ARE WE MISTAKEN?
Are we really mistaken? Let us hear what Ron Rhodes has to say concerning the "three persons of the Trinity." He has a Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary and associated with the Christian Research Institute. Certainly a "well educated Trinitarian," the kind from whom Dr. Boyd prefers we get our information. In his book, "Christ Before the Manger," he writes:
- "Nevertheless, the personalities involved in the Trinity are expressed in such terms as 'I' 'Thou' and 'He'. As well the persons of the Godhead address each other as individuals and manifest their individuality, in personal acts. ...In summary, then, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons in the sense that they are personal attributes of mind, emotions, and will. Each of the three is aware of the others, speaks to the others, and carries on a loving relationship with the others" (Ron Rhodes, Christ Before the Manger, p. 266).
If that's not "three gods" what is it? Each is God, each has his own "consciousness," and is a "self aware subject." Furthermore each is aware of the other two? They are "individuals," and manifest their "individuality." Each one "talks to the others," carries on a "loving relationship with the others." No matter how you slice it, in the end you have three individual gods talking and carrying on interpersonal relationships. There is absolutely no difference between this concept and what the Greeks had going on atop of Mt. Olympus, and all other pagan polytheisms of antiquity. Trinitarians try to distance themselves from the ancient polytheists by quoting the Athanasian Creed which says:
- "for as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctly to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords."
The only thing that prevents them from outrightly having "three gods" is that the Catholic Religion prohibits it! Roma locuta est, causa unita est! But the facts are on the ground and that's what's truly important -- not what the Catholic Church prohibits. And here are those facts, stubborn things though they be: You have "three persons," each is God in His own right, knows the other two, talks to them as individuals, yet remains distinct from them. They love each other! How "educated" do we have to become? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out these three "individuals," as Dr. Rhodes calls them, are actually "three gods." Trinitarians hate to say it, so I am saying it for them. I don't mind.
Another escape hatch often used to evade the obvious conclusion of "three gods" is to say they all share "the same substance." Somehow "sharing the same substance" is supposed to eliminate the problem. Now this phrase, or even the idea behind it (three persons sharing one substance), is not found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus never mentioned it, the apostles never heard of it. It was produced by the fist-fighting screaming match at Nicea, three hundred years later. That's where it first come crying and kicking into the world, cradled in the Imperial Creeds and swaddled in Gnostic diapers. But of what use is the argument anyhow? Were not the pagan gods composed of "divine substance" also? Of course they were! Human beings are also composed of the same "human substance," yet there are six billion of them existing on one planet as distinct individuals. Does that make one man? So what does it prove? Nothing, absolutely nothing. It is a diverting tactic from the real issue: they have three gods!
Dr. Boyd is fond of quoting St. Augustine, especially his "psychological model" of the Trinity in where he compares the Godhead to the intellect, heart and will found in a human being. But Dr. Boyd is a little shy to quote the Cappodocian Fathers model, in which they compared the Trinity to a Father, a Mother and her child -- three persons, but "one" because they all share the same "human substance." (H. Dermott McDonald, Basil the Great, p. 167). That "model" would certainly prove embarrassing because everyone would realize that even though they share the same "human" substance they are still three separate human beings. The obvious corollary being: even though the three divine Persons share the same "God substance" it does not prevent them from being three separate gods! No the "substance" argument is a dangerous escape route. It is "as if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him" (Amos 5:19).
Oneness believers are also to suppose to be "mistaken" when they characterize the Trinity as a "committee." Trinitarians balk at this primitive notion. Gleason Archer, a Trinitarian Bible Scholar of no mean reputation, commenting on Gen. 1:26 says:
So They are not a "committee" after all! They are a "conference!" They confer together; carry on their plans into action, together! And they do all this without ceasing to be One God (Something neither Mr. Archer or God explains!).
Dr. Boyd needn't try to distance himself from his Trinitarian colleagues, as "educated" as they are. For he has talked of God's "personal otherness;" of "I-Thou" relationships; of loving communing and socializing between the two persons in eternity past (Boyd, p. 189-192). Its all cut from the same cloth, and history tells us who did the weaving.
Benjamin Warfield characterizes the Israelites as fumbling around in a dark room:
So the poor Jews thought there was only one person of Jehovah in the house until somebody turned the "lights on" for them at Nicea, and lo --- two other "divine persons" were found lurking in the shadows of this "dimly lighted chamber." Two other persons that God could not even tell them about, lest they misunderstand. And to such a race was given the oracles of God! Why? I do not know where in the Old Testament the Trinity, dimly "here and there comes into view," as Dr. Warfield puts it. But I do know where the Oneness clearly lights up the whole chamber with a most bright flood light, and its all focused on Jesus:
That's light enough to read by! The whole life of Christ, in detail is revealed in the Old Testament. Isaiah 53 alone outlines His ministry, death and resurrection. Yet, when it comes to the Trinity, suddenly all is dim. The problem is not with "lighting" in the Jewish age, but with "fighting" in the Church Age!
A careful (an even casual) review of the Old Testament verses that deal with the subject will reveal a strict monotheism that will admit of no other "divine persons" intruding into its unity. The strongest and most qualifying language is used to emphasize the absolute Oneness of God. If words mean anything at all, the Trinity of "three persons," each one of them God, is forever precluded and excluded from scripture revelation.
Let us consider some:
This is known as the "Shema." Jesus called it the greatest of all the commandments (Mark 12:29). It is the foundation of Jewish and Christian monotheism. It was the first words whispered into the ears of a newborn Jewish baby, and the last words whispered unto those same ears before he died. They nailed it on their doors; bound it on their foreheads, and hid it in their hearts. "Jehovah Our God is One Jehovah." Nothing said of three persons, a "Trinity in Unity." No mention of "substance" or "essence," so important to third century idolizers of Plato. Just One God, One Jehovah. Boyd himself admits:
The message of God's "singularity" may have been "driven home" hundreds of times, but in Dr. Boyd's case it never got out of the car! For he spends the next 200 pages trying to prove a plurality! In fact by the time he gets to page 190 this "cornerstone" of God's "singularity" that he praised so on page 26 is sent packing! Its a nuisance doctrine and has to be gotten out of the way, put on a side track, so the plurality express can come barreling through! He writes:
So, what was a "cornerstone" on page 26, "strict monotheism" which Oneness Pentecostals were "absolutely correct in emphasizing," is now just an "assumed ideology" that must be sacrificed to make way for the Trinity! And we must not keep Augustine and Cappodocian Fathers waiting. The sooner the better! Though we Oneness were previously praised for "emphasizing that the Bible uniformly and unequivocally teaches that there is only one God" (Boyd, p. 26), by the time we arrive on page 190 we have suddenly become stubborn heretics who reject scriptures "for the sake of preserving some preconceived pseudo-concept of the 'pure unity of God' " (Boyd, p. 191). our new crime is trying to preserve the "pure unity of God." Does Dr. Boyd think we should change our minds to adopt an "impure unity of God?" Or perhaps a "pure" disunity of God? What other choices are there? I'd like to know.
How forgetful Dr. Boyd has become. On page 27 he classed our "strict monotheism" with the faith of the ancient Jews."
Thank-you. Now he calls it a "pre-conceived pseudo concept the pure unity of God." Well which is it? The suspense is killing us. Do we have a pseudo-concept" or an ancient Judaic "cornerstone"? Is this idea of God being "absolutely one" just an "assumed ideology" or is it the "cornerstone for everything that was distinct about the faith of God's people in the Old Testament?" Or maybe it just depends on what page we happen to be reading. In any case we would like to ask Dr. Boyd not to toss any more bouquets if he's planning to take them back so soon. He may keep his flowers, we'll keep our "preconceived ideology."
Actually Dr. Boyd's attitude toward Deut. 6:4 and other verses that teach "strict monotheism" is fairly typical of Trinitarians. They have to accept them and say nice things, but it doesn't go down well. They have "yes, yes" on their lips, but "no, no" in their eyes. Their "three persons," each of whom is "God" and "distinct" from the "others," does not fit well into this mold. And they know it. Easier to put the tooth paste back in the tube, then to squeeze their Greek inspired plurality into the narrow and rigid passages of Old Testament monotheism. But they always give it a "college try."
In the past, classical Trinitarians have tried to batter down the walls of Deut. 6:4 with two cardboard battering rams, both of which were vain attempts to teach the Jews what their own language really means! They would insist that the word for God (Elohim - Heb.) is in the plural and signifies the three persons of the Trinity. And furthermore, that the word for one (Echod) really means "compound unity." I once heard one of these "lesser lights" expounding how Deut. 6:4 should properly be translated "Hear O Israel Jehovah our Gods, is a united Jehovah." Of course such drivel parading under the banner of reason impresses no one, especially the Jews. Dr. Boyd himself rejects these arguments as unsound. For as he points out, while the word Elohim is plural, it is always used with a singular verb when referring to God. This indicates that it is what grammarians call a "plural of majesty" (as when the Queen of England refers to herself as "we" in her speeches). In addition, Christ Himself is called "Elohim" in the Old Testament prophecies. Who would be ludicrous to believe this meant there was a plurality of Persons in the Son. And as for the Hebrew word for one (echod), this simply means what its English equivalent does - "one!" There is no mysterious "compound unity" attached to it. These two failed attempts by Gentile Trinitarians to give Jews lessons in Hebrew, show to what lengths Trinitarians will go to avoid a "head on" with the Truth. Both of these inane arguments are found in almost any exposition of the Trinity. We are glad to see Neo-Trinitarians abandoning them. Boyd considers the argument from "Elohim" as weak, and the one drawn from "echod" as "even weaker" (Boyd, p. 47). We have been trying to show them this for 80 years! Now they finally admit we are correct! How they fought us on these points for eight decades in sermons, tracts and books. Now they take it all back. Must we wait another 80 years till they discover that the "weakest" theory of all was the concept itself? Weak, weaker, weakest!
We will now look at some other interesting texts that furnish proof of God's absolute Oneness ("pre-conceived" or otherwise!).
We see here just one speaker, described as "I," who declares he is "alone" and "by myself." How could the singular speaker ("I") declare he was "alone" and "by myself" if two other divine persons were with Him -- His "personal otherness"? Dr. Boyd and Trinitarians throughout the centuries have a problem with God being alone:
In other words, if the feeble mind of man can't "picture" it or "conceive" it - then it is meaningless and nothing! God's existence has to be "picturable" by us or else it isn't true. This type of pride which exalts the "creature above the creator," had an author in the far removed ages of the past! But how quickly Trinitarians reverse themselves on this line of reasoning when it is convenient for them. For when we ask how the "three persons" can yet be "one" in this "Trinity in Unity," they are quick to inform us that it is beyond human reasoning, and mere creatures like ourselves could never adequately conceive or picture it!
On page 63 Boyd writes in defense of the incarnation and Trinity:
This is the old "shell game" and your eye must be quick, for his writing hand is quicker still... Note, on page 63 we are told just because a doctrine can't be "understood" is no reason to classify it as "nonsense" and reject it. Then, as the shells go moving rapidly about, we are told on page 191 that if we cannot "picture" a doctrine or "conceive it" then it is "nonsense" and we must reject it! He says God is not "illogical." Agreed! But it is not God's logic we are concerned with, it's Dr. Boyd's!
The Trinitarians are also quite worried about God being "alone;" they feel He should have "company!" We read,
Dear reader please note that God's declaration through the inspired prophet Isaiah that he existed "alone" is classed by Dr. Boyd as a "notion." Well, it may be a notion, but it's one of God's notions! And again, God just can't exist "alone" and "in total solitude" (even if he said so!), because its not compatible with "Christian understanding" that "God is essentially love or even essentially personal" (Boyd, p. 191). Well I have news for him. God was "alone" and in "total solitude" long before the first "Christians" (actually Church Fathers) ever saw the light of day! God doesn't need any Church Council to let him know what is, and what isn't "compatible" with His essential love. As we see, Trinitarianism is much involved with the sin of pride, for in this teaching mortal man attempts to analyze and psycho analyze God, and then inform Him of their results! Let us hear some more of God's Self Disclosures (regardless of their compatibility with Trinitarian-Platonistic concepts!)
God calls Himself the "Holy One" over 50 times. He never once calls himself the "Holy Three." Why not? If there is a "Trinity in Unity" why didn't he balance this statement with a "Holy Three" reference? The answer is found in the next chapter of Isaiah.
But in Trinitarianism the glory is equally distributed to two others, as they say -- "There is one glory of the Father, another glory of the Son, and another glory of the Holy Ghost, yet there are not three glories" etc. In Trinitarianism the glory is "equal." In the Bible it is "exclusive" and that's quite a difference.
Why is there never a reference in which the Trinity says "We are they?" It should say that at least sometimes. It is always "I am He" and "beside me there is no other." How could any member of the Trinity say that if two other "divine persons" were beside Him?
Notice also that he says that there was "no God" formed. He is not the source of any other divine Person. But Trinitarians from time to time toy with the idea that the Father may have "produced" the other two divine Persons. Clarence Larkin, whose books have sold in virtually every Christian bookstore, and are studied by millions, has this to say:
This represents no more than a return to the early roots of Trinitarianism which we found in the writings of Origen, who espoused a doctrine of the Son being generated before all time. And from that doctrine the miscreant offspring of Arianism was birthed. But God is not in the business of producing other Gods, whether we call them "co-equal persons" or not.
This should effectively silence the argument of a First, Second and Third or Last Person in the Trinity. God says he's the First and the Last.
Trinitarians seems to assert more than God, for they insist two other "divine persons" are beside Him in Heaven. But this should not surprise us coming from people who would teach Jews the meaning of their own language, and instruct God what is "compatible" for Him and what is not! If the verse read, "Is there a God beside us," the Trinitarians would have their case. But it says "me" and that is a first person singular pronoun. Trinitarians needn't dismiss the argument as worthless grammatical quibble, for they are the ones who brought up the necessity of God having an "I-Thou" relationship in eternity! They are also the ones who describe the Trinity as an "I, Thou, He" subsistence. Well now, God says "I" and "me" and there is no one else. What will they do with that? How can there be room for a "Thou" and a "He" when God declares it is only "me"? (Excuse the poetry, but not the point!)
God says this should be understood in the East as well as the West. Church history is full of Councils, eastern and western; and Trinitarian divisions between the church, both Eastern and Western! Yet they weren't listening to God, when He spoke to both East and West, saying, "I am the Lord, there is none else."
God said, "Let them take council" and they did! Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Ephesus, Antioch -- and they're still having them! But God's message is not to listen to these confused and rambling creeds produced by these councils of carnal reasoning, but to go back to the ancient declarations. The declarations that God himself made, like: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." The result of hearkening to this will be the revelation of One God who is also Saviour - "a just God and a Saviour" -- instead of a Saviour who is "Just a god" among three!
The so-called church spent time, money and blood arguing for hundreds of years whether the substance of the 1st and 2nd persons was the "same" or "like". Here's the answer, but they wouldn't have it. "There is none like me."
God spoke through Moses, the message He gave Isaiah:
How could any one member of the Trinity say this with two other "divine persons" who are each "God in their own right" existing alongside Him? This verse alone destroys the Trinity concept. "All the king's horsemen and all the king's men" can't put this teaching together again.
The other prophets of the Old Testament unite their voice in "absolute Oneness" and "Pure Unity."
(They may not have been "Jesus Onlys" back then, but there were plenty of "Thou Onlys").
There may be doctrinal disputes now, but there won't be in that glad Millennial Day. The Oneness Doctrine will be the only religion, and Jesus' Name the Only Name. Oneness Pentecostals are just ahead of their time!
Just before the Old Testament "signs off" for that long 400 years of silence that lies between the Old Testament and the New Testament, Malachi leaves us with the reminder that all deity is restricted to the Father, who is God, the Only God. No wonder the next time we hear from the Jews they are saying, "We have one Father, even God" (John 8:41).
The New Testament does not introduce any plural concept into the Godhead question. Rather it reaffirms God's "strict monotheism."
Jesus confirms the Shema as the greatest of commandments:
And a "greater than Moses" is teaching this time!
Jesus declared the Father to be "the only true God." And this was the same Father who was also incarnate in Christ (John 14:10).
Paul believed it also, and preached it consistently. His doctrine was the same as Christ's.
All deity is restricted by Paul to the Father (who was also incarnate in our Lord).
And this statement takes place in a discussion about persons. "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one." One what? One person! But God is One! One what? One Person! Unless God is considered as an absolute one, the argument makes no sense.
Apostle James, believed to be the brother of our Lord, believed in Oneness and gave us this interesting insight concerning some other "fervent believers."
If the devils tremble at the thought of the "pure unity" of God, is it therefore surprising to that human unbelievers get "nervous" and have to make creeds, etc.? There's a lot of "fidgeting" going on outside of the Oneness fold over this doctrine.
John Believed the same ancient message that Moses and Isaiah proclaimed and that he heard from the lips of Christ Himself:
"SAME SUBSTANCE" EXCUSE
TRINITARIAN MODELS
THE TRINITY IN COMMITTEE
TRINITY LURKING IN THE DARK
BIBLE TESTIMONY TO ONENESS
DEUTERONOMY 6:4
PURE UNITY VS. TRINITY IN UNITY
ELOHIM - THE GODS
ISAIAH 44:24
THE OLD SHELL GAME
THE LONELY GOD
ISAIAH 41
ISAIAH 42:8
ISAIAH 43:10-11
THE GOD MAKERS
ISAIAH 44:6
ISAIAH 44:8
ISAIAH 45:5-6
ISAIAH 45:21-22
ISAIAH 46:9
DEUTERONOMY 4:35
DEUTERONOMY 4:39
DEUTERONOMY 32:39
1 SAMUEL 2:2
2 SAMUEL 7:22
1 KINGS 8:60
2 KINGS 19:15
2 KINGS 19:19
PSALM 86:10
HOSEA 13:4
JOEL 2:27
ZECHARIAH 14:9
MALACHI 2:10
NEW TESTAMENT ONENESS -- CHRIST'S TEACHING
MARK 12:29
JOHN 17:3
PAUL'S TEACHING
ROMANS 8:3
1 CORINTHIANS 8:4
1 CORINTHIANS 8:6
GALATIANS 3:20
EPHESIANS 4:6
1 TIMOTHY 2:5
JAMES BELIEVED IT ALSO
JAMES 2:19
JOHN BELIEVED IT LIKEWISE
