A DEBT TO THE "FATHERS"?
Carl Brumbach in his book "God in Three Persons" says we owe a great debt to those early Fathers who so carefully defined the Trinity for us (Carl Brumbach, God in Three Persons, p. 197). Gregory Boyd is also appreciative of their efforts when he writes:
- "This is what ultimately produced the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity in the early Fourth Century" (Boyd, p. 122).
Notice that the "fully developed" doctrine doesn't arrive until the Fourth Century! Does this mean that He who said "I am the way the truth and the life" only brought a partially developed Truth? Jesus said in John 8:40,
- "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the Truth, which I have heard of God..."
That ought to be enough for anyone. What need of four centuries of "ironing out" what was never "wrinkled" in the first place? Clever Paul is said to have arrived at the "essence of this doctrine", (p. 122), but not "all the implications of this belief," which would require another three hundred years. Of course Paul has another opinion of that:
- "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the council of God"
(Acts 20:27).
One can almost see in this word picture of Dr. Boyd's the Apostle Paul humbly seated and taking notes as the monks and Fathers, beads in hand, explain such newfound "implications" as "Perichoresis of the three persons, " "The eternal generation of the Son," "Plato's Timaeus Trinity," the "theotokos of Mary," "the homoousion concept of Christ," "Philo's Logos," "three hypostacies in one substance," ad nauseum! How sad Paul missed all this! All he had to work with were such "essential" and "unimplicated" concepts as "God was in Christ," "God was manifest in the flesh," and in Christ dwelt "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (1 Cor. 5:18, 1 Tim. 3:16, Col. 2:9).
The real reason this so-called "full development" of the Godhead teaching didn't arrive until the fourth century has nothing to do with discovering more Truth. The real reason is the Early Fathers, "to whom we owe such a debt," were busy trying to "marry" Christian doctrine with Greek Philosophy and culture. And it was a very unwilling bride. Vows had to be exchanged twice at Nicea, in addition to Constantiniople, Ephesus, Alexandria, and Chalcedon. Boyd touches on this briefly on page 161 when he writes:
By the code word "categories" and references to Stoicism and Plato, we may understand "doctrine" -- a marrying of Platonic and Stoic doctrine to the original Faith. And this of course would call for a whole host of new words and terms, not found in the Bible, to explain their newly formed Trinity. And I might add, words and terms that are still with us in the Shibboleth of Trinitarianism, because they cannot talk without them. Thus they became "wiser above what was written." Boyd and other Neo-Triniatarians would love to dispense of such embarrassing and anti-biblical terminology as "Persons" and "Trinity" but they can't bring themselves to. For the elimination of the "added" vocabulary would immediately collapse the Trinity and leave its proponents stuttering. If they were shut up to the use of Bible terminology only, they would emerge Oneness every time!
In describing Christ's divine nature Trinitarians would only be able to say that the deity dwelling in Him was the "Father" (John 14:10). They could not find their "second person" or "God the Son" anywhere in the Scriptures, let alone dwelling in Christ. In explaining the unity of God, the only word they would find would be "one" (Deut. 6:4, Isa. 41:14, Mal. 2:10, Eph. 4:6). The "Trinity in Unity" would be more of a phantom ship than the "Flying Dutchman." The divine nature is never defined as three. And as far as what they refer to as "essence" or "substance" of God, "Spirit" would emerge as the Scriptural definition of God. Trinitarianism would come to an abrupt end! And they know it. For this reason they cling to their "added" vocabulary as if it had thundered out of Sinai.
The Oneness Revelation of the Godhead came about almost entirely by simply returning to Apostolic forms and letting the Bible speak for itself. We are very happy and satisfied to use on Bible language, if trinitarians will agree to the same. In such a case there would be no debate, for there would be nothing to debate. Let's examine respective categories of words and phrases and see:
The Bible says God is one (Deut. 6:4, Mal. 2:10, James 2:19, Eph. 4:6, Isa. 41:14). He is called the Holy One over fifty times. Oneness is simply the noun form of the adjective "one" and is certainly acceptable. The Godhead is never referred to as three; if there was a "threeness" to it, surely at least once this would have been stated in all the many passages that qualify God by number. Trinity means "Three - in - one" or "Threeness" but where is it? No where! Gregory Boyd talks about the Threeness; Augustine talks about it; Aquinas talks about it; Plato talks about it; but where does the Bible talk about it? the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 2, page 70, in trying to explain this absence of "threeness" to God's revelation to Israel offers this excuse:
Is that why in Isaiah 44:24 God said that He is the Lord that "stretches forth the heavens alone" and "spreadeth abroad earth by myself," just so we would never suspect there were two other persons with Him? Not only is the term trinity unscriptural, but it is anti-scriptural and must be eliminated.
The Bible says repeatedly that Jesus was a begotten Son (John 3:16, John 3:14, John 3:18, 1 John 4:9). The Bible tells us where he was begotten -- in the womb of Virgin Mary (Matt 1:20); by whom he was begotten -- the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35); when he was begotten, -- "this day" (Heb. 1:5); and why He was begotten, -- that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9). This is the origin of the Son of God and the Bible knows no other. "Son " is a male child born of a woman, according tot he definition of the word in every language of the human race. This definition fits Christ:
The parallelism here is real clear, he was made a begotten Son, what we might become "adopted Sons" of God (Gal 4:5). Boyd and most trinitarians are uncomfortable with this because it negates their unbiblical idea of "eternal" Son (which of course is the opposite of "begotten Son"), so he writes:
Of course if this proves anything, it proves too much. For if Jesus is God's "one and only" Son, then what about those adopted sons we read about in Galatians 4:5. This teaching not only robs Christ of His begotten status, but it robs Christians of their sonship status! All of this linguistic sleight of hand is done for the sole purpose of adding the unscriptural term "eternal Son" to the Godhead discussion. Remove it, and lets go on.
Oneness believers are proud to proclaim their doctrine as "God in Christ," sometimes adding the adjective Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) hence, "Mighty God in Christ." Our literature constantly refers to our doctrine as that. It is a most scriptural term. We do not constantly banter about a belief in God in three modes, or God in three roles, as we are so often accused. Even if those ideas are in conformity with Scripture, they are not necessary. God in Christ says it all. Paul used it in 2 Cor 5:19:
He used it three other times also: 1 Thess. 5:18, 2 Cor. 12:19, Phillip. 3:14. He never used "God in Three Persons." It was prophesied in Isaiah concerning the Messiah:
God was in the Messiah: "hiding" under a veil of flesh. Jesus fulfilled this scripture in John 8:58 - 59 when he announced he was the "I Am" or Jehovah and the Jews took up stones to stone Him, "but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel! Paul also referred to the same truth when he said:
Jesus said it:
Everywhere and anywhere it is "God in Christ". Isaiah said it, Paul said it, John said it, Jesus said it. Why do trinitarians insist on saying something else? They sing their "Holy Holy Holy" and that's fine. They refrain with "Merciful Mighty" and its still fine. And they pay their dues to Platonic Greek Philosophy with "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity." And that's not fine! Apostle Paul says its "spoiled" (Col. 2:8), and he's right.
Nowhere in the Bible does the expression "God in Three Persons" occur. It is a heretical substitute for "God in Christ." Paul got along without it; Peter managed; John who wrote almost exclusively on the deity of Christ never dreamed of using it. Never came close. Surely if it is the touchstone of Christianity the sine que non, they would have used it and used it often. They didn't and they wouldn't.
Boyd says on Page 173,
They invent a "threeness" that isn't there, and then coin unapostolic words like "person", not to describe it, but so it doesn't remain undescribed! If Its such a poor word for the job, lets get rid of it and hire something else! But no --- "There is simply no better term available, " Dr. Boyd bemoans. he is so personally ashamed of it that he consistently puts it in quotes, lest his readers interpret it with a "radically individualistic connotation." In other words he doesn't want them to think of persons, when he says "persons." He reminds us of Humpty Dumpty when he told Alice: "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean." We have no such problem with "God in Christ." We want people to think of Christ. If Neo-Trinitarians do not want people to think of the persons as "individuals" then why do they present them as such -- fellowshipping together throughout eternity; "bursting" in love, passionate love, one to another; and having "I-Thou" relationships, "loving communion," triune love celebrations, sending each other, and enjoying genuine personal "otherness" (Boyd, p. 189-192).
In fact Boyd says:
If all this is not teaching that the "persons" of the trinity are three divine inter-acting individuals with their own minds, then what is it? The idea of God being "alone" is not compatible with "Christian understanding." Trinitarian understanding is what he means! God must also have a "personal otherness." That's just a fifty cent way of saying God needs another Person ("personal otherness") to keep Him company! Well, God's "aloneness' and "solitude" may not be "compatible" with him, but it is certainly compatible with God Himself, for He informs us:
That verse alone removes the entire rationale for maintaining the use of "God in Three Persons," whether in quotations marks or not! God in Christ is enough! Let us return to the New Testament phraseology. "Persons," even with quotations marks, boils down to the same thing and is totally unacceptable. "He will surely reprove you if you do secretly accept persons" (Job 13:10).
How shall we refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if "persons" is unacceptable? Why not use the Bible term "manifestation"? The Bible refers to God as a manifestation in 1 Tim. 3:16,
The Son of God is referred to as a manifestation in 1 John 3:8,
-- also 1 Peter 1:19-20, 1 John 3:5. And finally the Spirit of God is referred to as a manifestation in 1 Cor. 12:7
The incarnation is described as a manifestation of God's life as well as love ( 1 John 1:2; 1 John 4:9). "Manifestation" is a Bible word; its used in connection with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the incarnation, and it is flexible enough to avoid the hairsplitting controversies that have plagued the church for centuries. It is an infinitely better choice than "persons" because it has no tritheistic and individualistic overtones. In the end it seems to be the final definition that even Dr. Boyd leave us with, for he writes on page 196:
Where biblical and only Biblical terminology is adhered to, there is unity. When "added vocabulary" appears there is disunity. Instead of wasting so much time in his book justifying a God of three "Persons," "ways," "fashions," "aspects," "modes," or "manners," why didn't he simply adhere to "three manifestations." At least that word is in the Bible!
The Holy Spirit is referred to in the Bible as the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11), "Christ in you" (Rom 8:10, Col. 1:27), "Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor 3:17), "Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Phillip 1:19), "Spirit of His Son" (Gal 4:6). What could be clearer by these oft repeated utterances? The Holy Spirit is actually Christ in His Spirit nature. Jesus testified this also in unmistaken terms. Three times in John 14 he referred to the Spirit coming to believers as himself coming to them.
The Holy Spirit is Christ in His Spirit nature as God, manifesting himself to us, coming to us, and living in us -- "I in them" (John 17:26).
But this is not good enough for trinitarians. They have to call Him something else! So they invent a term, Third Person of the Godhead and foist this on all Christendom as the litmus test of orthodoxy. They did not even stop to apologize for this verbal innovation, or attempt to give Scripture reference. Their purpose is to separate Christ from the Holy Spirit, for this would help them mesh their Platonic Trinity more smoothly with their "Christian Trinity." But, by what authority do they label the Spirit of Christ with this new title? Who authorized them to divide the Godhead up into three persons, and rank them first, second, and third? While they clamour for us to produce a reference calling Christ Father (and we do), or one calling Christ the Spirit (and we do), it never occurs to them that they might be called upon for a reference calling the Holy Spirit "the third Person of the Godhead." Dr. Boyd has in bold titles on page 117
He never attempts to provide one text which refers to him as such. However earlier in his book he prepared his readers for this mystery when he stated
Why not say "opaque"? The first reason is,
Well that takes care of the Old Testament. No third person there! And as for the New Testament:
Well, this completes his "obscurity." Now this "distinctness" is "obscure" in the New Testament also! Jesus was "born of the Spirit," "filled with the Spirit," "led by the Spirit," offered himself "through the Spirit," and was resurrected "by the Spirit." That's hardly " obscure" in the Plan of Redemption to me! And he claims that Jesus "succinctly summarizes this theme, found throughout the New Testament" by His statements in John 16:13-14! I do not recall the Holy Spirit as being so "obscure" on the Day of Pentecost either, when he arrived as a "rushing mighty wind." He was not so "obscure" in Acts 8 also, when Simon the Sorceror offered money for the ability to impart Him by laying on of hands. His "obscure role within God's plan of redemption" didn't seem to be on Peter's mind when he told the multitude in Acts the second Chapter to Repent and be baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of sins, for the express purpose of receiving "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Paul didn't think his "role in the plan of redemption" was so "obscure" when his first question to the Ephesian disciples was, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).
As far as the Holy Spirit's identity in the Old Testament is concerned it is still Christ. For Peter writes concerning the Spirit that spoke through Old Testament prophets:
So instead of the Holy Spirit being revealed as the "Third Person of the Godhead" in the Old Testament, he was the Spirit of Christ!
All this talk of "obscurity" and not being "revealed as such" is a convenient shelter to hide in when pressed for a scripture identifying the Holy Spirit as "the third Person of the Godhead." then on page 119 "The Pot begins to call the kettle black." There we Oneness are accused of teaching a "secret identity" of the Holy Spirit! If its a secret, its an open one! We have maintained, a long with Christ and the New Testament writers, that the Holy Spirit is "Christ in you." We are the ones who openly proclaim, and provide Bible reference, that "The Lord is that Spirit" (2 Cor 3:17). We don't hide behind "obscurity" and lack of "revelation", for we learn the identity of the Spirit from the Spirit Himself when He said, "I in you." The Trinitarian identity of the Holy Spirit as the 3rd Person is so "secret" that they themselves cannot even find it, though they search diligently amidst the "obscurity."
In order to maintain the unscriptural title "third person", Dr. Boyd is forced to contradict himself. On page 53 he denies, (based on "triadically structured verses") that the
Yet he has not qualms, (when denying the Spirit's identity as Christ) in saying:
and
Apparently the Holy Spirit can substitute as the "presence" of the "Second divine Person" when "Trinitarian theology" finds it expedient, but not the First Person! And why would the Holy Spirit have to substitute for the presence of Christ, when according to the Perichoresis doctrine...
Christ the 2nd Person is as much present as the 3rd Person, who is substituting for his presence! The arguments advanced to maintain the separate identity theory of the Holy Spirit are not only contradictory, they are in many cases, degrading to Christ the Spirit. We are not authorized to relegate the Spirit of Christ to "obscurity" or rank him "third" in a Triad of "three divine Persons." And all this is done to keep in vogue the 4th Century title "Third Person" of the Godhead, a title designed to keep distinct what is repeatedly declared to be identical! Why not lay the ax to the root of the tree and eliminate this Christ dishonouring and anti-scriptural term. Paul didn't need it, Peter didn't need it, Christ didn't;' need it ----- all of whom described amply the role of the Holy Spirit without this "Crutch." For what reason do trinitarians of today need it? Do they have something more to say than Christ?
Some trinitarians are beginning to see the problems that this "added vocabulary" has produced.
Walter Martin, distinguished founder of Christian Research Institute and a man with whom I was personally acquainted, writes concerning the "eternal Son" usage:
And this from a man who has laboured to defend Trinitarianism for years!
Dr. W.T Conner, the eminent Baptist theologian, in his monumental work "Christian Doctrine," has this to say about the term "three persons" ----
Robert Bowman recognizes the same problem that "added vocabulary" tends to produce in popular concepts, namely that God is three individuals. Therefore he issues this disclaimer:
I fall this "added vocabulary" is ricocheting off the walls and producing so much confusion, why keep firing it? There is certainly no New Testament mandate, nor precedent, for using such terms as "persons," "person," "eternal Son," "God the Son," "God in three persons," or "Trinity." Lets get rid of them and clear the air!
What is the real reason Trinitarians have added this extra-biblical (and anti-biblical) vocabulary? It has nothing to do with expanding or clarifying our knowledge of God. Christ and His inspired Apostles brought all the revelation we need, when they never packaged it in these unscriptural terms. Neither is it to eliminate heresies, because it spawned more than it ever stifled. In the end it was the sword, and not the Creeds, that disposed of the "heretics" so called. The real reason is that the early Trinitarian theologians were enamored with Greek philosophy and speculation and were determined to integrate it with the Christian Concept of God. Greek speculation was intensely concerned with analyzing "substance" and "essence" and "modes of existence." This is why such Greek philosophical work-tools began appearing in Christian discussions. Words like "hypostasis" (substance), "ousia" (essence), "homoosusios" (consubstantial) and "prosopon" (person). The ancient Hebrews, from whom we received the oracles of God, never attempted the arrogant blasphemy of analyzing God's substance or essence. The thought would never have crossed their mind for mortal man to try to determine such things as God's inner substance. The Hebrew method concentrated on what God did, not so much what He "is". More is to be learned of God or Christ by observing the actions or works, rather than attempting to probe the essence. This is why Christ, speaking from a Jewish background said:
He had just announced that he was the Father embodied ("the Father that dwelleth in me," "the Father in me," verses 10 & 11). He knew some wouldn't understand this perfectly. he did not recommend that they have "councils" and "debates" to probe the inner "substance" of the Father and the Son to see if they were "homoousious" (of "same" substance) or "homoiousious" (of "similar" substance). He simply pointed to the "works" that He did, works that only the Father could do, as proof of His deity.
If they had done this there would have been no need for Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Ephesus and all the other squabble sessions that were held in the first five centuries of Christianity.
But Greek "philosophy," which Paul condemned as a "spoiler" and "vain deceit," was at work here:
With all this "synthesizing" with "higher thought" of Greek philosophy is it any wonder they would need additional non-biblical terms to produce their new synthesized Greek Godhead!
There was a lull in this worship of Greek worship of Greek Philosophy for time during the Medieval period, but with the dawn of the Renaissance a
You will recall that this Master-builder of Greek Synthesis, Thomas Aquinas, is a favorite of Neo-Trinitarian like Dr. Boyd, who praises him for his understanding of the Trinity. This marvelous Trinitarian, whom Dr. Boyd classifies as
...also produced wit the help of forged documents, a defense of the Pope's claim to supremacy:
No wonder Oneness believers prefer to adhere to Christ and the Apostles or our Godhead teaching instead of "Ancient" forgers.
Augustine, another Great synthesizer of Greek Paganism, goes even further in his obsession with Greek philosophy. In "De Doctrina Christiana" Chapters 40 and 41, he compares this borrowing from the "Greek philosophers" with the incident from Exodus where the Jews "borrowed" jewels of silver and gold, and raiment, from the Egyptians. He says the pagan Platonists of Greek Philosophy had some "true things" about the worship of "the only true God" which they did not invent (He says!), but dug as it were, "gold and silver" from the "mines of God's providence." And this can be "borrowed," and furthermore, Christians can "convey" it to good uses. Now the only "mines" that Jesus ever recommended we dig in are the Old and New Testaments. Out of this "treasure" comes forth "things new and old" (Matthew 13:52). Oneness people, unlike Trinitarians do not care to prospect anywhere else; we have already staked "our claim" and its not on the "Mine Fields" of Greek Philosophy!
It might be added that Augustine was not alone in borrowing from Greek Philosophy:
Augustine even outdid Origen in this for
And what was the main Jewel that attracted so much "borrowing" from the Greeks? A jewel, they couldn't seem to find in the Oracles of God, and therefore went prospecting elsewhere? It was the neo-Platonic trinity. Gore describes it as:
And there is more:
Justin Martyr another "great Trinitarian" was also digging around in the rubbish of Greek speculation for more jewels on the Godhead. Of him Gore writes:
Drawn to Christ by Platonic philosophy! No wonder they never arrived!
And it also no wonder they had to invent new "added vocabulary" (substance, essence, person, persons, Trinity) with which to deck out their new Platonic Godhead. Remove the vocabulary, strip off the "raiment borrowed from the Greeks," open your eyes to the "emperor's new clothes" and you will see what is really there --- nothing! I must concur with the wise old sage of Troy,
The consequences of accepting these philosophical gifts from the Greeks was just as tragic for the church as the wooden horse was for the Trojans!
REAL REASON FOR TRINITY
ONENESS OR TRINITY TERMS?
"ONENESS" VERSUS "TRINITY"
"BEGOTTEN SON" VERSUS "ETERNAL SON"
"GOD IN CHRIST" VERSUS "GOD IN THREE PERSONS"
(Isa. 45:13-15).
( 1 Tim 3:16).
(John 14:10).
(Isa 44:24)."MANIFESTATIONS" VERSUS "PERSONS"
(also John 14:21)."SPIRIT OF CHRIST" VS. "THIRD PERSON OF THE GODHEAD"
(John 14:18).
"I will love him and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21).
"...And I in you" (John 14:20).
1 Peter 1:11.DOUBTING TRINITARIANS
And scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
And He will make it plain."REAL REASON FOR "ADDED VOCABULARY"
(John 14:11).
(John 10:37-38).GREEK PHILOSOPHY HAS ITS SAY
AQUINAS THE FORGER
AUGUSTINE THE BORROWER
MORE "GOLD DIGGERS"
JUSTIN MARTYR - ANOTHER GREEK MINER
(John 6:44).
