Sabbath 14/4/29/120
Dear Friends,
The issue of the Nature of God is emerging once again as the central tenet of the Trinitarian faith and is now being advanced as a test of what distinguished Christianity from other faiths. Thus they assert that if you deny the Trinity you are not a Christian.
This idea or teaching is not new. It has been the source of the major persecution of the Church of God by the Roman and Trinitarian system. From 1645 it was a capital offence to deny this doctrine. That was in spite of the fact that it was an invented doctrine, not in the Bible, and only developed in the period leading up to the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE. It was not even advanced in the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. It was Binitarianism that had its birth at Nicaea.
We will deal with the article by Dr. Paul Dean who is concerned that the doctrine of the Trinity is under attack from Modalists, and from Feminists in various faiths. Recent declarations of the Presbyterian Church have caused significant concern among Trinitarians. The doctrine is obviously reverting to its origins. Those origins stemmed from both Modalism, which saw one entity in three elements, and the Mystery cults which saw a Triune system centred on the mother goddess, and her son/lover, and the infant which represented the invincible sun god.
Dr Paul Dean writes as though the Trinity is part of the Revelation of God through His word, which is manifestly untrue and denied by the great theologians of both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Calvin, Harnack and Brunner all hold that the Bible is Unitarian. The Trinity is not a Bible doctrine.
In his article “The Trinity under Attack” Dr. Dean says:
“Doctrine is under attack, as it always has been, in the Christian church. Historic
church councils and great debates have helped to ward off the ever encroaching
error that originates from the depraved heart attempting to re-imagine God in
his own image rather than submitting to the authority of God's revelation of
Himself in His word. Among other vital doctrines under attack today from numerous
sources and in a seemingly unending variety of ways is the doctrine of the Trinity.
Consider the fact that a commitment to Modalism is wide-spread in certain segments
of evangelicalism. Perhaps the most common expression of that persuasion is
found among prominent leaders within the pale of Christendom who teach, among
other things, that Christ was not God until His baptism and ceased to be God
at His crucifixion.”
Modalism emerged in the second and third centuries and attempted to assert that God separated His nature and came down and assumed human form, and then returned on the death of Christ to the modal form as the one God. This doctrine is explained by the Bible as the Doctrine of Antichrist, as it attempts to separate the humanity from the divinity of Christ.
There is also a form of Radical Unitarianism that emerged with the Unitarian Universalists and those who are denying the pre-existence of Jesus Christ. (See the paper The Pre-existence of Jesus Christ (No. 243)).
However, many Radical Unitarians hold that Christ ascended into heaven in accord
with the Bible texts. This claim of Dr. Dean may be an attempt at trivialising
the claims of Unitarianism per se by ignoring the serious claims it makes, and
segmenting the argument into the more obscure perversions of the doctrine. He
goes on to address a strange development among the Presbyterians in the US.
He says:
“More startling is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the fact that they just
voted to receive a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity,
according to the AP. ‘Church officials can propose experimental liturgies with
alternative phrasings for the Trinity." The Divine Trinity, "Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit," could now be referred to as "Mother, Child,
and Womb," or "Lover, Beloved, and Love.’
This move, if correctly reported, is a very serious matter. The Bible structure
is specific in its language and there is no room for this variation that is
in fact based on the Mother Goddess theology (see also Mysticism
Chapter 7 (B7_7)) and is at the root of Feminism.
There is a move to specify salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ. The variations on this Grace Versus Law argument are legion. The Trinity in fact confines the capacity to become or be God as elohim to the three elements of the Triune God, which is now the Trinity of the mainstream structure. It depends on the doctrine of the Immortal Soul for coherence and strikes at the every capacity to become elohim through the extension of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostalism in the US is denying any dependence on Law and Works and demands simply an appeal to Jesus Christ to be saved. Whilst it is true that salvation is extended by faith in Christ through Grace, it is equally and importantly true that salvation is retained by obedience to the law of God, and sin is transgression of the Law. It was not the early doctrine (see the paper Original Doctrines of the Christian Faith (No. 88) and also Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127)).
Dr Dean quotes the Baptist Press which states:
‘Some Bible scholars [Clark Pinnock to name one] recently have used the Trinity
to teach that many will be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ,’
He then goes on to say:
“Thank God for Stephen J. Wellum, editor of the Southern Baptist Journal of
Theology, who notes that the Trinity ‘is at the core of a biblical understanding
of God.’ Wellum refutes the assertion that the Trinity teaches that many will
be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ and ‘argues that the Trinity actually
demonstrates just the opposite -- that salvation is found by faith in Christ
alone. The Trinity, he argues, is 'at the heart' of what differentiates Christianity
from other religions.’"
Now this claim is quite the reverse of the theological reality. The Bible teaches explicitly on salvation by Grace and Law and the matter has been examined in the paper The Relationship Between Salvation by Grace and The Law (No. 82)).
Trinitarians have adapted a form of doctrine of the Nature of God and superimposed the Triune God upon it, and then tried to enforce the doctrine on those who follow the Bible texts. The doctrine is logically incoherent and is responsible for the internal conflict, unrest and intolerance in Christianity. It is explicitly anti-Christian.
Dean claims that:
"The doctrine of the Trinity is not an esoteric, abstract theory that is
unimportant to practical Christianity, but instead is at the very heart of the
Christian life, essayists assert in the latest edition of the [Journal]."
Further, ‘at the heart of Scripture's presentation of our great and glorious
God is the doctrine of the Trinity...[U]nderstanding God as triune is central
to everything Scripture says about him, and it is what distinguishes him from
all other conceptions of 'god.'”
He then goes on to appeal to the claims of Dr Bruce Ware, another Southern Baptist.
”Dr. Bruce Ware, ‘who serves as professor of theology at Southern Seminary, discusses the relationship between the Trinity, Christ's identity as Savior and the atonement. Ware argues that God must be triune for Christ to be the Savior of sinners. 'The identity of Jesus as Messiah and Savior is tied, both historically and of necessity, to his relationships with the Father and Spirit, respectively,' Ware writes. 'Put differently, if you imagine for a moment removing the Father and the Spirit from the historical Person Jesus Christ of Nazareth, you realize that this Jesus the Christ could not be -- i.e., he could not exist and be who he is -- devoid of the Father and the Spirit. Indeed, the identity of Christ depends on the reality of the Trinity.' ‘
Christ exists as Saviour at the behest of God. The argument that Christ has
to be God to save sinners rests on Greek philosophical assumptions that are
wrong. This aspect has been examined in the paper God
our Saviour (No. 198) and others regarding the nature of God (see the papers
in the section Nature of God in the Bible
Study Program (B1)).
Dr Dean then states that: “Related implications are crucial” and goes on to
examine what he considers these related implications to be.
“First, precision is required when it comes to the issue of all doctrine as
it is God's revelation of Himself to us. The Trinitarian nature of God is no
exception despite the fact that we cannot fully comprehend that reality in all
of its glory. To misunderstand what is revealed or to say we can conceive of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways more relevant or palatable to our culture
is to change the very nature of God and thereby worship another God.”
This appeal to inexplicable mystery is a Catholic argument made from the early
days of the doctrine because of the logical incoherence of Trinitarianism. When
it fails they have then resorted to capital punishment to silence the adherents
of Biblical Christianity. These same people declared denial of the Trinity to
be a capital offence in the 1640s in the UK and from 1645 enforced the law.
Under Cromwell, Sabbatarians were called “Non- Conformists”. No Non-Conformist
could hold officer rank in the Parliamentary Army under command of Cromwell
and he fell out with one of his generals for commissioning Non-Conformists.
For a thousand years Non-Conformists have been persecuted openly and then privily
in most administrations. An honest theologian admits the artificial nature of
the Trinitarian doctrine. Even the Roman Catholics admit the problem and are
open about the derivation of the doctrine (cf. LaCugna, GOD FOR US The Trinity
and Christian Life, Harper, San Francisco, 1991; see the CCG work Statement
of Beliefs (A1) and the Appendix for relevant quotes). Protestant Trinitarians
are dependent upon an appeal to Scripture and are then faced with the problem
that the Trinity is not supported by the Bible. They then had to forge the texts
and rely on the forgeries and misinterpretation that litter the KJV.
The second point Dr. Dean makes is essentially correct in that Trinitarians
are also faced with the growth of Feminist dissent, which strikes at the very
heart of the Bible language and corrupts the texts. This is the doctrine that
the Bible identifies as the deity adored by women and is not new. It is the
Mother Goddess Cult and dates back to Ancient Babylon. It is only subsequent
to Noah and was extant even at the time of Abraham. He says:
“Second, the feminist influence in our culture, and indeed in evangelicalism,
is clearly seen in the push to change patriarchal language with specific reference
here to the way in which God has revealed Himself to us. We are not ignorant
of the fact that God is Spirit (John 4), but He has indeed revealed Himself
to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Further, when Christ appears, we will
see Him as He is, the man Christ Jesus, who is also God. We will not see Him
as her or as some androgynous hermaphrodite. Moreover, not only do we see a
feminization of the church in the use of terms like Mother for God, but, even
the construct of ‘Lover, Beloved, and Love’ springs from the same well. Certainly
God is love and for that we are grateful. But, while I used to tell my Dad before
he died that I loved him, I certainly never referred to him as my lover, nor
would any other real man for that matter.”
This second concept is also being advanced to attack the heterosexual discourse of the Bible.
In his third point he appeals to Jude and the “Faith once delivered to the saints” but fails to come to grips with the fact that Jude was not a Trinitarian, but was the Unitarian brother of Jesus Christ. The Trinity did not exist as a concept in the First Century and anyone advancing that concept would have been removed from the Church as a heretic. In the second century, even in Rome, Christ was acknowledged as the Great Angel that delivered the law to Moses at Sinai (cf. Justin Martyr and as quoted in the paper Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127)).
Dr. Dean says:
“Third, a discontentment permeates the church today in terms of the faith
once for all delivered to the saints. That faith or body of truth, as saving,
though certainly grounded in an experience with Christ, is nevertheless, in
many ways, propositional. Experience oriented cultures are not content with
the "normal Christian life" and always seek something extra. As noted,
this same discontentment is expressed through a rejection of centuries-held
orthodox understanding and language. Of course, inherent in such discontentment
and in succumbing to feminist or other influences regarding doctrinal issues
points to the larger issue of rejecting biblical authority which further relates
to the work of God in the regenerate individual. The question arises, is He
at work or not?”
Protestant Trinitarians refuse to come to grips with the non-biblical nature of the doctrine and so seize on and assert that the claims of the Bible support the doctrine when they plainly do not. In fact, the tactic employed has been to claim the specific texts that refute the doctrine as proof texts, and people then quote them and are puzzled why others disagree with them, except for the same brainwashed groups that do not comprehend their incoherence.
In his fourth point Dr Dean does not understand that the Holy Spirit is not
a third element of a closed God, but the power of the Father that enables all
the elect to become elohim. So in using what is classic Unitarian explanation,
he confuses the reality of the Spirit as the Power of God proceeding through
Christ. In attacking the doctrine that the Spirit is at work in all lost people,
he does not understand that the Resurrection of the Dead is a Resurrection to
Krisis or Judgment of all people, and is at the end of the millennial system
as the Second Resurrection, and the First Resurrection is at Christ’s coming.
In essence he confuses the doctrines of the Bible with Rapturist doctrines of
American Protestantism and turns his back on the confession of the Reformation
(see the papers The Resurrection
of the Dead (No. 143) and The
Millennium and the Rapture (No. 95)). He says:
Fourth, to use the Trinity to support inclusivism is to misunderstand the nature
of God in the unified purpose and efficacy of the economic Trinity. It is the
Father who chooses a people for Himself from every nation, it is the Son who
purchases that people off the slave block of sin through His blood, and it is
the Spirit who applies the redemptive work of Christ to that people through
the work of regeneration in connection with gospel proclamation. The thought
that the Holy Spirit is at work in all lost people unto salvation apart from
the proclamation of the gospel is not only unbiblical, but is destructive of
missions motivation. But, the real issue here is what is implied in the thought
that the Father chooses to save every single person and that the Son atoned
for the sin of every single person. Such a construct produces a frustrated Trinity
if the Holy Spirit does not regenerate every single lost person. To put it in
plain terms, the Father and Son are moving the ball down the field with precision
only to have the Spirit fumble it at the goal line.”
The Spirit instructs all in the faith through the direction of God and Christ. Many are called but few are chosen. However, it is not God’s will that any flesh should perish. Therefore, all flesh will be given their chance at salvation in their own time. It is the power of God that ties the elect together. In analogy God is the Generator and the Spirit is the electricity. Christ cannot be God and at one with God without the Holy Spirit and neither can the elect (see also the paper The Elect as Elohim (No. 1)). Dr. Dean does not understand the sequence of the Resurrections and the fact that every person will be given an opportunity for salvation.
The Fifth point is actually a powerful instrument of logic against Trinitarian
argument and antinomianism, but Dr. Dean does not seem to realise what it is
he is saying. God did not give a set of laws through Christ to Moses, as was
the original teaching of the early Church only to revoke it later.
He says:
“Fifth, to use the Trinity to support inclusivism is also to pit the nature
of God against the teaching of God. If the Scripture teaches that Christ is
the only way to salvation, how can anyone look for a wider hope in a purely
theological construct? Again, such a position is one that rejects the authority
and plain teaching of Scripture, turns the nature of God on its head by positing
a God who can contradict what He says He does by what He actually does. Such
madness can only be birthed by a base sentimentality that calls into question
the goodness, fairness, and rightness of God.”
It is written: “Till, heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Mat. 5:18). God abides by His Laws and the system He gave to Christ from the beginning. He is immutable.
The Sixth point is nonsense. The Trinity was not invented until 381 CE and
is unbiblical. It is the source of confusion and incoherence in theology. It
is the source of the persecution of honest Christian development and is unrelated
to the Bible doctrines. He says:
“Sixth, to deny the Trinity is to pare away the rough edges of the gospel and
to destroy the uniqueness of the Christian faith as revealed to us by God. Trinitarian
doctrine is thoroughly Christian and part of the evidence of the bible's veracity
and trustworthiness.”
We would agree with his conclusion but not for the reasons he advances. Indeed,
as he says:
“Let us embrace sound doctrine and reject all attempts to sabotage the
biblical revelation of who God is. The issue is not which language we prefer;
the issue is which God we prefer. We either prefer the God of the bible, or,
a god of our imagination.”
Amen. Let us go to the word of God and divest ourselves of this man-made heresy
of the Trinity of the Fourth Century.
Wade Cox
Coordinator General
© Copyright 2006 Christian Churches of God, All Rights Reserved
