The Trinity Doctrine

[NickHassan]

Hi MJ,
Thomas said
“My Lord
and
my God”.

why?

He was a good listener.

Jn 14
” 5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”

[NickHassan]

Hi MJ,
What do you mean here?

“God the Son was always fully God”

Is it possible to be partially God?
Where is 'God the Son' in the bible?

If he was our God
who was the Word
who was with God?

[NickHassan]

Hi MJ,

you say
“So to try and argue that Jesus is not God, just the Son of God, is fatuous.”

Do you realise that Jesus never claimed to be God
but what you find fatuous
was stated as fact by

God
Jesus,
Peter,
John,
John the baptist,
Paul
Martha

and some
Soldiers
etc

You may not find all these witnesses to be convincing but some should strike a chord.

[epistemaniac]

1. Where in the Scripture does it say that God is unitarian? (or that God exist as one Person?)

Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being: mono (from monos, meaning, alone or only one) and theism (from theos, meaning, God). Oneness adherents wrongly assume that the word one when referring to God (e.g., Deut. 6:4) has the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude.

2. If God is unitarian, how do you explain passages such as Genesis 19:24 where Yahweh (“LORD”), rained brimstone and fire from the Yahweh out of heaven?

Note: there are many places in the OT where God is presented as multi personal (e.g., the person plural personal pronouns used of God, i.e., “Us,” “Our,” in Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; and Isa. 6:8 [also see John 14:23]; Yahweh to Yahweh and Elohim (“God”) to Elohim correspondences in passages such as Gen. 19:24; Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 48:12-16; and Hos. 1:6-7).

3. If God is unitarian, why are there so many plural descriptions in the OT (viz. plural nouns, adjectives, and verbs) to describe God?

Example: in Isaiah 54:5, “Maker” is plural in Hebrew, lit., “Makers”; same with Psalm 149:2 where “Maker” is in the plural in Hebrew. The same can be said in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where the Hebrew literally reads, “Remember also your Creators” (plural in Heb.). Thus, because God is tri-personal He can be described as both “Maker” and “Makers” and as “Creator” and “Creators.” He is one Being, not one Person—a point that is repeatedly brought to bear by the OT authors.

4. If God is unitarian, why is it that there are so many places in the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are clearly distinguished from each other in the same verse?

Example, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Also see passages such as Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2 where all three Persons of the Godhead are referred—in the same verse.

5. If Jesus is the Father, why is it that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “the Son” over two hundred times in the New Testament, and never once is he called “Father?

The preexistence of the Son

6. If the “Son” has not eternally existed with (personally distinct from) the Father why then is the Son presented as the Agent of creation, that is, the Creator? (for in Oneness theology only Jesus as the “Father” mode existed prior to Bethlehem).

Note: in passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:10, the “Son” is clearly and grammatically presented as Agent of creation, the Creator Himself. Specifically, in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2, the Greek preposition dia (“though”) is followed by a pronoun in the *genitive* case (or possessive case). Grammatically, when dia is followed by the genitive (as in these passages), the preposition indicates “agency” (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 368; J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. 31; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:478-79; and cf. also Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. [hereafter BDAG], 225).

Hence, exegetically these passages do not indicate that the Son was a mere instrument of creation (as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe), nor, as Oneness teachers say, do these passages indicate that the Son was only a thought or plan in the Father’s mind when the Father (Jesus’ divine nature) created all things. Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself. That the Son was the Creator clearly disproves the Oneness position.

This is the greatest weakness of the Oneness position: For if the Son created, then, He eternally existed with the Father.

7. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinct Person why is it that the “Son” can say, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had [eichon, or “shared”] with You before the

world was” (emphasis added)?

How did the Son have (literally, actively possessed) glory with (para) the Father before time if the Son did not exist before Bethlehem?

Note: In this beautiful passage (Jesus’ high priestly prayer) the “Son” (for Jesus says, “Now, Father”) says that He possessed or shared glory with the Father, before time.

To avoid the plainness of the passage (namely, the preexistence of the Son and His personal distinction from His Father), Oneness teachers argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with the Father, only signified the future glory or “plan” in the Father’s mind, thus anticipating the Son’s coming at Bethlehem. But the Son, they say, was not really there with the Father “before the world was.” However, consider the following:

Grammatically, when the preposition para (“with”) is followed by the dative case (as in this verse: para seautō, “with Yourself” and para soi, “with You”), especially in reference to persons, it indicates “near,” “beside,” or “in the presence of” (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 378 and any recognized Greek Grammar or recognized Lexicon of the NT such as BDAG, 757). Noted Greek grammarian, A. T. Robertson says of the passage that

This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, “with thee”) “which I had” (hēi eichon, imperfect active of echō. . . . (Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:275-76).

8. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinct Person why is it that the “Son” is said to be “sent” from the Father “out of heaven”?

Scripture presents in plain and normal language that the preexistent Person of the Son was sent from the Father (e.g., John 3:13; 16-17; 6:33, 38, 44, 46, 50-51; 62; 8:23, 38, 42, 57-58; 16:28; Gal. 4:4). Nowhere in the New Testament, however, is it said that Jesus sent the Son. If Jesus were the Father, as Oneness believers contend, one would expect to find a clear example of this—at least one passage.

John 3:13; 6:38, 46, 62; 8:23, 38, 42; 16:28.

“No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven [ek tou ouranou]: the Son of Man” (John 3:13). Thus, the Person of the Son of Man was in heaven prior to being sent. That the “Son of Man” was in heaven prior to Bethlehem creates a theological problem for Oneness doctrine. For the “Son of Man” in Oneness theology was not the Father, but the human Son who emerged not until Bethlehem, but here, the Son of Man came from heaven, that is, the Son.

Also see Philippians 2:5-11, where we read that the “Son” (see vv. 1:2, 2:9, 11) who, “existed in the form of God” [literally, “always subsisting as God”] . . . emptied Himself . . . taking the form of a bond-servant.” Note that the Apostle Paul indicates that the “Son” was always existing as deity. Oneness deny that the Son is God, only the “Father” (i.e., Jesus’’ divine nature) is God. However, here the “Son” is presented as fully God.

For in verse 6, Paul plainly asserts that Jesus was always subsisting as God: “who . . . existed [huparchōn] in the form of God [morphē theou]” (emphasis added). The word translated “existed” is huparchōn (the present active participle of huparchō). The present particle indicates a continuous existence or continually subsisting (see BDAG, 1029; Thayer, 63
8)—the Son was always God.

Hence, Jesus, the Son (cf. 1:2, 2:9, 11), did not become the very form or nature (morphē) of God at a certain point in time, rather He always existed as God. Further the “Son” is said to have voluntarily “made Himself nothing, taking [labōn]1 the nature of a servant” (vv. 7-8).

Note that the reflexive pronoun heauton, (lit. “Himself He emptied”) indicates a “self-emptying.”2 Thus, it was not the Father, as Oneness teachers

suppose, but the Son who voluntarily emptied Himself and became obedient to death—“even death on a cross” (v. 8).

9. If Oneness doctrine is biblically true, why then do the biblical authors use grammatical features that personally distinguish between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Example,

First and third person personal pronouns:

Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,” “His”) to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10, 16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit:

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon]3 Helper, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16; also see 14:7, 10, 26; emphasis added).

Repetition of the article:

Specifically, the repetition of the article tou (“the”) before each noun and the conjunction kai (“and”) that connects the nouns clearly denote a distinction between all three Persons named.4 Note Matthew 28:19: “in the name of the [tou] Father and the [kai tou] Son and the [kai tou] Holy Spirit.” Further, Paul clearly presents the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not as three modes of a unipersonal deity, but rather as three distinct Persons. The same grammatical distinctions are observed in 2 Corinthians 13:14:

The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God [tou theou (lit. “the God”)], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit be with you all (emphasis added).

In Revelation 5:13, the Lamb and the Father are presented as two distinct objects of divine worship, as they are clearly differentiated by the repetition of the article tō:

To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion for ever and ever (emphasis added).

“To Him who sits” (tō kathēmenō [lit. “to the one sitting”—the Father]) “and the Lamb” (kai tō arniō—the Son) are grammatically differentiated by the repeated article tō (“the”), which precedes both nouns and are connected by the one conjunction kai (“and”). Further, turning to 1 John 1:3, not only does John show that believers have fellowship with both the Father and the Son, but the Father and the Son are clearly distinguished as two Persons by the repeated article tou (“the”) and the repeated preposition meta (“with”):

we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with [meta] us; and indeed our fellowship is with the [meta tou] Father and with [meta] His Son [tou huiou] Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3; emphasis added).

There are many other passages where this construction applies clearly denoting distinction between the Persons in the Trinity (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; 1 John 2:22-23).

Different prepositions: Throughout John chapter 14 (and chaps. 15-16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. This use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between them,”5 and clearly denotes essential distinction, e.g., “no one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me” (John 14:6); “he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going to [pros] the Father” (v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28). Paul, too, regularly uses different prepositions to clearly differentiate the Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit:

For through Him [di’ autou—the Son] we both have our access in [en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera] (Eph. 2:18).

10. If Oneness doctrine (or modalism) is the so-called doctrine of the apostles, then, why was it universally condemned as *heretical* by the early church Fathers (some of who were disciples of the original apostles) and condemned by all the important church councils and creeds?

Example, Theodotus (the first known dynamic monarchianist) was excommunicated by Victor, the bishop of Rome, around A.D. 190; Noetus (the first known modalist) was condemned by Hippolytus and by the presbyters around the same time; Praxeas was marked as a heretic by Tertullian; Paul of Samosata was condemned at the Third Council in Antioch (A.D. 268); Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius bishop of Rome along with many important church Fathers condemned Sabellius and his teachings as Christological heresy. Moreover, significant Christian church councils affirmed the Trinity and explicitly rejected Oneness doctrine: e.g., Council of Nicea (325); Chalcedon Creed (A.D. 451); Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381); etc.

Consider this, Trinitarians, not Oneness believers, conducted all of the major revivals worldwide. Virtually all of the great biblical scholars, theologians, and Greek grammarians, historically have been and presently are Trinitarian, not Oneness—for obvious reasons. The church has branded Oneness theology as heretical since the days of Noetus at the end of the second century. Moreover, when it found its way in the twentieth century, departing from the Trinitarian Pentecostals, it was again rejected by the church.

Modalism rips the heart out of Christianity—it denies Christ by misrepresenting Him. To be sure, modalism embraces another Jesus, another Gospel, and another Spirit. There is only one true God. The Apostle John was very concerned as to the false beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ, as he gives this warning:

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23).

By promoting the Son as a temporary mode or a role of the unitarian deity whose life started in Bethlehem, denies the Son, as well as the Father.

——————————————————————————–

NOTES

[1] The participle labōn, is a participle of means (cf. Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 630). The participle describes the means or manner of the emptying. Hence, the Son emptied Himself by means of His incarnation (cf. John 1:14). Note that the emptying did not involve His deity, for Paul safeguards against such an assertion in verse 6: hos en morphē theou huparchōn (“who [Christ] always and continually subsisting in the very nature and substance God”; author’s translation).

[2] Cf. Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 350-51; Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology, 263.

[3] BDAG defines allos here as “pert[aining] to that which is other than some other entity, other . . . distinguished fr. the subject who is speaking or who is logically understood. . . .” (BDAG, 46).

[4] This grammatical rule is also know as “Granville Sharp rule #6: when multiple personal nouns in a clause are each preceded by the article ho (“the”) and linked by kai (“and”) each personal noun denotes a distinct person as in Matthew 28:19 (esp. 2 Cor. 13:14; also cf. 1 Thess. 3:11; 1 John 1:3; 2:22-23; Rev. 5:13).As NT scholar Harold Greenly points out, “When the article is used before each member, each is to be
considered separately” (Greenlee, Exegetical Grammar, 23).

[5] Beisner, “Jesus Only” Churches, 34. Additionally, the repetition of the preposition distinguishes the Father and the Son as two distinct self-aware Subjects (e.g., 1 John 1:3).

http://www.christiandefense.org/10%20QUESTIONS.htm#q1

[epistemaniac]

see also http://www.christiandefense.org/one_rejctTrin.htm

http://www.christiandefense.org/one_preexistence.htm

http://aomin.org/CHALC.html

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1173

http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner….00.html

http://www.letusreason.org/Onendir.htm

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/trinity.html

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/optrin.html

So… be clear about this… all who deny the Trinity are lost, having another Jesus, one that in reality, does not exist, and therefore, a God that does not exist, thus resting thier faith in an idol created from their own imagination (as Calvin well said, unsaved men's hearts are vertiable “idol factories”) and unbalanced, mislead, and sadly, even purposefully deceptive understanding of the trinitarian Scriptures…..

[Brian B.]

Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. The main reason I believe that firstborns are so highly honored by God. If your the firstborn, are you not created before anything else? Just as a woman gives birth to her first child. This is the first to come from her womb.
And to Epistemaniac: “Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself.” Show me a scripture to prove this.

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
You say
“Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being:”

That of course denies that Jesus Christ is a being with life in Himself. You deny the existence of the Son of God, which is not wise as salvation is in his name..
Acts 4
“10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

[epistemaniac]

Here is some interesting evidence proving that the early church did not “invent” the concept of the Trinity, that it is supposedly some some conspiracy invented by Constantine or some other such nonsense… instead, we have the following, written around 175 or 176 AD, showing that at least some in the early church clearly and uniquovacally asserted the full deity of the Son:

““And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nou`” kai; lovgo”) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nou`”], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikov”]; but in as much as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. “The Lord,” it says, “made me, the beginning of His ways to His works.” The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?” (Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians, chapt. X)

Since Athenagors was a teacher at a Christian academy, it is manifestly also clear then, that the doctrine of the full deity of the Son had been taught and believed well in advance of the date in which he wrote the above treatise.

This ought to put to rest the types of arguments advanced here by so many concerning the historicity of the belief.

Also, Theophilius, writing at about the same time, calls God a “trinity” when speaking of God the Father, His Word and His Wisdom in the treatise “To Autolychus”.

“b. Theophilus of Antioch was converted by the reading of the Scriptures. Around 180 he wrote Three Books to Autolychus. Autolychus was a learned magistrate whom Theophilus was trying to convert by rational arguments.

(1) Book One discusses the nature, attributes, works and superiority of God. He deals with immortality and faith, and exposes the immoralities of the pagan gods.

(2) Book Two compares pagan religion to Christianity to show the superiority of the latter. When we had formerly some conversation, my very good friend Autolycus, and when you inquired who was my God, and for a little paid attention to my discourse, I made some explanations to you concerning my religion; and then having bid one another adieu, we went with much mutual friendliness each to his own house although at first you had borne somewhat hard upon me. For you know and remember that you supposed our doctrine was foolishness. As you then afterwards urged me to do, I am desirous, though not educated to the art of speaking, of more accurately demonstrating, by means of this tractate, the vain labor and empty worship in which you are held; and I wish also, from a few of your own histories which you read, and perhaps do not yet quite understand, to make the truth plain to you (ch. 1).

(3) Book Three answers Autolychus= objections to the Christian faith. Theophilus was the first to use the word trias to refer to the Trinity.” (http://www.lessonsonline.info/Apologists.htm)

It is also well known that John the Beloved dealt a blow against early heresies by condemning Cerinthus' modalism:

“In especial, there was one Cerinthus, who was more active than others in his opposition to the doctrine of the person of Christ, and therein of the holy Trinity. To put a stop unto his abominations, all authors agree that John, writing his Gospel, prefixed unto it that plain declaration of the eternal Deity of Christ which it is prefaced withal. And the story is well attested by Irenaeus, Eusebius, and others, from Polycarpus, who was his disciple, that this Cerinthus coming into the place where the apostle was, he left it, adding, as a reason of his departure, lest the building, through the just judgment of God, should fall upon them. And it was of the holy, wise providence of God to suffer some impious persons to oppose this doctrine before the death of that apostle, that he might, by infallible inspiration, farther reveal, manifest, and declare it, to the establishment of the church in future ages. For what can farther be desired to satisfy the minds of men who in any sense own the Lord Jesus Christ and the Scriptures, than that this controversy about the Trinity and person of Christ (for they stand and fall together) should be so eminently and expressly determined, as it were, immediately from heaven?

….. that these oppositions which are made at present amongst us unto these fundamental truths, and derived immediately from the late renewed enforcement of them made by Faustus Socinus and his followers, are nothing but old banded, attempts of Satan against the rock of the church and the building thereon, in the confession of the Son of the living God. Now, as all men who have aught of a due reverence of God or his truth remaining with them, cannot but be wary how they give the least admittance to such opinions as have from the beginning been witnessed against and condemned by Christ himself, his apostles and all that followed them in their faith and ways in all generations; so others whose hearts tremble for the danger they apprehend which these sacred truths may be in of being corrupted or defamed by the present opposition against them, may know that it is no other but what the church and faith of professors has already been exercised with, and, through the power of Him that enables them, have constantly triumphed over. And, for any part, I look upon it as a blessed effect of the holy, wise providence of God, that those who have long harbored these abominations of denying the holy Trinity, and the person and satisfaction of Christ, in their minds, but yet have sheltered themselves from common observation under the shades of dark, obscure, and uncouth expressions, with many other specious pretenses, should be given up to join themselves with such persons (and to profess a community of persuasion with them in those opinions, as have rendered themselves infamous from the first foundation of Christianity), and wherein they will assuredly meet with the same success (i.e. none) as those have done who have gone before them……

This being received and admitted by faith, the explication of it is, — Secondly, To be insisted on, and not taken into consideration until the others be admitted. And herein lies the preposterous course of those who fallaciously and captiously go about to oppose this sacred truth: — they will always begin their opposition, not unto the revelation of it, but unto the explanation of it; which is used only for farther edification. Their disputes and cavils shall be against the Trinity, essence, substance, persons, personality, respects, properties of the divine persons, with the modes of expressing these things; whilst the plain scriptural revelation of the things themselves from whence they are but explanatory deductions, is not spoken to, nor admitted into confirmation. By this means have they entangled many weak, unstable souls, who, when they have met with things too high, hard, and difficult for them (which in divine mysteries they may quickly do), in the explication of this doctrine, have suffered themselves to be taken off from a due consideration of the full and plain revelation of the thing itself in Scripture; until, their temptations being made strong, and their darkness increased, it was too late for
them to return unto it; as bringing along with them the cavils wherewith they were prepossessed, rather than that faith and obedience which is required. But yet all this while these explanations, so excepted against, are indeed not of any original consideration in this matter. Let the direct, express revelations of the doctrine be confirmed, they will follow of themselves, nor will be excepted against by those who believe and receive it. Let that be rejected, and they will fall of themselves, and never be contended for by those who did make use of them.” (John Owen, A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Trinity, http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_b6.htm)

This proves that the most common arguments against the Trinity concerning the supposed historical novelty of the doctrine, coming as a result of pagan influences through Constantine etc etc ad nauseum, are faulty arguments, and therefore should be abandoned in light of what some in the early church did in fact believe concerning the nature of God, the full divinity and eternality of the Son and the Holy Spirit or “Wisdom”.

blessings

[epistemaniac]

Here are a few more such examples, which includes a brief summary of those just mentioned….

“N7. The Trinity: One God in Three ‘Persons’

Theophilus of Antioch (168-181/188 A.D.) “In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries [sun, moon, and stars] are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.” To Autolycus book 2 ch.15 p.101.

Athenagoras (177 A.D.) “Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognize also a multitude of angels and ministers,…” Athenagoras in A Plea for Christians (177 A.D.) ch.10 p.133 (He does not actually use the word Trinity though.)

Athenagoras “For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, – the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire;” A Plea for Christians ch.24 p.141

Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) “The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion [death], and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, …” Irenaeus Against Heresies book 1 ch.10.2 p.330. (He does not actually use the word Trinity though.)

Tertullian (200-240 A.D.) mentioned the Trinity numerous times. One place where he talked about the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is in Tertullian On Modesty ch.21 p.99

Clement of Alexandria (193-217 A.D.) in The Stromata book 5 ch.14 p.468 spoke of “the Holy Trinity.”

Origen (225-254 A.D.) speak of the three hypostases, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Commentary on John book 2 ch.6 p.328 (He does not actually use the word Trinity though.)

Gregory Thaumaturgus (240-265 A.D.) in A Declaration of Faith mentions the Father, Son, and he mentions the Trinity three times in his “Declaration of Faith” p.7.

A Sectional Statement of Faith (c.240-265 A.D.) (probably by Gregory Thaumaturgus, but it does not say) mentions the Trinity in ch.5 p.41 cgh.7p.7; ch.18 p.45; ch.20 p.45

Novatian (250/254-256/7 A.D.) wrote a whole Treatise Concerning the Trinity.

Anonymous Treatise Against Novatian (248-258 A.D.) while against Novatian, also teaches the Trinity. “Go ye and preach the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ That is, that that same Trinity which operated figuratively in Noah’s days through the dove, now operates in the church spiritually through the disciples. ch.3 p.658

Dionysius bishop of Rome (259-269 A.D.) “For the doctrine of the foolish Marcion, which cuts and divides the monarchy into three elements, is assuredly of the devil, and is not of Christ’s true disciples… For these [true disciples] indeed rightly know that the Trinity is declared in the divine Scripture, but that the doctrine that there are three gods is neither taught in the Old nor the New Testament.” Dionysius of Rome Against the Sabellians ch.1 p.365

Dionysius of Alexandria (246-265 A.D.) mentions the Trinity by name twice in Letter 4 ch.8 p.93.

Bishop Munnulus of Girba mentions the Trinity and quotes Matthew 28:19 “…in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” The Seventh Council of Carthage (258 A.D.) p.567

Euchratius Bishop of Thenae quotes Matthew 28:19 “…in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” and mentions heretics as blasphemy of the Trinity. The Seventh Council of Carthage (258 A.D.) p.568

Peter of Alexandria (285-311 A.D.) “Arius the heresiarch, the divider of the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity.” The Genuine Acts of Peter p.265

Methodius (260-312 A.D.) “For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreate, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality He is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty. For not on that account is the Son of God called king, because for our sakes He was made man,” Oration on Psalms ch.5 p.397. (also The Banquet of the Ten Virgins Discourse 8 ch.10 p.338 andch.11 p.339)” http://historycart.com/EarlyChristianDoctrines.htm#_Toc138742872

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
No teacher , no matter of which generation since Christ and the apostles, can match in veracity and integrity the scriptures themselves.
And since Trinity is not written it remains a myth.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,12:57)

Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being: mono (from monos, meaning, alone or only one) and theism (from theos, meaning, God). Oneness adherents wrongly assume that the word one when referring to God (e.g., Deut. 6:4) has the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude.

To epistemaniac

Haven't had time to read your post yet, but I did see the above quote.

When you address a person you say 'him' or 'he'. When you address a group of people or a family, you address them as 'they' or 'them'.

Therefore when you address your God, you should address them correctly as 'them' or 'they' should you not?

In my family there are 3. I am the Father, and I have a son. But no one would refer to all of us as 'him' or 'his' or 'he'. Even if in nature we are all the same. Even if I am one flesh with my wife.

In the scriptures God is referred to as 'him' and 'he'.
But your God is 'they' and 'them'.

Doesn't sound like the same God to me.

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
You say
“1. Where in the Scripture does it say that God is unitarian?”

Is this how you dare judge God, according to human denominational descriptions?

God is not a Calvinist, or a Catholic either

[Proclaimer]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,17:50)

Origen (225-254 A.D.) speak of the three hypostases, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Commentary on John book 2 ch.6 p.328 (He does not actually use the word Trinity though.)

To epistemaniac

So what if Origen mentions the Father, son, and Holy Spirit. So do the scriptures. But the Trinity is not proven by the mention of these, rather by the relationship described in that doctrine.

If you want to know what Origen believed, then try the following. I don't think you will see the Trinity, rather you will see that he says what the Trinity says is false doctrine. “…to deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name…”

(Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom “the” theos is “the” theos, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos (“the god”), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos (“the word”) of ho theos (“the god”) , who was in the beginning, and who by being with “the” theos (“God”) is at all times theos (“god”), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Brian B. @ Aug. 31 2006,19:19)

Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. The main reason I believe that firstborns are so highly honored by God. If your the firstborn, are you not created before anything else? Just as a woman gives birth to her first child. This is the first to come from her womb. And to Epistemaniac: “Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself.” Show me a scripture to prove this.

Brain, the term “firstborn” does not always refer to the idea of a literal first born child as in human procreation…. if you want to insist that this is so, you are going to have an irreconcilable contradiction in the Bible.

(Genesis 41:51-52) Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father's house.” The name of the second he called Ephraim, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”

Yet the Bible later specifically contradicts this, if “firstborn” MUST be taken in the sense you are suggesting:

(Jeremiah 31:9) With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”

So the person that was “firstborn” was first Manasseh and then changed to Ephraim… thus indicating a change in their status, not their birth order.

Thus the term “firstborn” is used as a description of a place of preeminence, of honor, and it is this sense that it must be used of the Son of God, for even the title “Son” as used of Jesus must be different then that of the way it is used in speaking of humans, since Jesus was born as the result of a supernatural miracle, not having an earthly father at all. And when we look at the way the term is used of Jesus in the NT, we see that it is indeed a description of Jesus' position of honor.

(Colossians 1:18) And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.”

Re your saying “And to Epistemaniac: “Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself.” Show me a scripture to prove this.”

Simple enough…

Jesus is the creator and sustainer of the entire creation;

(John 1:1-3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

(1 Corinthians 8:6) yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

(Colossians 1:15-17) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

(Hebrews 1:1-3) Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,”

hope that helps…

blessings

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2006,22:53)

Hi E, No teacher , no matter of which generation since Christ and the apostles, can match in veracity and integrity the scriptures themselves. And since Trinity is not written it remains a myth.

really? how quickly you forget that Jesus is specifically and explicitly called God….. do you need me to remind you yet again of this fact Nick?

[epistemaniac]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 31 2006,23:16)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,12:57) Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being: mono (from monos, meaning, alone or only one) and theism (from theos, meaning, God). Oneness adherents wrongly assume that the word one when referring to God (e.g., Deut. 6:4) has the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude. To epistemaniac Haven't had time to read your post yet, but I did see the above quote. When you address a person you say 'him' or 'he'. When you address a group of people or a family, you address them as 'they' or 'them'. Therefore when you address your God, you should address them correctly as 'them' or 'they' should you not? In my family there are 3. I am the Father, and I have a son. But no one would refer to all of us as 'him' or 'his' or 'he'. Even if in nature we are all the same. Even if I am one flesh with my wife. In the scriptures God is referred to as 'him' and 'he'. But your God is 'they' and 'them'. Doesn't sound like the same God to me.

no, not at all… God is one in essence so it is perfectly appropriate to adress God in the singular…..

t8, are you God? were you born as a result of the Holy Spirit overshadowing your mother? Do you dare forgive sins committed against God? Can you raise yourself from the dead? Just as these things are all not properly to be said of you, so too, trying to equate your human familial relationship scheme to that of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is way beyond comparing apples and oranges. God is sui generis, completley unique. Sure, we are created in God's image, and it is appropriate to use anthropomorhisms when speaking of God, but don't allow yourself to be drawn into the error of the Mormons when they go so far with this that Mark Twain rightly said of people in generla…

“in the beginning God created man, and ever since that time, man has been trying to repay the favor”….

so I urge you to take great care in comparing yourself and your relationships to God, you may end up creating God in your own image…..

blessings

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2006,23:17)

Hi E, You say “1. Where in the Scripture does it say that God is unitarian?” Is this how you dare judge God, according to human denominational descriptions? God is not a Calvinist, or a Catholic either

ROFOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are too much…. so much for a little satire ehhhh?

the point of this, Nick, is that just as antitrinitarians constantly try and say that the Trinity is unbiblical because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Scripture, so too, then, would the same argument apply to the Unitarians. Get it? lol…… Its the same for you and anyone else who tries to object to the doctrine for the same silly juvenile reasons, none of us exclusively quotes the Bible to one another, never using our own words to interpret the Scriptures, in order to convey meaning, and in doing so, using terms that may not appear in Scripture. Every time we engage in interpretation, and use words that are not Hebrew or Greek, we engage in using words that are not “biblical”. Yet for some reason, due to a great deal of muddle headed thinking, it is thought that objecting to the Trinity because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the scriptures is some kind of substantial objection to the doctrine!! ROFLOL!!!! And I see people here using the same tired tired TIRED old argument again and again and again even though it has been refuted time and time and time again….. sheesh…. what is going to take to get this through some heads….!?!? I mean… go ahead and disagree with the doctrine all you want…. fine… but DON'T be stupid and object for ridiculous reasons…..

THAT is the point of point number 1 Nick… comperhende?

blessings

[epistemaniac]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 31 2006,23:23)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,17:50) Origen (225-254 A.D.) speak of the three hypostases, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Commentary on John book 2 ch.6 p.328 (He does not actually use the word Trinity though.) To epistemaniac So what if Origen mentions the Father, son, and Holy Spirit. So do the scriptures. But the Trinity is not proven by the mention of these, rather by the relationship described in that doctrine. If you want to know what Origen believed, then try the following. I don't think you will see the Trinity, rather you will see that he says what the Trinity says is false doctrine. “…to deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name…” (Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2) “We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom “the” theos is “the” theos, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos (“the god”), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos (“the word”) of ho theos (“the god”) , who was in the beginning, and who by being with “the” theos (“God”) is at all times theos (“god”), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

t8… are you not reading carefully? I plainly said that because some of the early church fathers taught the full deity of Christ and the separate personalities and equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it DOES NOT PROVE, per se, that the doctrine is true. That is what I said. Go back and reread it. Ultimately, the doctrine is true if the Bible teaches it. But that is quite beside the point I was making. And that point is this: those who object to the doctrine by saying that it is a 4th century innovation or some such other like “objection”, are manifestly and historically mistaken. So just as one cannot reasonably object to the Trinity simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the English translations of the Scripture, so too, one cannot reasonably object to the doctrine of the Trinity by saying that it was “invented” by Constantine or some church council who were sitting around trying to figure out new doctrines to invent out of whole cloth.

Do you understand both the limit AND extent of what I am saying here?

blessings

[NickHassan]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2006,23:42)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2006,22:53) Hi E, No teacher , no matter of which generation since Christ and the apostles, can match in veracity and integrity the scriptures themselves. And since Trinity is not written it remains a myth. really? how quickly you forget that Jesus is specifically and explicitly called God….. do you need me to remind you yet again of this fact Nick?

Hi E,
I asked you before to explain why
Jesus is called the Son of God very often in scripture
and by the greatest possible witnesses and
“God” only a few times and yet you prefer the second to the first as foundational truth.

Why is this?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,18:49)

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 31 2006,23:16) Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,12:57) Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being: mono (from monos, meaning, alone or only one) and theism (from theos, meaning, God). Oneness adherents wrongly assume that the word one when referring to God (e.g., Deut. 6:4) has the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude. To epistemaniac Haven't had time to read your post yet, but I did see the above quote. When you address a person you say 'him' or 'he'. When you address a group of people or a family, you address them as 'they' or 'them'. Therefore when you address your God, you should address them correctly as 'them' or 'they' should you not? In my family there are 3. I am the Father, and I have a son. But no one would refer to all of us as 'him' or 'his' or 'he'. Even if in nature we are all the same. Even if I am one flesh with my wife. In the scriptures God is referred to as 'him' and 'he'. But your God is 'they' and 'them'. Doesn't sound like the same God to me. no, not at all… God is one in essence so it is perfectly appropriate to adress God in the singular….. t8, are you God? were you born as a result of the Holy Spirit overshadowing your mother? Do you dare forgive sins committed against God? Can you raise yourself from the dead? Just as these things are all not properly to be said of you, so too, trying to equate your human familial relationship scheme to that of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is way beyond comparing apples and oranges. God is sui generis, completley unique. Sure, we are created in God's image, and it is appropriate to use anthropomorhisms when speaking of God, but don't allow yourself to be drawn into the error of the Mormons when they go so far with this that Mark Twain rightly said of people in generla… “in the beginning God created man, and ever since that time, man has been trying to repay the favor”…. so I urge you to take great care in comparing yourself and your relationships to God, you may end up creating God in your own image….. blessings

To epistemaniac

Sorry but your God is 3 persons. Everyday I bet you address persons as “him” “his” etc.

Your God is “them” and “they” (plural). Or do you not address God as person/identity?

It is correct to address a person as “him”, “his” (singular).

Also, a person calls himself “I”.

Scripture uses “I” when referring to a person.

“I am he who speaks to you.”
“I am Gabriel.”

YHWH says:
“I am that I am”.
Not “We are that we are”.

Your God is plural persons. “They”, “Them”.

If you cannot say “them” then you deny right there that your God is 3 persons do you not?

You contradict yourself and your teaching is found wanting.

[Author]

Posts