"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 (Deut. 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" (Deut. 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" (Matt. 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 (Ex. 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" (Matt. 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 Rom. 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 Heb. 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 Deut. 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" (Heb. 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" (Matt. 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 Tim. 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 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 ("R" fixed in the center of an "C"—the first two letters of "Christ" [CRISTOS] 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" (Ecc. 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 Five

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 af-

fected 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 h