- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi All
The accusation that the Trinity is not found in scriptures is false and though the word “Trinity” is not found in scriptures the concept is.
ATs, (Anti-Trinitarians) love to call on this fallacy in order to discredit the truth found in the scriptures concerning the Trinitarian view.
The Trinitarians believe that the view is scriptural and is based on the acceptance of the Holy Scriptures as a whole therefore accepting the whole council of God.
Most ATs believe in a Trinity whether they admit it or not. If you ask them if they believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and are they separate in person or being, they will claim yes. The difference is they do not believe that they all share the same attributes as God; even though there is no evidence that there is any difference in the three in their respective nature or ontology.
Those who claim the Holy Spirit is the Father, have a long uphill climb Biblically to prove their theory based on the number of scriptures mentioning their separate identities.
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: KJVGo therefore* and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NKJV
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. NLT
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in* the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NIV
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NASB
Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, NWT
The above translations all render Matt 28:19 the same. As far as I can tell all the translations on BGW.com and BLB.org translate it the same way. Even the NWT which is notably a version apposed to the Trinity and also known for its obvious biased paraphrase of the Greek text, translates it the same.
It has been claimed that Eusebius of Caesarea, c. 263–339 had an original copy of Matthew which did not contain the verse. However there is no such evidence and can only be considered as a fabrication made by the ATs. It would also contradict the fact that Eusebius was a prominent figure at the Council of Nicene. Not to mention his own confession in his personal Letter to the Church of Cesarea…
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.21 (emphasis mine) Source
Not to mention that many Church Fathers quoted the verse like Ignatius (c. 35–107), Irenaeus (c. 130–200), Tertullian (c. 160–225) to mention a few. Others alluded to the three.
There is overwhelming evidence that proves that Matthew 28:19 is authentic including the fact it is found in every extant Greek Biblical manuscript…
It is not uncommon to hear the notion that the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19 is suspect on text critical grounds, but when one consults the data itself, such claims are entirely unfounded. Every extant Greek biblical manuscript that contains this verse of Matthew has the tripartite phrase.13 One would expect that if, indeed, Matthew’s original (whether one presumes a Greek or Hebrew original, or both) did not include the tripartite phrase, that at least some early witnesses to this original would have remained. But not one single witness, early or late, gives evidence that 28:19 ever existed without the tripartite phrase. When we look at the versions the same situation obtains. The Syriac Peshitta (in all of its extant witnesses), the Vulgate, the Coptic, the Slovak versions—all have the tripartite phrase. Plummer’s conclusion is therefore warranted: It is incredible that an interpolation of this character can have been made in the text of Mt. without leaving a trace of its unauthenticity in a single MS. or Version. The evidence for its genuineness is overwhelming.14 (Emphasis mine) Source
As if that is not enough damaging evidence against the ATs, the nail in the coffin is the Didache contains the tripartite phrase..
Ploughman, apparently following F. C. Conybeare, has questioned the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, but most scholars of New Testament textual criticism accept the authenticity of the passage, since “there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula, and the extant form of the passage is attested in the Didache[72] and other patristic works of the first and second centuries: Ignatius,[73] Tertullian,[74] Hippolytus,[75] Cyprian,[76] and Gregory Thaumaturgus”. ‘Wikipedia
Though the date of the Didache is debated, most scholars would put it between 90 and 120 CE with some suggesting an even earlier date.
The Trinity is here to stay, and Matthew 28:19 is unambiguous evidence that the early Apostles and Church Fathers believed in a Trinity. Unfortunately for the ATs the evidence overwhelmingly support the Holy Scriptures as a Trinitarian book, even if they do not believe the three are “One”, they must accept this Bible truth or get their white out and blot out the verse in their Christology.
Anyone care to comment?
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,
God does not teach trinity because He is not a triad-ignorant men, however, do teach it besotted with intellectual vanity.
God offers supporting verses to PROVE truth[2Cor13.1] but you cannot find any.
Find PROOFS otherwise it is mere puffery.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2010,16:50) Hi WJ,
God does not teach trinity because He is not a triad-ignorant men, however, do teach it besotted with intellectual vanity.
God offers supporting verses to PROVE truth[2Cor13.1] but you cannot find any.
Find PROOFS otherwise it is mere puffery.
MHSo Jesus words are mere puffery?
There is one scripture that says “God is a Spirit”, do you believe that or do you need supporting verses?
There is one scripture that says Jesus is the “last Adam”, do you believe that?
There is one scripture that says the Holy Spirit is “another”, do you believe that?
There are many supporting verses that speak of the three, by the way. Do you deny that?
The scripture is clear but it doesn't fit your doctrine so I guess that means you got the white out and blotted it out of your bible. Is that right?
WJ
Hi WJ,
You cannot find those words supported so are you sure they are his or added?
If would be not the right time to build an entire trinity theology on one such verse though would it?That is the unwise approach of the JWs and you would not want to be aligned with their folly would you?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2010,17:34) Hi WJ,
You cannot find those words supported so are you sure they are his or added?
If would be not the right time to build an entire trinity theology on one such verse though would it?That is the unwise approach of the JWs and you would not want to be aligned with their folly would you?
NHNo you cannot find those words supported.
I have.
What right do you have to claim that anything you quote from the scriptures is valid if you think Matt 28:19 is added?
You have removed all credibility from the written scriptures and undermined your own theology which you claim is based on those scriptures.
WJ
Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2010,17:50) Hi WJ, What's the “HolySpirit's” Name? (Matt.28:19)
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDMatt 28:19 is a continuation of verse 18 in which Jesus claims all authority and power.
The Apostles understood the baptism formula to be in the name of Jesus because he has all authority.
So the name and authority that we invoke the Father and the Holy Spirit by is Jesus since all fullness dwells in him!
Matt 28:19 contradicts your theology Ed for you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father.
Jesus speaks of the name in the singular for the three and all three being arthrous!
To bad for you!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,10:07) Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2010,17:50) Hi WJ, What's the “HolySpirit's” Name? (Matt.28:19)
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDMatt 28:19 contradicts your theology Ed for you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father.
WJ
Hi WJ,How so?
Hi WJ:
You say:
Quote Most ATs believe in a Trinity whether they admit it or not. If you ask them if they believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and are they separate in person or being, they will claim yes. Are you sure about this statement? I certainly do not believe this. I know that the Father and the Son are two separate distinct beings, but not the Holy Spirit. Is your spirit a different being than you?
The HOLY SPIRIT is not a separate being but is God's Spirit.
Quote 1 Co. 2:9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
And I do not know if there is evidence that would say that Matthew 28:19 does not belong in the scriptures as stated or that it was changed, but obviously, there is evidence that the Apostles did not baptize in this manner. It also does not make any sense for Jesus to say “All power in heaven and earth has been given unto me” and then give the commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
There is no “Trinity” or Tri-une God. There is “Only One God” and one mediator between God and man, the “Man” Christ, Jesus. (1 Ti 2:5)
Quote John 17 1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
And so, even if Matthew 28:19 is a valid scripture, how can you try to justify a doctrine, on the basis of one scripture, that is not taught by the Apostles. You yourself say that the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in the scriptures. It isn't there because the doctrine is not true, but is a misunderstanding of scripture.
I am praying that God would open your eyes to the truth. Sometimes you have to swallow hard and admit that what you thought was correct was a misunderstanding, but I am hoping that you and those who teach this doctrine will acknowledge this so that the church can come into unity and teach the Word of God in truth. Jesus prayed:
Quote 14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,08:42) Hi All The accusation that the Trinity is not found in scriptures is false and though the word “Trinity” is not found in scriptures the concept is.
ATs, (Anti-Trinitarians) love to call on this fallacy in order to discredit the truth found in the scriptures concerning the Trinitarian view.
The Trinitarians believe that the view is scriptural and is based on the acceptance of the Holy Scriptures as a whole therefore accepting the whole council of God.
Most ATs believe in a Trinity whether they admit it or not. If you ask them if they believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and are they separate in person or being, they will claim yes. The difference is they do not believe that they all share the same attributes as God; even though there is no evidence that there is any difference in the three in their respective nature or ontology.
Those who claim the Holy Spirit is the Father, have a long uphill climb Biblically to prove their theory based on the number of scriptures mentioning their separate identities.
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: KJVGo therefore* and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NKJV
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. NLT
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in* the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NIV
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NASB
Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, NWT
The above translations all render Matt 28:19 the same. As far as I can tell all the translations on BGW.com and BLB.org translate it the same way. Even the NWT which is notably a version apposed to the Trinity and also known for its obvious biased paraphrase of the Greek text, translates it the same.
It has been claimed that Eusebius of Caesarea, c. 263–339 had an original copy of Matthew which did not contain the verse. However there is no such evidence and can only be considered as a fabrication made by the ATs. It would also contradict the fact that Eusebius was a prominent figure at the Council of Nicene. Not to mention his own confession in his personal Letter to the Church of Cesarea…
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.21 (emphasis mine) Source
Not to mention that many Church Fathers quoted the verse like Ignatius (c. 35–107), Irenaeus (c. 130–200), Tertullian (c. 160–225) to mention a few. Others alluded to the three.
There is overwhelming evidence that proves that Matthew 28:19 is authentic including the fact it is found in every extant Greek Biblical manuscript…
It is not uncommon to hear the notion that the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19 is suspect on text critical grounds, but when one consults the data itself, such claims are entirely unfounded. Every extant Greek biblical manuscript that contains this verse of Matthew has the tripartite phrase.13 One would expect that if, indeed, Matthew’s original (whether one presumes a Greek or Hebrew original, or both) did not include the tripartite phrase, that at least some early witnesses to this original would have remained. But not one single witness, early or late, gives evidence that 28:19 ever existed without the tripartite phrase. When we look at the versions the same situation obtains. The Syriac Peshitta (in all of its extant witnesses), the Vulgate, the Coptic, the Slovak versions—all have the tripartite phrase. Plummer’s conclusion is therefore warranted: It is incredible that an interpolation of this character can have been made in the text of Mt. without leaving a trace of its unauthenticity in a single MS. or Version. The evidence for its genuineness is overwhelming.14 (Emphasis mine) Source
As if that is not enough damaging evidence against the ATs, the nail in the coffin is the Didache contains the tripartite phrase..
Ploughman, apparently following F. C. Conybeare, has questioned the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, but most scholars of New Testament textual criticism accept the authenticity of the passage, since “there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula, and the extant form of the passage is attested in the Didache[72] and other patristic works of the first and second centuries: Ignatius,[73] Tertullian,[74] Hippolytus,[75] Cyprian,[76] and Gregory Thaumaturgus”. ‘Wikipedia
Though the date of the Didache is debated, most scholars would put it between 90 and 120 CE with some suggesting an even earlier date.
The Trinity is here to stay, and Matthew 28:19 is unambiguous evidence that the early Apostles and Church Fathers believed in a Trinity. Unfortunately for the ATs the evidence overwhelmingly support the Holy Scriptures as a Trinitarian book, even if they do not believe the three are “One”, they must accept this Bible truth or get their white out and blot out the verse in their Christology.
Anyone care to comment?
Blessings WJ
WJyou got it all wrong the fact that it is written in the scriptures and is a lie does not make it a truth.
you forgot something to consider in you reasoning and that is CHRIST SPIRIT and the HOLY SPIRIT what i know you do not possess this is why as the rest of the scholars you ease yourself to quickly accept the lies.
Hi Marty
Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) Hi WJ:
You say:
Quote Most ATs believe in a Trinity whether they admit it or not. If you ask them if they believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and are they separate in person or being, they will claim yes. Are you sure about this statement?
I said “Most” didn't I?Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) I certainly do not believe this. I know that the Father and the Son are two separate distinct beings, but not the Holy Spirit. Is your spirit a different being than you?
I know what you believe, and like NH you have to clip Matt 28:19 out as well as other scriptures that prove the Holy Spirit has his own identity.You say that the Spirit of God has to be the Father because he is of God. Well Jesus is also of God, is he the Father?
Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) The HOLY SPIRIT is not a separate being but is God's Spirit.
Trinitarians do not believe the Holy Spirit is a seperate being.But there was a whole lot of wasted words if the Holy Spirit is the Father. Jesus said the Father and himself would send the Holy Spirit. Did Jesus send the Father or did the Father send himself? The Holy Spirit makes intercession for us which you say is Jesus, so then Jesus must be the Father? But we have had this conversation and it is off topic here.
This topic is about the validity of Matthew 28:19 and it having a singular name for three identities or persons each having the definite article in the Greek.
Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) Quote 1 Co. 2:9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
What does these verses prove Marty? That the Father searches himself for the deep things? verse 10Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) And I do not know if there is evidence that would say that Matthew 28:19 does not belong in the scriptures as stated or that it was changed, but obviously, there is evidence that the Apostles did not baptize in this manner. It also does not make any sense for Jesus to say “All power in heaven and earth has been given unto me” and then give the commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Like I said you apparantly have whited it out of your Bible like many other passages to fit your heritcal manmade doctrine.Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) There is no “Trinity” or Tri-une God. There is “Only One God” and one mediator between God and man, the “Man” Christ, Jesus. (1 Ti 2:5)
Saying it until you are blue in the face does not change scriptural evidence of the Trinity. It takes a God/man to be the mediator.Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) Quote John 17 1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Yes I know, one of your favorite proof text that you think disproves the Trinity or erases the scriptural evidence supporting it.Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) And so, even if Matthew 28:19 is a valid scripture, how can you try to justify a doctrine, on the basis of one scripture, that is not taught by the Apostles. You yourself say that the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in the scriptures. It isn't there because the doctrine is not true, but is a misunderstanding of scripture.
The words omnipresence, omniscient, indescribable, and Bible are not in the Bible either, yet we may use them to describe a truth about our God. But the fact is Matt 28:19 reveals a Trinity.So how can you justify teaching the scriptures as the word of God and yet you do not accept all the scriptures?
You loose all credibility to claim any scripture as being true.
Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) I am praying that God would open your eyes to the truth.
You do not believe the truth. The scripture is the truth and Matt 28:19 is unambiguous, and you are praying that I don't believe it. Please stop!Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) Sometimes you have to swallow hard an
d admit that what you thought was correct was a misunderstanding, but I am hoping that you and those who teach this doctrine will acknowledge this so that the church can come into unity and teach the Word of God in truth.
Marty you are not teaching the word of God unless you are teaching all of the scriptures even the ones that you have to swallow hard and admit they are scriptural truth!Quote (942767 @ April 30 2010,18:45) Jesus prayed: Quote 14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD;“
Why do you not believe the Apostles writtings and Jesus own words?
WJ
Quote (terraricca @ April 30 2010,20:10) WJ you got it all wrong the fact that it is written in the scriptures and is a lie does not make it a truth.
TSo the scripture Matt 28:19 is a lie?
WJ
Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2010,18:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,10:07) Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2010,17:50) Hi WJ, What's the “HolySpirit's” Name? (Matt.28:19)
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDMatt 28:19 contradicts your theology Ed for you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father.
WJ
Hi WJ,How so?
EDRead it again. Already answered. Please spare me of pasting a manual about how you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father.
The thread is about Matt 28:19 and it being authentic and supporting the personage of the three.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,12:16) Quote (terraricca @ April 30 2010,20:10) WJ you got it all wrong the fact that it is written in the scriptures and is a lie does not make it a truth.
TSo the scripture Matt 28:19 is a lie?
WJ
WJMt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mt 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”IF YOU WOULD HAVE UNDERSTANDING OF CHRIST SPIRIT YOU WOULD SEE THAT IN THOSE TWO VERSES THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG IN IT.
Quote (terraricca @ April 30 2010,20:48) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,12:16) Quote (terraricca @ April 30 2010,20:10) WJ you got it all wrong the fact that it is written in the scriptures and is a lie does not make it a truth.
TSo the scripture Matt 28:19 is a lie?
WJ
WJMt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mt 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”IF YOU WOULD HAVE UNDERSTANDING OF CHRIST SPIRIT YOU WOULD SEE THAT IN THOSE TWO VERSES THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG IN IT.
TYes, I notice you find a lot of wrong in the scriptures!
Sorry what you say is untrue!
WJ
Concordant Studies
THE ONLY TRUE GOD
WE BELIEVE that, ultimately speaking, “there is no other God except One” (1 Cor.8:4b). That One, is “the Father, out of Whom all is” (1 Cor.8:6). He alone is the Supreme (Lam.3:38; Dan.4:17); He alone is the Almighty (2 Cor.6:18; Rev.16:14).
In Hebrew, “Yahweh” is God’s name; “Elohim” is (the most common form of) God’s title. The divine name speaks of the One Who is, was, and is coming (Rev.1:8); the divine title speaks of the One Who places or subjects, “according as He is intending” (1 Cor.12:11b; cf “Yet now God [lit., “the Placer”] placed the members, each one of them, in the body according as He wills,” 1 Cor.12:18; cp 1 Cor.12:27b). Therefore, when we say “Yahweh,” we should think: “the One Who is, was, and is coming”; and, when we say “Elohim” or “God,” we should think: “the Placer” or “the Subjector.”
It is important to recognize that “GOD” is not a personal name, an expression by which one is known, but is a title, added to a personal name, indicative of one’s office. A name speaks of that which one is called; a title speaks of that which one does, the capacity in which one serves.
While the title “GOD,” when used relatively, can be used in reference to many beings, when it is used absolutely, it is only used in reference to one Being, God Himself. When this title, “GOD” (or “ELOHIM”) is used of the One Whose name is Yahweh, the One Who is All-Sufficient, Who is the Supreme, the Almighty, of the One Who is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only true God, or otherwise of the One, so termed, Who is spoken of in contrast to or as distinct from Christ, it is evident that it is used in its absolute sense.
The title “GOD” (or “ELOHIM”), then, neither signifies nor entails either supremacy or unoriginatedness of being. Nor is it a term indicative of the essential nature of the being so designated. It is certainly true when this title is used in reference to the only true God, that it refers to One Who is supreme and unoriginated, and Whose essential nature is distinct from other beings. But the fact that these things are true of the One Who is the only true God, is no indication that any of these things are true of the word “GOD,” itself, or of any other beings to whom this same word (“GOD”) refers, when used in a relative sense.
It is deeply mistaken, then, to reason that since the word “GOD” is sometimes used in reference to Christ, men, or messengers, that therefore either Christ, men, or messengers, are unoriginated, supreme, or of the same essential nature as the Almighty.
The word “God” (or “god”), like all titles, concerns itself with office or service. In Greek, its stem, the- signifies PLACE; hence, the complete form, theos (GOD), means PLACer. This idea fits all the contexts in which theos is used. Theos is not only the original Greek word for the English “GOD,” but is also the inspired translation of the Hebrew “ELOHIM,” in all corresponding New Testament citations of Old Testament texts which refer to God Himself.
Any references to those lesser beings to whom the title GOD (“placer” or “subjector”) also applies notwithstanding, then, we say, Nevertheless, there is only one God. He alone is the Supreme, the Almighty One. He is the God, and Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and He is “the only true God” (John 17:3).
It is Christ Himself Who insists that this is so. The adjective alêthês (TRUE) speaks of “[that which is] in accord with the facts.” 1 In accord with the actual, literal facts, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ alone is God. He is the only Placer Who is not Himself placed by another. He alone is self-existent and self-sufficient. All others to whom this title is ascribed, including Christ, possess it in a derived sense, not in accord with the facts absolute, but relatively speaking, or, in some figurative way.
Supremely speaking, there is only one true God, even though, speaking relatively, and even in a righteous sense, “there are many gods” (1 Cor.8:5). For, indeed, “there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth” (1 Cor.8:5; cp Ex.22:8,9; Psa.82:6). Consequently, we should hardly be surprised that, in certain passages, Christ also is so termed (cf Titus 2:13; Heb.1:8; 1 John 5:20b). Except for God Himself, Christ certainly has a right to this title in a way unspeakably above that of all others, to whom it is also properly applied. Yet conversely, we must also realize that the ascription of the title “God” to Christ–in certain senses and in various connections–is no more indication that He is the Deity than that any others to whom this title is also ascribed are the Deity.SEEING THE INVISIBLE
The word “Godhead,” as in the Authorized Version and others, is a mistranslation of the nouns theiotês and theotês. Theiotês should be “divinity,” for it speaks of the attributes or qualities which pertain to God (Rom.1:20). The adjectival form, theion, should be rendered “divine” (e.g., 2 Pet.1:3,4). The idea which is conveyed in English under the figure “head,” forms no part of these Greek expressions. Yet it is this very term, “Godhead,” taken either in a pluralistic sense, or in a corporate sense, which is a pillar of “the sacred mystery of the Trinity.”
We believe that “there is no other God except One . . . .” and that this One is “God, the Father, out of Whom all is” (1 Cor.8:4-6). Yet we realize that the Father, the “Most High” (Luke 1:32) or “Supreme” God (Psa.87:5), speaking relatively, rightly says to the Son, “Thy throne, O God [O Placer], is for the eon of the eon” (Heb.1:8). Thus, Christ Himself is “the great God [Placer] and . . . Saviour” Whose advent we await (Titus 2:13).
However, we also believe, and insist, that Christ’s Head is God (1 Cor.11:3), “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory” (Eph.1:17). The Father, ultimately speaking, is “the only God” (Jude 24,25; cp Rom.16:27; 1 Tim.1:17).
We believe that Christ is the “Effulgence” (the Radiant Splendor) of God’s glory (Heb.1:3). Likewise, we believe that Christ is the Emblem of God’s assumption (Heb.1:3), of the role God assumes whenever, in the Person of His Son, He manifests Himself before His creatures. It is the ministry of Christ, Who is a tangible, visible Being, to represent His God and Father, Who is an intangible, invisible Being, whenever, and in whatever way, the Deity wishes to manifest Himself. Therefore, where we read that the One Who is spirit, Who is therefore essentially invisible, Whom, accordingly, no one has ever (literally) seen (John 1:18), is nevertheless “perceived” by certain of His creatures, we are to understand that such perception is either by the agency of Christ, Who is God’s Image, is visionary (Rev.5:1), or is through the eyes of faith (Matt.5:8).
It is only through the figure of anthropomorphism (human form) that the Supreme Himself is spoken of as having bodily members. Literally speaking, God is spirit (John 4:24), invisible (Col.1:15) and intangible, and so, in Himself, has no form or shape. How, then, does the Scripture speak of His arms and hands, His mouth, eyes, and face, as if He were a member of the human race? In all such cases, God condescends to our low estate and speaks to us in human language. Otherwise we could never understand Him or enter into His thoughts and feelings.
When God impresses us through His Word, it is as if a man speaks to us with his mouth, so this feature is ascribed to Him. Since God sees us as a fellow man does with his eyes, organs of sight are ascribed to the Deity. The human body is the basis of many figures which contradict flatly the great facts concerning the Deity, if they are taken literally.
Spirit is intangible, imperceptible, and so is not an object of literal, or sentient, perception. Therefore God is not a Being of form or shape
, these terms only being applicable to beings of corporeal, tangible existence.GOD'S CREATIVE ORIGINAL
It is Christ alone, the Word or Expression of God (John 1:14), Who unfolds the Deity (John 1:18), for He is “the Image of the invisible God” (2 Cor.4:4). Christ enjoys the highest delegated authority in the entire universe. Even as Christ, “the Firstborn from among the dead” (Col.1:18), was once actually among the dead, thus also, Christ, the “Firstborn of every creature” (Col.1:15), was once actually created. These passages are parallel, the proper understanding of verse 15 (Christ’s being the Firstborn of every creature), not depending upon verse 18 (Christ’s being the Firstborn from among the dead) for its own interpretation. But actually, the former verse sets the precedent for the latter passage’s proper sense, a sense which, ostensibly at least, no one doubts (the sense which reveals that Christ was once actually dead, that is, numbered among the dead).
Therefore the Son of God must have had a beginning. Consequently, our Lord must be One Who is among God’s creatures, though One Who is unspeakably higher than any other. His beginning, however, must have been before that of all others, since all 2 was created in and through Him (Col.1:16,17).
Truly, all is out of God (Rom.11:36), and all glory, even that which is Christ’s, is to be ascribed to God: “to [God] be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen” (Eph.3:21). Christ is “God’s creative Original” (Rev.3:14); literally, He is “THE ORIGINal OF-THE CREATION OF-THE God” (CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT sublinear), Who, as Christ Himself declared concerning His Father, is “the only true God” (John 17:3).
“Christ is God’s creative Original. According to the Greek, He is the Original, the Beginning, or the Chief, of every creation of God (Rev.3:14). The basic meaning of archê is ORIGIN, and all its forms are to be found under this word in the Concordance of the Concordant Version. In earliest times, all government was in the family, and the father, who originated it, was chief. So the stem came to be applied to the highest of a class, as the archangel, as well as the archetype, the pattern, or original. But the pattern comes before the product, the original before the copies. This accords perfectly with the fact that all creation was in Him. Adam was the original of all mankind; his descendants, and all originated in him. So Christ is the Original of creation.” 3
Metaphorically (in the sense that “this One is that One”), Christ Himself, as God’s Image, “is” the true God, even as He “is” life eonian (1 John 5:20b). And, even literally, in Himself, Christ is the great God (i.e., Placer) and Saviour of Whom Paul speaks in Titus 2:13. Nevertheless, it is Christ’s own God, His God and Father, Who is the Supreme and only true God.THE FORM OF GOD
The entire complement of the “Deity” [or, “deity,” theotês, PLACERship, the “GODness” or PLACERship of God] is dwelling bodily in Christ (Col.2:9). In a bodily way, the entire array of that which pertains to God is dwelling in Christ. Since the entirety of that which pertains to God yet cannot be communicated by God in Himself, Who is spirit, is dwelling bodily in Christ, it follows that Christ Himself is not the Deity.
Similarly, since Christ alone was “inherently [lit., “inhering,” i.e., existing by right] in the form of God,” He, accordingly, “deem[ed] it not pillaging to be equal with God” (Phil.2:6,7).
Since Christ is the Son of God, He is a Being distinct from God. Christ therefore was not equal to God in an identification-of-person sense; instead, the appearance of Christ was in a form which is to be identified as that which is proper to Deity. To all appearances, Christ was the same as, or “equal to,” God.
We are not told that Christ is a Form of God (and, therefore, that Christ is a mere Form, instead of a tangible, actual Being). Instead, we are told that God’s Anointed, Christ, before He emptied Himself, was “inherently in the form of God” (Phil.2:6). Form refers not to inward essence but merely to external appearance (e.g., 2 Tim.3:5). The form of God was not a manifestation of what Christ was in Himself, but a representation of His God. His glory consisted not in actually being the Deity, but in possessing the visible appearance through which God had chosen to manifest Himself.
“The form of God,” does not refer us to that of which God Himself is composed, nor is it an expression corollarial to the notion that God Himself is a corporeal being. Instead, it refers to the personal appearance of Christ, in which He inhered and thus deemed it not pillaging to be equal with God (lit., “ANOINTED JESUS WHO IN FORM OF-GOD belongING . . .”). Christ was inherently in the “of-God” form; thus He appeared to be the Deity. He Who is the Image of the invisible God, existed in the form which is proper to Deity, the form in which God would have Himself made manifest.THE CHRIST OF GOD
The English “anoint” is derived from the Latin inungere (to smear or rub on). The Greek verb criõ (“anoint”), is the basis of the noun christos, which in English is “christ.” It is to be regretted that we use “christ” for the noun of the verb anoint, thus obscuring its meaning from the ordinary reader. It corresponds to the Hebrew “messiah,” a title applied to priests, kings, and prophets after their consecration by means of anointing with oil. Our Lord Jesus Christ, is the Christ of christs, even as He is King of kings, for He is “anointed” by the spirit of God with the oil of exultation beyond His partners (Heb.1:9), beyond that of all others who also enjoy an anointing of God.
Christ Jesus is not the only one Who is anointed. We ourselves are “christs,” for all who have God’s spirit are christs (anointed ones). Paul told the Corinthians, “He Who . . . anoints [“christs”] us is God” (2 Cor.1:21). Similarly, those to whom John wrote were anointed as well, for he said, “You have an anointing [Greek: chrisma]” (1 John 2:20).
Anointing is always connected with service. It is the vital badge of office under God. Christ’s anointing, preeminently, equipped Him to be the Saviour, the Saviour of the world. As well as King and Prophet, His anointing made Him a Priest, a Mediator, “the one Mediator of God and mankind” (1 Tim.2:5). Thus He is “giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all” (1 Tim.2:6). He offered Himself to God. God did not offer Himself to Himself. The Offering was for us, to bring us to God. He did not offer Himself to bring us to Himself. We cannot approach God apart from Christ and His sacrifice. Yet this does not make Him God, but God’s Anointed, His Mediator.
The Lord Jesus did not assume the office of Messiah, until he was about thirty years of age. But at His first public utterance, in the synagogue at Nazareth, He declared that, “The spirit of the Lord is on Me, on account of which He anoints Me to bring the evangel . . .” (Luke 4:18). Similarly, Peter said to Cornelius that, “after the baptism which John heralds, [came] Jesus from Nazareth, as God anoints Him with holy spirit and power” (Acts 10:37,38). No ceremonial oil was even used when God anointed His Anointed One.
God is not the Anointed, but the Anointer. He never needs to be anointed, nor can He be, for He is already the Almighty, the All-Sufficient One. In Him the spirit is immanent, not imparted.
Anyone who is perfect and all-powerful in himself hardly needs to be anointed. The mere fact of our Lord’s being anointed shows that He was intrinsically lacking in the ability to fulfill His office. Christ’s ability is not His own. It is derived from God, through His spirit. Of Himself, Christ could do nothing (John 5:30; cp John 8:28). “Now the Father, remaining in Me, He is doing His works” (John 14:10b).
The expressio
n “the deity of Christ,” is simply preposterous, for it is a contradiction of terms. God cannot be anointed by another. God needs no preparation, no impartation or empowering, for He is the singular Source of all. Who is able to anoint Him? If Christ were the Supreme God, He would need no anointing. The possession of anointing by no means signifies Deity, but rather the opposite. No one who had any accurate idea of the scriptural function of anointing would ever accept the absurd thought that it was the equivalent of Deity. A christ, or anointed one, cannot literally be God, although, as God’s Image, the term may be figuratively applied to His Son. 4ONE IS GOD HIMSELF
“God” is not a term in reference to the Almighty’s esssential nature, but is an expression which speaks of His universal governance. It has special reference to the eonian times, and to the purpose of the eons which He makes in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph.3:11). That purpose, when all has finally been subjected (1 Cor.15:27), is for Him to become All in all (1 Cor.15:28).
It is indeed so that we are “sons” of God (Gal.3:26) and are members of His “family” (Eph.2:19). Nevertheless, and no matter how fully it may be that believers will “partake of” 5 the divine nature (2 Pet.1:4), this will not make them a part of God. There is only One Who is God; for any other, then, there is neither part nor lot therein.
Some who wish to point out that believers have a certain equality with Christ (e.g., Rom.8:29b) and are partakers of the divine nature, however, suppose that such considerations prove that we will someday “be God.” Some even claim that “Christians” are “little gods” even today. Those who argue thus, however, take the title “ GOD” as a term of essential nature or constitution. This is a fundamental error.
It is claimed that those who are saved will, one day, as a term of genus, belong to “the God family.” Such claims are made as if the Scriptures plainly declared them to be so. It is simply incorrect, however, to affirm that “god,” when used in the plural, signifies a family of beings in which each member is of the same constitution or essence as God, the Father.
Historically, the teaching of “becoming God” is termed Apotheosis. Some who have affirmed a teaching of “Christian deification,” whether among the church fathers or in certain of the writings of the Eastern Orthodox church, by this have only intended “that men are ‘deified’ in the sense that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christian believers and transforms them into the image of God in Christ, eventually endowing them in the resurrection with immortality and God’s perfect moral character.” 6
If by the doctrine of Apotheosis (or “becoming God”), however, one intends to affirm that men are, or one day will become, constitutionally, of the same genus or speciation as God, the Father, this is unscriptural and is a form of polytheism. This is because such a teaching affirms a plurality of beings of which each is of the same consitution or essential nature as the supreme God. Thus, according to such a teaching, there is no supreme Being Who alone is God Himself. Such a proposition is contrary not only to Scripture, but to monotheism.
Actual Trinitarianism, together with Modalism and Arianism (the latter is the historic name closest to the Concordant teaching), are all monotheistic. This is because each of these teachings affirms that there is one Being Who alone is God Himself. This most fundamental propä1 osition is denied, however, by Apotheosis, such as is taught by Mormonism and others. Since monotheism is the teaching of Scripture, polytheism, in whatever form, is contrary to Scripture and is therefore false.
Since the issues are tightly drawn, either Trinitarianism, Modalism, or Arianism must be correct, insofar as the dispute between them is concerned. Is Christ an aspect of the Deity yet not Himself the Deity (Trinitarianism)? Is Jesus Himself the Deity (Modalism)? Or is it that the Father is the Deity (Arianism)? We must go on to decide which of these claims is correct. But before we do so, we can be certain that we are correct in rejecting Apotheosis.
In the ordinary sense of the word “God,” the Scripture no more teaches that men one day will “become God” than that I will be you or you will be me, or that either one of us will become either a tree or a fish. This is so, whether by “God” we have in mind God Himself, or, by association, ones who are of His constitutional essence.
It follows, then, that the sense in which it is true that God’s creatures will become His “children” and “sons,” is confined to the place (cf Eph.1:5) and privileges which they will enjoy; it does not extend to their essential nature. Therefore, the reasoning that says that since humans beget little humans, God begets little gods, is simply undiscerning and fallacious.
The fact that this title, “GOD,” applies to many others besides God, the Father, in various connections and senses, is beside the point. It is not that there is no sense at all in which the title “GOD” will ever be applied to us; therefore it is not incorrect to say that there is a sense in which it may be said that this or that person will one day be termed “a god” (i.e., a subjector). These things, however, are not disputed by ourselves, for the word “god” says nothing about one’s constitution, but only concerns one’s having some role in the subjection of all unto God Himself, that is, unto the supreme Subjector Himself, the only true God.James Coram
1. KEYWORD CONCORDANCE, entry “true,” p.310.
2. It is illogical to reason from the mere presence of the words “all is created through Him” (Col.1:16), that since “all” is created through Him, that Christ Himself, therefore, is not a created being. In the “all” that was created in and through Christ, as with the “all” which, in beginning, came into being through the “word” (or “Word”; John 1:3), in both cases, the One through Whom all these creative works were achieved, obviously, already existed Himself. The scope of the “all” of the context, then, in both of these passages, is all that came into being from the time when, through Christ, all these creative works began. From that point onward, all, without exception, was created in and through Him. Whether Christ, at some antecedent point in time, was Himself created, is a question which neither Colossians 1:16 nor John 1:3 can answer. Since neither of these verses are concerned with that issue, it is wrong to offer them as proof in denial of His creaturehood.
3. A. E. Knoch, “The Pre-existence of Christ,” p.4.
4. Portions of this section were adapted or excerpted from “Can the Deity be Anointed?” by A. E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches, vol.39, pp.103-112.
5. If one “partakes of” that which pertains to an apple pie, it hardly follows that one becomes an apple pie, or a component thereof.
6. Robert Bowman, Christian Research Journal, Winter/Spring, 1987, p.19; cited in THE AGONY OF DECEIT, “Ye Shall Be As Gods,” Walter Martin (Moody Press: Chicago, 1990), p.93.
Copyright © Concordant Publishing Concern
15570 Knochaven Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91387, U.S.A. 661-252-2112This publication may be reproduced for personal use
(all other rights reserved by copyright holder).Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,12:13) Hi Marty Trinitarians do not believe the Holy Spirit is a seperate being.
But there was a whole lot of wasted words if the Holy Spirit is the Father. Jesus said the Father and himself would send the Holy Spirit. Did Jesus send the Father or did the Father send himself?
WJ
Hi WJ,Did you send this Post or did someone else have to Post it for you?
Can you not send yourself and someone with you to “Disney World”? (Luke 1:37)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (chosenone @ May 01 2010,13:13) Concordant Studies THE ONLY TRUE GOD
WE BELIEVE that, ultimately speaking, “there is no other God except One” (1 Cor.8:4b). That One, is “the Father, out of Whom all is” (1 Cor.8:6). He alone is the Supreme (Lam.3:38; Dan.4:17); He alone is the Almighty (2 Cor.6:18; Rev.16:14).
In Hebrew, “Yahweh” is God’s name; “Elohim” is (the most common form of) God’s title. The divine name speaks of the One Who is, was, and is coming (Rev.1:8); the divine title speaks of the One Who places or subjects, “according as He is intending” (1 Cor.12:11b; cf “Yet now God [lit., “the Placer”] placed the members, each one of them, in the body according as He wills,” 1 Cor.12:18; cp 1 Cor.12:27b). Therefore, when we say “Yahweh,” we should think: “the One Who is, was, and is coming”; and, when we say “Elohim” or “God,” we should think: “the Placer” or “the Subjector.”
It is important to recognize that “GOD” is not a personal name, an expression by which one is known, but is a title, added to a personal name, indicative of one’s office. A name speaks of that which one is called; a title speaks of that which one does, the capacity in which one serves.
While the title “GOD,” when used relatively, can be used in reference to many beings, when it is used absolutely, it is only used in reference to one Being, God Himself. When this title, “GOD” (or “ELOHIM”) is used of the One Whose name is Yahweh, the One Who is All-Sufficient, Who is the Supreme, the Almighty, of the One Who is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only true God, or otherwise of the One, so termed, Who is spoken of in contrast to or as distinct from Christ, it is evident that it is used in its absolute sense.
The title “GOD” (or “ELOHIM”), then, neither signifies nor entails either supremacy or unoriginatedness of being. Nor is it a term indicative of the essential nature of the being so designated. It is certainly true when this title is used in reference to the only true God, that it refers to One Who is supreme and unoriginated, and Whose essential nature is distinct from other beings. But the fact that these things are true of the One Who is the only true God, is no indication that any of these things are true of the word “GOD,” itself, or of any other beings to whom this same word (“GOD”) refers, when used in a relative sense.
It is deeply mistaken, then, to reason that since the word “GOD” is sometimes used in reference to Christ, men, or messengers, that therefore either Christ, men, or messengers, are unoriginated, supreme, or of the same essential nature as the Almighty.
The word “God” (or “god”), like all titles, concerns itself with office or service. In Greek, its stem, the- signifies PLACE; hence, the complete form, theos (GOD), means PLACer. This idea fits all the contexts in which theos is used. Theos is not only the original Greek word for the English “GOD,” but is also the inspired translation of the Hebrew “ELOHIM,” in all corresponding New Testament citations of Old Testament texts which refer to God Himself.
Any references to those lesser beings to whom the title GOD (“placer” or “subjector”) also applies notwithstanding, then, we say, Nevertheless, there is only one God. He alone is the Supreme, the Almighty One. He is the God, and Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and He is “the only true God” (John 17:3).
It is Christ Himself Who insists that this is so. The adjective alêthês (TRUE) speaks of “[that which is] in accord with the facts.” 1 In accord with the actual, literal facts, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ alone is God. He is the only Placer Who is not Himself placed by another. He alone is self-existent and self-sufficient. All others to whom this title is ascribed, including Christ, possess it in a derived sense, not in accord with the facts absolute, but relatively speaking, or, in some figurative way.
Supremely speaking, there is only one true God, even though, speaking relatively, and even in a righteous sense, “there are many gods” (1 Cor.8:5). For, indeed, “there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth” (1 Cor.8:5; cp Ex.22:8,9; Psa.82:6). Consequently, we should hardly be surprised that, in certain passages, Christ also is so termed (cf Titus 2:13; Heb.1:8; 1 John 5:20b). Except for God Himself, Christ certainly has a right to this title in a way unspeakably above that of all others, to whom it is also properly applied. Yet conversely, we must also realize that the ascription of the title “God” to Christ–in certain senses and in various connections–is no more indication that He is the Deity than that any others to whom this title is also ascribed are the Deity.SEEING THE INVISIBLE
The word “Godhead,” as in the Authorized Version and others, is a mistranslation of the nouns theiotês and theotês. Theiotês should be “divinity,” for it speaks of the attributes or qualities which pertain to God (Rom.1:20). The adjectival form, theion, should be rendered “divine” (e.g., 2 Pet.1:3,4). The idea which is conveyed in English under the figure “head,” forms no part of these Greek expressions. Yet it is this very term, “Godhead,” taken either in a pluralistic sense, or in a corporate sense, which is a pillar of “the sacred mystery of the Trinity.”
We believe that “there is no other God except One . . . .” and that this One is “God, the Father, out of Whom all is” (1 Cor.8:4-6). Yet we realize that the Father, the “Most High” (Luke 1:32) or “Supreme” God (Psa.87:5), speaking relatively, rightly says to the Son, “Thy throne, O God [O Placer], is for the eon of the eon” (Heb.1:8). Thus, Christ Himself is “the great God [Placer] and . . . Saviour” Whose advent we await (Titus 2:13).
However, we also believe, and insist, that Christ’s Head is God (1 Cor.11:3), “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory” (Eph.1:17). The Father, ultimately speaking, is “the only God” (Jude 24,25; cp Rom.16:27; 1 Tim.1:17).
We believe that Christ is the “Effulgence” (the Radiant Splendor) of God’s glory (Heb.1:3). Likewise, we believe that Christ is the Emblem of God’s assumption (Heb.1:3), of the role God assumes whenever, in the Person of His Son, He manifests Himself before His creatures. It is the ministry of Christ, Who is a tangible, visible Being, to represent His God and Father, Who is an intangible, invisible Being, whenever, and in whatever way, the Deity wishes to manifest Himself. Therefore, where we read that the One Who is spirit, Who is therefore essentially invisible, Whom, accordingly, no one has ever (literally) seen (John 1:18), is nevertheless “perceived” by certain of His creatures, we are to understand that such perception is either by the agency of Christ, Who is God’s Image, is visionary (Rev.5:1), or is through the eyes of faith (Matt.5:8).
It is only through the figure of anthropomorphism (human form) that the Supreme Himself is spoken of as having bodily members. Literally speaking, God is spirit (John 4:24), invisible (Col.1:15) and intangible, and so, in Himself, has no form or shape. How, then, does the Scripture speak of His arms and hands, His mouth, eyes, and face, as if He were a member of the human race? In all such cases, God condescends to our low estate and speaks to us in human language. Otherwise we could never understand Him or enter into His thoughts and feelings.
When God impresses us through His Word, it is as if a man speaks to us with his mouth, so this feature is ascribed to Him. Since God sees us as a fellow man does with his eyes, organs of sight are ascribed to the Deity. The human body is the basis of many figures which contrad
ict flatly the great facts concerning the Deity, if they are taken literally.
Spirit is intangible, imperceptible, and so is not an object of literal, or sentient, perception. Therefore God is not a Being of form or shape, these terms only being applicable to beings of corporeal, tangible existence.GOD'S CREATIVE ORIGINAL
It is Christ alone, the Word or Expression of God (John 1:14), Who unfolds the Deity (John 1:18), for He is “the Image of the invisible God” (2 Cor.4:4). Christ enjoys the highest delegated authority in the entire universe. Even as Christ, “the Firstborn from among the dead” (Col.1:18), was once actually among the dead, thus also, Christ, the “Firstborn of every creature” (Col.1:15), was once actually created. These passages are parallel, the proper understanding of verse 15 (Christ’s being the Firstborn of every creature), not depending upon verse 18 (Christ’s being the Firstborn from among the dead) for its own interpretation. But actually, the former verse sets the precedent for the latter passage’s proper sense, a sense which, ostensibly at least, no one doubts (the sense which reveals that Christ was once actually dead, that is, numbered among the dead).
Therefore the Son of God must have had a beginning. Consequently, our Lord must be One Who is among God’s creatures, though One Who is unspeakably higher than any other. His beginning, however, must have been before that of all others, since all 2 was created in and through Him (Col.1:16,17).
Truly, all is out of God (Rom.11:36), and all glory, even that which is Christ’s, is to be ascribed to God: “to [God] be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen” (Eph.3:21). Christ is “God’s creative Original” (Rev.3:14); literally, He is “THE ORIGINal OF-THE CREATION OF-THE God” (CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT sublinear), Who, as Christ Himself declared concerning His Father, is “the only true God” (John 17:3).
“Christ is God’s creative Original. According to the Greek, He is the Original, the Beginning, or the Chief, of every creation of God (Rev.3:14). The basic meaning of archê is ORIGIN, and all its forms are to be found under this word in the Concordance of the Concordant Version. In earliest times, all government was in the family, and the father, who originated it, was chief. So the stem came to be applied to the highest of a class, as the archangel, as well as the archetype, the pattern, or original. But the pattern comes before the product, the original before the copies. This accords perfectly with the fact that all creation was in Him. Adam was the original of all mankind; his descendants, and all originated in him. So Christ is the Original of creation.” 3
Metaphorically (in the sense that “this One is that One”), Christ Himself, as God’s Image, “is” the true God, even as He “is” life eonian (1 John 5:20b). And, even literally, in Himself, Christ is the great God (i.e., Placer) and Saviour of Whom Paul speaks in Titus 2:13. Nevertheless, it is Christ’s own God, His God and Father, Who is the Supreme and only true God.THE FORM OF GOD
The entire complement of the “Deity” [or, “deity,” theotês, PLACERship, the “GODness” or PLACERship of God] is dwelling bodily in Christ (Col.2:9). In a bodily way, the entire array of that which pertains to God is dwelling in Christ. Since the entirety of that which pertains to God yet cannot be communicated by God in Himself, Who is spirit, is dwelling bodily in Christ, it follows that Christ Himself is not the Deity.
Similarly, since Christ alone was “inherently [lit., “inhering,” i.e., existing by right] in the form of God,” He, accordingly, “deem[ed] it not pillaging to be equal with God” (Phil.2:6,7).
Since Christ is the Son of God, He is a Being distinct from God. Christ therefore was not equal to God in an identification-of-person sense; instead, the appearance of Christ was in a form which is to be identified as that which is proper to Deity. To all appearances, Christ was the same as, or “equal to,” God.
We are not told that Christ is a Form of God (and, therefore, that Christ is a mere Form, instead of a tangible, actual Being). Instead, we are told that God’s Anointed, Christ, before He emptied Himself, was “inherently in the form of God” (Phil.2:6). Form refers not to inward essence but merely to external appearance (e.g., 2 Tim.3:5). The form of God was not a manifestation of what Christ was in Himself, but a representation of His God. His glory consisted not in actually being the Deity, but in possessing the visible appearance through which God had chosen to manifest Himself.
“The form of God,” does not refer us to that of which God Himself is composed, nor is it an expression corollarial to the notion that God Himself is a corporeal being. Instead, it refers to the personal appearance of Christ, in which He inhered and thus deemed it not pillaging to be equal with God (lit., “ANOINTED JESUS WHO IN FORM OF-GOD belongING . . .”). Christ was inherently in the “of-God” form; thus He appeared to be the Deity. He Who is the Image of the invisible God, existed in the form which is proper to Deity, the form in which God would have Himself made manifest.THE CHRIST OF GOD
The English “anoint” is derived from the Latin inungere (to smear or rub on). The Greek verb criõ (“anoint”), is the basis of the noun christos, which in English is “christ.” It is to be regretted that we use “christ” for the noun of the verb anoint, thus obscuring its meaning from the ordinary reader. It corresponds to the Hebrew “messiah,” a title applied to priests, kings, and prophets after their consecration by means of anointing with oil. Our Lord Jesus Christ, is the Christ of christs, even as He is King of kings, for He is “anointed” by the spirit of God with the oil of exultation beyond His partners (Heb.1:9), beyond that of all others who also enjoy an anointing of God.
Christ Jesus is not the only one Who is anointed. We ourselves are “christs,” for all who have God’s spirit are christs (anointed ones). Paul told the Corinthians, “He Who . . . anoints [“christs”] us is God” (2 Cor.1:21). Similarly, those to whom John wrote were anointed as well, for he said, “You have an anointing [Greek: chrisma]” (1 John 2:20).
Anointing is always connected with service. It is the vital badge of office under God. Christ’s anointing, preeminently, equipped Him to be the Saviour, the Saviour of the world. As well as King and Prophet, His anointing made Him a Priest, a Mediator, “the one Mediator of God and mankind” (1 Tim.2:5). Thus He is “giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all” (1 Tim.2:6). He offered Himself to God. God did not offer Himself to Himself. The Offering was for us, to bring us to God. He did not offer Himself to bring us to Himself. We cannot approach God apart from Christ and His sacrifice. Yet this does not make Him God, but God’s Anointed, His Mediator.
The Lord Jesus did not assume the office of Messiah, until he was about thirty years of age. But at His first public utterance, in the synagogue at Nazareth, He declared that, “The spirit of the Lord is on Me, on account of which He anoints Me to bring the evangel . . .” (Luke 4:18). Similarly, Peter said to Cornelius that, “after the baptism which John heralds, [came] Jesus from Nazareth, as God anoints Him with holy spirit and power” (Acts 10:37,38). No ceremonial oil was even used when God anointed His Anointed One.
God is not the Anointed, but the Anointer. He never needs to be anointed, nor can He be, for He is already the Almighty, the All-Sufficient One. In Him the spirit is immanent, not imparted.
Anyone who is perfect and all-powerful in himself hardly needs to be anointed. The mere fact of our Lord’s being anointed shows that He was intrinsically lacking in the ability to fulfill His office. Christ’
s ability is not His own. It is derived from God, through His spirit. Of Himself, Christ could do nothing (John 5:30; cp John 8:28). “Now the Father, remaining in Me, He is doing His works” (John 14:10b).
The expression “the deity of Christ,” is simply preposterous, for it is a contradiction of terms. God cannot be anointed by another. God needs no preparation, no impartation or empowering, for He is the singular Source of all. Who is able to anoint Him? If Christ were the Supreme God, He would need no anointing. The possession of anointing by no means signifies Deity, but rather the opposite. No one who had any accurate idea of the scriptural function of anointing would ever accept the absurd thought that it was the equivalent of Deity. A christ, or anointed one, cannot literally be God, although, as God’s Image, the term may be figuratively applied to His Son. 4ONE IS GOD HIMSELF
“God” is not a term in reference to the Almighty’s esssential nature, but is an expression which speaks of His universal governance. It has special reference to the eonian times, and to the purpose of the eons which He makes in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph.3:11). That purpose, when all has finally been subjected (1 Cor.15:27), is for Him to become All in all (1 Cor.15:28).
It is indeed so that we are “sons” of God (Gal.3:26) and are members of His “family” (Eph.2:19). Nevertheless, and no matter how fully it may be that believers will “partake of” 5 the divine nature (2 Pet.1:4), this will not make them a part of God. There is only One Who is God; for any other, then, there is neither part nor lot therein.
Some who wish to point out that believers have a certain equality with Christ (e.g., Rom.8:29b) and are partakers of the divine nature, however, suppose that such considerations prove that we will someday “be God.” Some even claim that “Christians” are “little gods” even today. Those who argue thus, however, take the title “ GOD” as a term of essential nature or constitution. This is a fundamental error.
It is claimed that those who are saved will, one day, as a term of genus, belong to “the God family.” Such claims are made as if the Scriptures plainly declared them to be so. It is simply incorrect, however, to affirm that “god,” when used in the plural, signifies a family of beings in which each member is of the same constitution or essence as God, the Father.
Historically, the teaching of “becoming God” is termed Apotheosis. Some who have affirmed a teaching of “Christian deification,” whether among the church fathers or in certain of the writings of the Eastern Orthodox church, by this have only intended “that men are ‘deified’ in the sense that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christian believers and transforms them into the image of God in Christ, eventually endowing them in the resurrection with immortality and God’s perfect moral character.” 6
If by the doctrine of Apotheosis (or “becoming God”), however, one intends to affirm that men are, or one day will become, constitutionally, of the same genus or speciation as God, the Father, this is unscriptural and is a form of polytheism. This is because such a teaching affirms a plurality of beings of which each is of the same consitution or essential nature as the supreme God. Thus, according to such a teaching, there is no supreme Being Who alone is God Himself. Such a proposition is contrary not only to Scripture, but to monotheism.
Actual Trinitarianism, together with Modalism and Arianism (the latter is the historic name closest to the Concordant teaching), are all monotheistic. This is because each of these teachings affirms that there is one Being Who alone is God Himself. This most fundamental propä1 osition is denied, however, by Apotheosis, such as is taught by Mormonism and others. Since monotheism is the teaching of Scripture, polytheism, in whatever form, is contrary to Scripture and is therefore false.
Since the issues are tightly drawn, either Trinitarianism, Modalism, or Arianism must be correct, insofar as the dispute between them is concerned. Is Christ an aspect of the Deity yet not Himself the Deity (Trinitarianism)? Is Jesus Himself the Deity (Modalism)? Or is it that the Father is the Deity (Arianism)? We must go on to decide which of these claims is correct. But before we do so, we can be certain that we are correct in rejecting Apotheosis.
In the ordinary sense of the word “God,” the Scripture no more teaches that men one day will “become God” than that I will be you or you will be me, or that either one of us will become either a tree or a fish. This is so, whether by “God” we have in mind God Himself, or, by association, ones who are of His constitutional essence.
It follows, then, that the sense in which it is true that God’s creatures will become His “children” and “sons,” is confined to the place (cf Eph.1:5) and privileges which they will enjoy; it does not extend to their essential nature. Therefore, the reasoning that says that since humans beget little humans, God begets little gods, is simply undiscerning and fallacious.
The fact that this title, “GOD,” applies to many others besides God, the Father, in various connections and senses, is beside the point. It is not that there is no sense at all in which the title “GOD” will ever be applied to us; therefore it is not incorrect to say that there is a sense in which it may be said that this or that person will one day be termed “a god” (i.e., a subjector). These things, however, are not disputed by ourselves, for the word “god” says nothing about one’s constitution, but only concerns one’s having some role in the subjection of all unto God Himself, that is, unto the supreme Subjector Himself, the only true God.James Coram
1. KEYWORD CONCORDANCE, entry “true,” p.310.
2. It is illogical to reason from the mere presence of the words “all is created through Him” (Col.1:16), that since “all” is created through Him, that Christ Himself, therefore, is not a created being. In the “all” that was created in and through Christ, as with the “all” which, in beginning, came into being through the “word” (or “Word”; John 1:3), in both cases, the One through Whom all these creative works were achieved, obviously, already existed Himself. The scope of the “all” of the context, then, in both of these passages, is all that came into being from the time when, through Christ, all these creative works began. From that point onward, all, without exception, was created in and through Him. Whether Christ, at some antecedent point in time, was Himself created, is a question which neither Colossians 1:16 nor John 1:3 can answer. Since neither of these verses are concerned with that issue, it is wrong to offer them as proof in denial of His creaturehood.
3. A. E. Knoch, “The Pre-existence of Christ,” p.4.
4. Portions of this section were adapted or excerpted from “Can the Deity be Anointed?” by A. E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches, vol.39, pp.103-112.
5. If one “partakes of” that which pertains to an apple pie, it hardly follows that one becomes an apple pie, or a component thereof.
6. Robert Bowman, Christian Research Journal, Winter/Spring, 1987, p.19; cited in THE AGONY OF DECEIT, “Ye Shall Be As Gods,” Walter Martin (Moody Press: Chicago, 1990), p.93.
Copyright © Concordant Publishing Concern
15570 Knochaven Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91387, U.S.A. 661-252-2112This publication may be reproduced for personal use
(all other rights reserved by copyright holder).
Hi Jerry,What was the purpose in 'you' Posting all this propaganda?
W.J. The first Christians did not believe in the trinity. It was Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian who was born in 155 A.D. to Pagan Parents. He is the one who first came up with it. First of all if the Holy Spirit would be a person then He would be the Father of Jesus, since it was the Holy Spirit who approached Maria.
There are several Scriptures that tell us that the Father is above all.
Ephesians 4:6 … God and Father of all, who is above all through all and in us all….
Deut. 4:35 Unto Thee it was shewed, that thou mightiest know, that the LORD He is God; there is none else beside Him.Deut. 6:4 “Hear O Israel:”The LORD our God, is one LORD.” LORD in both Scriptures is in capital letters.
1 Corinth. 8:4 'And that there is none other God but ONE.”
If I were you, Pastor I would reconsider my stand on the trinity and take heed….
Even Jesus Himself tells us in John 14:28 ….my Father is greater then I.” I am not going to say that Jesus is lying…. And then there is Math. 15:9
Peace and Love IreneQuote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,12:20) Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2010,18:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,10:07) Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2010,17:50) Hi WJ, What's the “HolySpirit's” Name? (Matt.28:19)
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDMatt 28:19 contradicts your theology Ed for you believe the Holy Spirit is the Father.
WJ
Hi WJ,How so?
EDRead it again. Already answered.
WJ
Hi WJ,I must of missed where you Posted it; could you be a little more specific as to where it is?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
