Sunday, March 17, 2019

The Doctrine of the Trinity, Part 4: Is the Holy Spirit a "Who"?


“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh, is our God,—Yahweh alone.” (Deut.6:4)



“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:” (Deut. 6:4)





            In the last article, in this series, I presented what the Doctrine of the Trinity teaches and explicitly states.  In this article, we will look at the first part of the Athanasian Creed, as well as the statements of Christian Trinitarian apologists and compare to scripture.



The above verse from Deuteronomy is called “the Shema”.  This is the declaration of Who God is and introduces the first and greatest commandment and was quoted by our Lord Jesus Christ, when answering the lawyer who asked, “Rabbi, what is the greatest commandment?” in Matthew 22.



That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another. (from the Athanasian Creed)




            Dr. James R. White stated on page 27 of his book, “The Forgotten Trinity”, that “When speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who’s.  The one what is the Being or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son, and Spirit.  We dare not mix up the what’s and the who’s regarding the Trinity.” My contention is that when it comes to the doctrine, Trinitarian apologists count on you confusing “the What with the Who’s” and even do so themselves as we will soon see.



            There is an important distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament that should be made in this article, as it is very important in determining whether the doctrine of the Trinity is actually a scripturally true concept of God.  In the Old Testament, we have recorded not only statements about God, but statements made by God.  The statements made by God in the New Testament (with the exception of the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ) are quotations from the Old Testament.  Why is that?  The reason is because God began to communicate in a way He had not done in the ages past. 



“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (Hebrews 1:1-2)



            In times past, God spoke to the fathers through the prophets in many different ways, and “has spoken to us in these last days by His Son”.  There is a lot packed into such a short passage of scripture.  Throughout the Old Testament, are recorded, God’s direct statements (such as in the Genesis creation account), instances where God is quoted by the prophets in “Thus sayeth The LORD” statements.  But, with His Son, God did something different.  We had a perfect Spokesman; One Who “unfolds/interprets/declares” (see John 1:18) God.  Jesus Christ, being the only begotten Son, was sent to make God known.  He spoke on God’s behalf to us.  He made this point explicitly and expressly when He said, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:10)





            Here, Jesus Christ was making a distinction in that the things He said, the doctrine He taught, the works He did, were not His own, but the Father’s.  Trinitarians would argue, “Yes, there is a distinction between The Son and The Father and that is why “The Father” is spoken of here, and not “God”.”  But, the question then becomes, “Who did not only the disciples believe the Father was/is, but also Who did Jesus Christ believe the Father was/is? 



            Jesus Christ, in His earthly ministry, was really the first to speak of God as our Father.   The idea of God as presented by the prophets was a more distant relationship; than that of a Father.  Although the Old Testament scriptures did describe angels as “sons”, the prophets and writers of the Old Testament did not reveal God as a Father; with one very notable but logical exception; King David . King David, in several of the Psalms, such as: Psalm 68:5 (“…a father of the fatherless…”), Psalm 89:26, (“…thou art my father, My God…”) portrayed God as a father.  Perhaps this understanding of God’s character being one of a father is one reason why God declared that David was “a man after mine own heart”; in that David to some extent understood the true heart of God.  However, the Greater David (Jesus Christ) would perfectly reveal God as “Father”.  The reason why the disciples referred to “God” many times as “The Father”, because that is how their Lord and Teacher revealed God to them.  But Who, exactly, was “The Father” to Christ and His disciples?  “The Father” is the singular God, and “The LORD”, and “YHWH”, and the “I am that I am” of the Old Testament scriptures.



            If we carefully note the 10s of thousands of singular personal pronouns used by God when quoted in the Old Testament (with the exception of 5 occurrences of plural pronouns as noted in “Part 1”), and the singular personal pronouns used by the One Who knows God the best; His only begotten Son; we will easily see that God is not only One in essence but also One in person and only One Person, The Father, is “the only true God”(John 17:3). 



            Many, if not all Trinitarian theologians will admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is not evident in the Old Testament.  I argue that with respect to the New Testament, the Trinity Doctrine; not only is not explicitly stated, but is not implied.  The Trinity Doctrine is, at best, created by attempting to link passages of scripture with others, ignoring the immediate context, and refusing to read the scriptural words through the necessary lens of understanding the Hebrew mindset which wrote the words.  If we ignore the meanings of those words and how those words would have been understood and used by those writing the very words we are attempting to read and comprehend, we are doomed to folly.



            When it comes to the English Word, “God”, translated from the Greek word, “theos”, we find it 1,343 times in the New Testament.  As discussed in the first article in this series, the Hebrews (including first century believers) had a much more broad understanding of the word “theos” (god) than we have.  If you are new to this series, I would encourage you to read articles 1-3 to gain an understanding of how the words translated as “god” are used in the scriptures and to whom the words can be applied. 



              For the purposes of our present discussion, I am not making a distinction here between “God” and “god”, because there was no such thing as capitalization in the ancient Greek, which the New Testament was written using.  Whether or not to capitalize (in order to refer to Almighty God) was the decision of the translators of the scriptures and its usage and context in the particular passage. 



When it comes to the word, “god”, and its 1,343 occurrences in the New Testament, we find it used almost without exception to be referring to God, the Father.  There are exceptions, but there are very few.  Below, are listed the occurrences (that I have been able to identify) in which “theos” is used to apply to people, persons, beings, or things, other than God, the Father:



“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;” (John 10:34-35)



“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”(2 Cor. 4:4)



“Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.” (Phil. 3:19)



“And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. 22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.” (Acts12:21-22)



“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)



“No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”(John 1:18)



“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.”(John 20:28)



            With the exception of the above passages, when it comes to the identity of whom is being spoken about by the title, “God”, it is very clear that a normal reading of the passage would indicate that the Father is Who is being referred to when “God” is used.  This fact becomes inescapably evident when taking the whole of scripture into consideration and when noting what is actually being stated in the scriptures.



           

            In the list above, did you notice that I did not provide a verse which refers to the Holy Spirit as “God”?  In a church service, I would imagine that (particularly at a baptism service), you have likely heard the phrase, “…God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit…” used.  Would it surprise you to learn that neither the phrase “God, the Son” nor “God, the Holy Spirit” can be found anywhere in the entire Bible?  The exact phrase of “God, the Father”, by contrast, can be found over a dozen times in the New Testament.



 The Trinitarian Doctrine (as noted in the first section of the Athanasian Creed, cited in the opening article) teaches that the Holy Spirit is the third “Person” of the triune “godhead”, distinct from The Father and the Son.  The Trinity Doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit is one of the “who’s” which makes up the Triune God, and that the Holy Spirit is both co-equal and co-eternal with the other two members of the Trinity.  It is equally important to note that the doctrine of the Trinity is emphatic that The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, The Holy Spirit is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and so forth. 

            The focus of this particular article is to examine the Trinitarian claims regarding the Holy Spirit and determine if these claims are consistent with scripture.  To summarize the previous paragraph, the doctrine of the Trinity claims that:



·       The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Triune Godhead; Co-Equal and Co-Eternal with God, The Father, and God, the Son.

·       The Holy Spirit is a “Who”; Who has “Personhood”.

·       The Holy Spirit is not the Father and the Father is not the Holy Spirit.

·       The Holy Spirit is “God, the Holy Spirit”.



The easiest claim to dismiss from a strictly biblical perspective is with respect to the phrase, “God, the Holy Spirit”.  I heard the late, L. Ray Smith, once offer a reward of $1,000 to anyone who could show him the phrase “God, the Holy Spirit” in any Bible.  For as much as that phrase is used in churches, you would think someone would have easily claimed their prize…but no one could because the phrase is not in any translation of the scriptures.



Next, we look at the co-equality claim.  The Holy Spirit is said to be the “third Person of the Trinity”; while the Son is the “second Person of the Trinity”.  The Trinity Doctrine states that the second person and third person are “co-equal”.  Did Jesus Christ consider Himself to be “co-equal” with the Holy Spirit?  Let’s consider the following scripture:



“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matthew 12:31-32)



“Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” (Mark 3:28-29)



If you have questions as to what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit it, I would encourage you to read my article entitled, “The Unpardonable Sin: Truth vs. Myth”, which can also be found on my blog page, thediscernerstavern.com.  If Christ Jesus considered Himself to be the co-equal, third Person of the Triune Godhead, why would He state that a word spoken against Him would be forgiven, but a word spoken against the Holy Spirit would not be pardoned in this age/eon or in the age/eon to come?  It would seem that there is some hierarchy which is not equal; otherwise a word spoken against the Son would be unpardonable in the same manner as a word spoken against the Holy Spirit.  This fact should be true, if both “persons” are indeed “co-equal”.



Is the claim that the Holy Spirit is a “person” scripturally accurate?  “Holy” isn’t a name; but is an adjective modifying the noun, “Spirit”.  In fact, the meaning of the word, “holy” is not very well understood by most Christians.  “Holy”, in its simplest meaning, denotes something (God, people, animals, spirit beings, and inanimate objects included) set apart by God.  The English words, “holy” and “sanctified” are the same Hebrew word, God, Himself, is “set apart” and distinct in many ways from His creation and creatures.  The implements of the tabernacle and temple were called “holy” (Ex. 30:25).  The people of Israel (even in their wickedness) were “holy” (Ex. 19:6) unto God; being “set apart” and made distinct from the nations.  An Israelite could make his house “holy” unto God (Lev. 27:14).  A field, in a jubilee year was to be “holy” (Lev. 27:21) unto God.  The first born cow, sheep, and goat were “holy” (Num. 18:17) unto God.  Even an enemy army used by God (“set apart”) was “holy” (Jer. 51:27,28; Isa. 13:3-5).  All of this to say that in the case of Holy Spirit; “holy” is descriptive of “Spirit”. 



All people have spirit.  Some say we have “a” spirit.  Regardless, I don’t know of anyone who believes that their spirit is a distinct person.  As we will soon see, the scriptures state that people can be given “holy spirit”.  So, are believers given a “person” or a “thing”?  How is “holy Spirit”, “Holy Ghost”, and “Holy Spirit” used in scripture?  Whether we see, “Holy Spirit”, “holy Spirit”, or “Holy Ghost”, in the scriptures, the underlying Hebrew or Greek is the same.  So, for convenience in this article, I will use “Holy Spirit” to indicate any of the three occurrences.



Certainly, if the Holy Spirit is a distinct “person” we should expect to read at least one account in the scriptures of the Holy Spirit having spoken and/or having used the personal pronoun, “I”, shouldn’t we?  There is no such account.  While we have many accounts of the Father speaking, or even someone speaking in the place of the Father, and many instances of the Son speaking, we have not one instance in all of scripture of a person identified as “Holy Spirit” having spoken or the singular personal pronoun “I” used of himself. 



When we speak of our spirit; even figuratively, we speak of it as “my” spirit or, when we are speaking of the spirit of others, we will say, “his” or “her” spirit.  For example, we might say, “The kicker’s spirit was crushed when he missed the last minute field goal that cost the team the game.”  The kicker isn’t one person while his spirit is another, distinct person.  Similarly, I don’t believe that were we to read the scriptures without the preconceived notion of reading the Trinity into the scriptures, we would comprehend “Holy Spirit” to be speaking of a distinct “person” apart from God, The Father.  In fact, consider the following verses:



“Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. (Psalms 51:11)



“But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. 11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?”(Isaiah 63:10-11)



“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30)



We have the personal, possessive pronouns used to identify Whose Spirit the writer is speaking of, in context of “Holy Spirit”.  In the previous three examples, the KJV translators used the lower case “holy Spirit”, indicating (at least in those verses) that it is a “thing” and not a “person” being spoken of in these instances.  The following verse is a little different.  The KJV translators had a “person” and not a “thing” in mind in the following verse; hence their usage of the capitalized “Holy Spirit”.  Who sends the “Holy Spirit”?  God, the Father sends Holy Spirit and of Who did David ask not take from David “His” (possessive personal pronoun) “holy Spirit”?  God, the Father. 



As with the verses cited above, we see something quite similar in Acts 5. 



“But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” (Acts 5:3-4)



In verse 3, Paul asks Ananias why he has lied to the Holy Ghost and then in verse 4 confirms that Ananias has not lied to men, but to God.  As I stated earlier in the article, whenever the apostles use the word, “God” it is almost always understood to be referencing God, the Father.



(KJV) “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”  (Luke 11:13)





In the above verse, Jesus Christ points out that one can ask The Father for Holy Spirit.  If the Holy Spirit, is a co-equal, third “person” of a Trinity, why would He not have said to ask the Holy Spirit directly to give himself?  In fact, I can find no scripture where anyone prays to the Holy Spirit or where anyone is told to pray to the Holy Spirit; yet the Father is asked for things and Christ Jesus is asked for things; both, directly.



So, should “whom” or “which” be used when referencing “Holy Spirit”?  Below are two verses in 3 different translations.  The KJV uses “Whom” (indicating a person) while the CLV and Rotherham Literal uses “which” (indicating a thing).



(KJV) “And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. (Acts 5:32)



(CLV)  “We are witnesses to these declarations, as well as the holy spirit which God gives to those yielding to Him." (Acts 5:32)



(RTH) “And, we, are witnesses of these things,—also the Holy Spirit, which God hath given unto them who are yielding obedience unto him.”(Acts 5:32)



(KJV) “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” (Acts 6:3)



(CLV) “Now, brethren, pick out seven attested men from among you, full of the spirit and of wisdom, whom we will place over this need." (Acts 6:3)



(RTH) “But look out for yourselves, brethren, seven men from among you, who can be well-attested, full of Spirit and wisdom,—whom we will appoint over this need;” (Acts 6:3)



As with capitalization, the pronouns, “whom” or “which” are in the opinion and bias of the translator. It isn’t quite as easy as simply determining the underlying word.  When it comes to gender specific personal pronouns, chosen by the translators of the Bible, it is fairly simple in that “his” is utilized when modifying a masculine subject, “her” is used when modifying a feminine subject/noun, and “it” is used when modifying a neuter (thing) subject/noun.  Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated as “spirit” is grammatically feminine and “her” Greek equivalent is an “it” (neuter).



An article on the United Church of God’s website states the following:



“In Greek, both masculine and neuter words are used to refer to the Holy Spirit. The Greek word translated “Counselor,” “Helper,” “Comforter” and “Advocate” in John chapters 14 to 16 is parakletos , a masculine word in Greek and thus referred to in these chapters by Greek pronouns equivalent to the English “he,” “him,” “his,” “himself,” “who” and “whom.”



Because of the masculine gender of parakletos, these pronouns are grammatically correct in Greek. But to translate these into English as “he,” “him,” etc., is grammatically incorrect.



For example, you would never translate a particular French sentence into English as “I’m looking for my book so I can read him.” While this grammatical construction makes sense in the French language, it is wrong in English. In the same way, to suppose on this basis that the Holy Spirit is a person to be referred to as “he” or “him” is incorrect.



Only if the parakletos or helper were known to be a person could the use of a gender-inflected pronoun justifiably be used in English. And the term parakletos certainly can refer to a person—as it refers to Jesus Christ in 1 John 2:1. Yet the Holy Spirit is nowhere designated with personhood. So personal pronouns should not be substituted for it.”[1]



While I disagree with the United Church of God on many things, I am in complete agreement when it comes to this issue of personhood and “Holy Spirit”.  It simply is unfounded.



Many Trinitarians object and state that since words like “Comforter” are used of the Holy Spirit, we must have a “person” in view.  This position, however; entirely ignores the figure of speech, “Personification”.  We personify things all the time in our everyday speech.  The Bible uses this figure of speech even more so.  Consider the following passage of scripture and decide “who” is speaking here:



“Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. 11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. 12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. 13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. 14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.” (Prv.8:10-14)



In verse 12, we read that “who” was speaking was God’s Wisdom.  In verse 1 (below) we find out that Wisdom is a “she”. 



“Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?” (Prv. 8:1)



This is one of the many examples of a thing being personified.  It is no different with God’s Spirit. 



If the “Holy Spirit” is, indeed a “person” and not only a person but is the third person of the Trinity, you may find it odd that someone is conspicuously absent from all of the following salutations:



“To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”(Romans 1:7)



“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 1:3)



“Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

(2 Cor. 1:2)



“Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,”

(Gal. 1:3)



“Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”(Eph. 1:2)



“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Php. 1:2)



“(To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”(Col. 1:2)



“Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”(1 Th. 1:1)



“Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

(2 Th. 1:2)



“Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.”(1 Tim. 1:2)



“To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.”(2 Tim. 1:2)



“To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.”(Tit. 1:4)



“Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”(Phm. 1:3)



“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”(1 Ptr. 1:2)



“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,”(2 Ptr 1:2)



“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

(1 Jn 1:3)



“Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”(2 Jn. 1:3)



“Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:”(Jud. 1)



Above, we have the writers of 18 letters to groups or individuals, greeting them from God, the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ…and not even one of these 18 letters holds a greeting from the so-called “third Person of the Trinity”. 



Astounding.



Were Paul, Peter, John, and Jude unaware of the personhood of the Holy Spirit?  If the Trinity Doctrine is true, then these men who were direct apostles of our Lord, Jesus Christ, were completely unaware of this essential, tenet of the Christian faith.  According to the Athanasian Creed, (cited in full in my third article in this series):



“Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

 That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.”



            As I also stated in my third article in this series, it was the conclusion of Sir Isaac Newton, after his tremendously thorough study of the doctrine of the Trinity, that prior to the 4th Century, AD; the church “had no trinitarian doctrine”. 



            According to the Athanasian Creed on the Trinity, we have nearly 300 years of early church believers, apparently including the apostles themselves; not to mention the faithful of Israel, who “…will doubtless perish eternally”. 



            The final claim of the Trinity Doctrine, with respect to the Holy Spirit, is that the Holy Spirit is a person, distinct from God, the Father.  My earlier scripture references cited have likely sufficiently dealt with these claims, but one last point really should be made and it is an important one.



            Who is the father of Jesus Christ, according to the scriptures?  This seems like a very easy question and it certainly is; until we drag extra-scriptural doctrines of man into it.  Christ Jesus always refers to God, the Father as His father.  No Trinitarian I know of; would dispute that. 

           

We all know that whomever conceives a child with a woman is the father of that child.  I don’t think any Trinitarian would dispute that either.  Allow me to now introduce the problem:



“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”(Matt. 1:20)



“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”(Luke 1:35)



           

If, as I contend, the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit in action; we have no problem.  God, the Father’s Holy Spirit conceived Jesus Christ in Mary.  If, however, as the Doctrine of the Trinity contends; the Holy Spirit is not the Father and the Father is not the Holy Spirit; we have a major problem.  Did our Lord, Jesus Christ not know that His father was actually the third “person” of the Trinity?  Of course, I am being facetious but I want to accentuate the absurdity.



            My friend, Aaron Welch, referenced Matthew 24:36 as being perhaps the strongest argument against the Holy Spirit being a person that he has ever come across.  This argument is especially strong given the Trinitarian explanation to one of the biggest questions that this verse of scripture has created for the Trinity Doctrine. 



“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” (Matt. 24:36)



            The above verse is the response of Jesus Christ to His disciples’ questioning of when will the end of the current age come and what will be the sign of His coming.  Christ Jesus stated that He did not know and and that no man knows, the angels of heaven do not know, and that only the Father knows.  When Trinitarians are asked why Jesus Christ does not know this, if He is God; the Trinitarian answer is that Christ, in His humanity did not know.  His human nature veiled this and other things.  But, could this answer satisfy if one were to ask “Why does the person of the Holy Spirit not know the day or the hour?  We certainly do not have the human nature issue in play.  And, as the Trinity Doctrine states, the Holy Spirit is equally God, just as the Father is God.  So, if the Holy Spirit also does not know the day, nor the hour in this question; we are left with the only reasonable answer being that the Holy Spirit is not a person and is not distinct from God, The Father. 





            In the next article, we will look at the Athanasian claim concerning the following:



                      “Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.”



[1] www.ucg.org. “Is the Holy Spirit A Person?”

Thursday, March 7, 2019

The Doctrine of the Trinity, Part 3: The Doctrine Itself


Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
    neither blending their persons
    nor dividing their essence.
        For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
        the person of the Son is another,
        and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
        But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
        their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

    What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
        The Father is uncreated,
        the Son is uncreated,
        the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

        The Father is immeasurable,
        the Son is immeasurable,
        the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

        The Father is eternal,
        the Son is eternal,
        the Holy Spirit is eternal.

            And yet there are not three eternal beings;
            there is but one eternal being.
            So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
            there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.

    Just as Christian truth compels us
    to confess each person individually
    as both God and Lord,
    so catholic religion forbids us
    to say that there are three gods or lords.

    The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
    The Son was neither made nor created;
    he was begotten from the Father alone.
    The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
    he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
    there is one Son, not three sons;
    there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

    Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
    nothing is greater or smaller;
    in their entirety the three persons
    are coeternal and coequal with each other.

    So in everything, as was said earlier,
    we must worship their trinity in their unity
    and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith:

    That we believe and confess
    that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
    is both God and human, equally.

     He is God from the essence of the Father,
    begotten before time;
    and he is human from the essence of his mother,
    born in time;
    completely God, completely human,
    with a rational soul and human flesh;
    equal to the Father as regards divinity,
    less than the Father as regards humanity.

    Although he is God and human,
    yet Christ is not two, but one.
    He is one, however,
    not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
    but by God's taking humanity to himself.
    He is one,
    certainly not by the blending of his essence,
    but by the unity of his person.
    For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
    so too the one Christ is both God and human.

    He suffered for our salvation;
    he descended to hell;
    he arose from the dead;
    he ascended to heaven;
    he is seated at the Father's right hand;
    from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
    At his coming all people will arise bodily
    and give an accounting of their own deeds.
    Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
    and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully. (Athanasian Creed)





              Confused yet?  Me too. 



            In the first article in this series, we looked at the scriptural word, “god” (in both the Hebrew and Greek) and searched the scriptures in order to determine its usage(s).  In the second article, we looked at the concept of Divine Agency and how an agent of God is sometimes referred to as “God”, in the scriptures.  In this installment, we will look at the doctrine of the Trinity itself.  This installment of the series will view the doctrine at a very high level.  The doctrine will be more minutely examined in the coming installments in this series.  This article will provide a summary of the formulation of the Trinity Doctrine, summarize its development, and also consider whether those credited with the doctrine’s creation held the same Trinitarian view(s) which make up the modern doctrine of the Trinity.



            This article’s aim is not to defend, nor is its aim to attack the doctrine.  This article is meant to provide basis and context for what constitutes the Trinity Doctrine in as much as possible, in its totality.  You may find that you completely agree with all aspects of the Trinity Doctrine, or if you are at all like me, you may be surprised by how much depth there is to this doctrine, beyond simply believing in “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.



            Much like how the Doctrine of the Trinity is based on a one in three conceptualization, so too, I believe that the formation of the doctrine is a single doctrine which stands on a three-legged stool.  The first leg of the stool is the “pre-existence” of Christ Jesus, with the second leg being the Deity of Christ Jesus, and the third leg being the personhood of the Holy Spirit.  As the reader will see, the two primary conventions of bishops in the 4th Century were convened over these three issues.



            I began this article by providing a copy of the “Athanasian Creed”.  As best I have been able to determine, it is unknown as to who actually wrote this creed; although it bears the name of Bishop Athanasius. 



            According to Wikipedia.org, The Athanasian Creed, “…also known as Pseudo-Athanasian Creed or Quicunque Vult, is a Christian statement of belief, focused on Trinitarian doctrine and Christology.  The Latin name of the creed, Quicunque vult, is taken from the opening words, “Whosoever wishes”.  The creed has been used by Christian churches since the sixth century.  It is the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated.”[1]



            When it comes to the “Athanasian Creed”, the opening sentences and closing sentences are troubling for several reasons.  The unknown author of the creed contends that “whoever does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally” and “one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully”. Are we to take this to mean that if one does not hold every contention put for the in the creed, that one is eternally lost?  If one did not hold to every, single contention of this creed at the moment of belief, were they not then saved?  Were the early Christians (who never saw this creed prior to the 6th Century) lost; regardless of their faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins, as the apostle Paul states is (1 Cor. 15:1-5) “the gospel which I preached unto you”, “by which also ye are saved”?  Troubling questions arise from the opening and closing statements of this creed.



            Did you know that Tertullian (160A.D.-220A.D.) who was credited for first using the Latin term “trinitas” in his writings and for formulating many of the early beliefs which would later become codified in the Trinity Doctrine, did not believe in a Triune God, but rather God was a Triad (of persons) or group of three, and the Son “…is not God himself, nor is he divine in the same sense that the Father is…”[2]  By the standards of the Athanasian Creed, the man credited for much of the early beliefs on the Trinity Doctrine and for penning the word from which we get the name for the Doctrine, is perishing eternally, because (according to his own writings) did not believe that the Son’s and the Father’s “divinity is one”, “their glory equal”, or even that the Son was “co-eternal” with the Father.



            Tertullian certainly isn’t alone among the Church Fathers who held beliefs about the Trinity Doctrine which would later be considered “heresy”, once the doctrine had been finally formulated.  This of course calls into question the necessity of belief in the Trinity, as stipulated in the Athanasian Creed.  Was belief in the Trinity Doctrine as finally adopted unnecessary at a certain point in the past, or upon gaining a certain understanding? 



            When it comes to the word, “Trinity”, the word, itself; cannot be found in the scriptures; which does not necessarily mean that the concept is unscriptural.  Many Trinitarian theologians would likely admit that even the concept of the Trinity cannot be found in the Old Testament and is not explicitly but is rather implicitly and logically deduced from the New Testament scriptures. According to Dale Tuggy in his academic work, “Trinity”, as it pertains to the scriptures, “sophisticated Trinitarians” contend, “…the doctrine was revealed by God only later in the New Testament times (c.50-c.100) and/or in the Patristic era (c.100-800).”  Assuming that the Trinity Doctrine is perfectly encapsulated in the Athanaisian Creed and that the dire warnings preceding and closing the creed are also true; the obvious question to me is, “why would God hide so necessary and essential a doctrine from the pages of scripture?” 



            If the scriptures do not explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity, how was and when was the doctrine formulated?  This is where the Christian Church and more specifically, the Catholic Church as an institution, comes into play.  Prior to Christianity becoming the official religion of the Empire, the writers of the New Testament letters (including most notably Paul and John) found themselves addressing the relationship between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as other controversies with the earliest believers. 



            In the third century and certainly by the fourth century, it became apparent that there were heated disputations with respect to the question of the deity of Christ, among not only the laity but among the clergy.  The Arian Controversy is likely considered the watershed moment in the official position being taken at the Emperor Constantine’s level in instituting the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it now.  Arius (256-336) believed that Christ Jesus was subordinate to God the Father, not the Father’s co-equal, and he further believed that Christ Jesus was created at some point in the finite past.  This belief and teaching to the local church in Alexandria caught the attention and ire of Arius’ bishop, Alexander of Alexandria.  Alexander threatened and eventually excommunicated Arius for his theological position.  This caused bishops who believed specifically that the Son is subordinate to and not co-equal with the Father, to rally to Arius’ cause.  The permeating instability created by the attention to this controversy caused Emperor Constantine to hold a council of bishops (First Council of Nicaea) in 325 AD to settle the matter.  Keep in mind that Constantine was the first Christian emperor of the Roman Empire and that disunity in this newly constructed melding of the political and religious was seen as at least potentially destabilizing. 



            The result of the First Council of Nicaea was to (among other things) firmly establish the Deity of Christ, excommunicate Arius, condemn his teaching, and establish a creed, the Nicene Creed.  This creed declared Jesus Christ to be “Consubstantial (necessitating a new word be made) with the Father…begotten not made, one in being with the Father”[3].



            Arianism was still widespread after the ruling of the bishops at Nicaea 1 and a new council was called in 381 AD (Constantinople 1) to further condemn Arianism, but to also take on another controversy.  Was the Holy Spirit Divine and if so, co-equal and “co-substantial (of the same essence) with the Father and Jesus Christ?  The result of this council was to name the Holy Spirit as the Third “Person” of the Trinity and to confirm this in the Nicene Creed with the added clause, “…We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adored and honored together with the Father and the Son; he spoke through the Prophets”[4].



            Throughout the first 4 centuries of Christendom, there existed fairly wide-ranging ideas on the nature of “God” and what a “Trinity” or “Triune” nature of God really meant.  It took the ecumenical councils to attempt to boil down this doctrine to a pure form by expelling elements or beliefs that were considered to be heretical by consensus and vote of the convening bishops at the time.  It should also be noted that the written arguments used by those such as Arius (whose views were “out-voted”) were almost always burned and destroyed; leaving only the writings of the prevailing doctrine to be preserved for further consideration. 



            To most Christians, the Trinity Doctrine is simply a belief in “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.  As you can see from reading the Athanasian Creed, the Doctrine of the Trinity is much more complex than that simple belief.  Perhaps the best person to cite on what the Doctrine of the Trinity states, in a nutshell, is Dr. James R. White.  Dr. White has become one of the most widely known, modern day Trinitarian apologists.  Dr. White states,



“The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God- indivisible, infinite.  This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.”[5]



            Dr. James R. White stated on page 27 of his book, “The Forgotten Trinity”, that “When speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who’s.  The one what is the Being or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son, and Spirit.  We dare not mix up the what’s and the who’s regarding the Trinity.”   That statement, the various pronouncements found within the Athanasian Creed, and other statements about the Trinity from various theologians (such as the late Dr. R.C. Sproul) will be examined in much detail in future installments in this series and compared with statements of scripture.



But, before leaving this topic in the present article, I thought that it may be helpful to hear the opinion of another theologian, scientist, and inventor whose identity is very much of a household name.  Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was an avid student of the scriptures, but also a scholar of the writings of the so-called, “church fathers”.  In his article on Newton’s writings and conclusions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, John Byl, Ph.D., a Trinitarian himself, wrote the following,



In one notebook4 it is clear that, already in the early 1670's, Newton was absorbed by the doctrine of the Trinity. On this topic he studied extensively not only the Bible, but also much of the Church Fathers. Newton traced the doctrine of the trinity back to Athanasius (298- 373); he became convinced that before Athanasius the Church had no trinitarian doctrine. In the early 4th century Athanasius was opposed by Arius (256-336), who affirmed that God the Father had primacy over Christ. In 325 the Council of Nicea condemned as heretical the views of Arius. Thus, as viewed by Newton, Athanasius triumphed over Arius in imposing the false doctrine of the trinity on Christianity.


Newton further asserted that, in order to support trinitarianism, the Church deliberately corrupted the Bible by modifying crucial texts. For example, Newton claimed that the well-known words of I John 5:7 (”there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) were not in the original, pre-4th century Bible (Newton, it seems, was not a King James only man). Newton writes that “the Fathers…preferred to desert the Scriptures than not to condemn Arius”. Soon thereafter a universal corruption of Christianity followed the central corruption of doctrine: in the 4th century trinitarianism fouled every element of Christianity.

Newton's anti-trinitarianism is evident also in his interpretation of Revelation. According to Newton, the seventh seal began in the year 380, when trinitarianism was officially ratified at the Council of Constantinople. The great apostasy was not Romanism, but trinitarianism, “the false infernal religion”, to quote Newton's own words."[6]


            No doctrine should be validated or invalidated based upon its endorsement or rejection by any popular figure.  However, as I cited the words of one of the world’s leading apologists for the doctrine of the Trinity, I believed it fair to provide the words of another noted scholar whose study led him to entirely reject the doctrine.



            Throughout the coming installments in this series, I will quote and cite the Athanasian Creed for the reader’s convenience, but I chose to provide it in this article, in its totality to provide the reader with the full creedal statement on the Trinity, as understood by Trinitarians of the Christian faith.



In the next article, we will take the first section of the Athanasian Creed (which Dr. White refers to as the “one What and three Who’s”) and examine scripturally the issues of distinction among persons of the Trinity, the contention that the Holy Spirit is a distinct “Person”, the statements regarding co-equality, and co-eternality as well.



[1] Wikipedia.org “Athanasian Creed”
[2] Tuggy, Dale (Summer 2014).”History of Trinitarian Doctrines”. Trinity. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu
[3] Author unknown. July 1, 2018. “Your Guide to the Ecumenical Councils of the Church”. http://www.osv.com
[4] Ibid
[5] White, James R. Dr., April 29, 1998. “A Brief Definition of the Trinity”. http://www.aomin.org
[6] Byl, John Ph.D. , February 14, 2005. “On Newton and the Trinity”. http://www.geocentricity.com