanings
•Harmonizes history and science with the Bible
•Examines time prophecies already fulfilled
•Considers in detail a scriptural and common sense approach to daily
Christian living
•Clearly brings to light the beautiful and precious promises

Available from the Publisher:

Associated Bible Students
P. O. Box 92
Clawson, MI 48017 USA

or order online at:

http://www.bibletoday.com/booklets/litlist.htm