The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit 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 Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit 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.
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
-(From, The
Athanasian Creed)
The
Doctrine of the Trinity states that in addition to God, the Son being co-equal
with God, the Father, it also states that the two are equally eternal; or
“co-eternal”. If you have not yet read
the earlier installments in this series, please do so prior to reading this
article. I have built in a logical
progression and each article also borrows arguments and premises from the
previous installments. As such, in Part
5, “The Son of God, The Image of God”,
we searched the scriptures to determine if the claim that Christ Jesus being
co-equal with God, the Father is scripturally true. The article provided many examples (but not
all of the examples) of how the Son is not equal with the Father. Then, we examined how the Son is equal with
the Father, and determined that it is a narrow scope and that the Father gave
the Son the authority that He rightly wields and possesses.
When
it comes to the usage of the word, “eternal”, I have found that the only time
the word is used correctly by most Christians is when it comes to describing
God. In fact, the Hebrew and Greek words
which are translated in the scriptures as “eternal”, “everlasting”, “ever”, and
“for ever”; actually means something quite different. The word, “eternal” when used literally,
means “without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting”[1]. The and Greek noun (and its adjective forms)
which is translated as a word meaning “without beginning or end” or “without
ending” actually means “an age” or “age-abiding”. In other words, the time specified can be
perpetual (until it ends) and can be an indeterminate amount of time, but does
have a beginning and will at some point end.
In fact, in the entirety of the New Testament, there is only one
instance in which a word is used that truly describes something as having no
end. The Greek word is, “aperanton”
(Strong’s # G-562). That word, unlike
the Greek word for “age” (“aion”) or “age-abiding” (“aionious”) actually does
mean, “endless”. Below is the only usage
of that word in the entire Bible:
“Neither
give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather
than godly edifying which is in faith; so do.”(1 Tim. 1:4)
In
the one instance that the Holy Spirit inspired a writer to use the word
equivalent to “endless”, the writer used it in a non-literal sense. He used it the way we use the words, “endless”, “forever”, etc. most often. “I stood in the line at the DMV forever.” “Government spending is endless when it comes to entitlement programs.” The truth is something being truly eternal or
lasting literally forever; is so rare that our occasions to use the words are
generally limited to figures of speech such as hyperbole.
There
are few instances in the scriptures that explicitly speak to God, Himself being
“eternal”; although it certainly is implied.
The strongest statements in the scriptures as to God being “eternal” are
probably the following:
“And
Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall
say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall
say to me, What is his name? What shall
I say unto them? And God said unto
Moses, I AM THAT I AM and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of
Israel, I AM hat sent me unto you.” (Exodus 3:13-14)
“I
am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and
which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”(Rev. 1:8)
“Now
unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and
glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Tim. 1:17)
Logically,
if God is the initial Causer and the Creator of all things, we surmise that He
had no beginning. He is
self-existent. I have heard that self-existence
is the underlying meaning of the name in Hebrew that God used to name Himself,
when talking to Moses (“I am that I am”/”I will be what I will be”/etc.). It should also be noted that the “I am”
statements made by Jesus Christ in the gospels is not an equivalent statement
to the Exodus 3:14 name spoken by God to Moses.
Comparing the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament)
with the Greek of the New Testament reveals that the statements are different.
In
article 3 of this series, entitled “The
Doctrine, Itself”, I stated the following as it pertains to the doctrine of
the Trinity and the councils which formalized it and made it official
dogma: “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.”
In
the last article, I partially dealt with the 2nd leg of the stool
that holds up the Trinity doctrine; and it will be further addressed in this
article and the two subsequent articles.
In article 4, “Is the Holy Spirit
a ‘Who’?” I addressed the 3rd leg of the Trinitarian stool. This installment aims at the 1st
leg; the issue of pre-existence. In
order to doctrinally make Christ Jesus co-equal with God, the Father, the
bishops first had to establish that our Lord, Christ Jesus was/is co-eternal
with God, the Father. This would, of
course; mean that just as in the case of God, The Father (Whom Jesus Christ
called, “the only true God”, and “my God”) Jesus Christ also had no
beginning. It would mean that He
literally, always was. What is most problematic for Trinitarian
Doctrine is that they have made God the Father and His Son indistinguishable to
the point that their respective titles as “Father” or “Son” are just that;
titles with no real or actual meaning; aside from an honorific. For the non-theologian Trinitarian, it
further muddles the distinctions between the doctrine of the Trinity and the
doctrine of Oneness or Modalism (which Trinitarians consider a heresy). However, due to these blurred lines, many
Trinitarians will sing songs popular worship songs that make the Father and the
Son…the same Person. I know, because I have stood in a doctrinally
Trinitarian church and listened in amazement to crowd around me sing these
songs and never bat an eye. In light of
the inability to keep the indistinguishable distinguishable, let’s not forget
the closing warning of the Athanasian Creed:
“This is the
catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.”
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.”
Earlier
in this series when speaking of divergent views among early church fathers,
credited with thoughts that would become codified into what is now the doctrine
of the Trinity, I wrote about Arias. The
beliefs on Christ Jesus held by Arias and his followers (and others with
alternative but similar views) were at odds with the beliefs of the Homoousions.[2] The former believed that Jesus Christ was
created/begotten by God, the Father at some point in time and is subordinate to
God, the Father; while the latter held that Christ was the same essence (homo)
as God, the Father and was thus, not created nor subordinate.
As I
pointed out in Part 3 of this series, the Trinitarian doctrine evolved and
developed over time. Tertullian, who was
credited for coining the Latin term “trinitas”, did not believe that Christ
Jesus, the Son of God was equal to God, the Father. By modern standards, and certainly by the
standards put forward in the Athanasian Creed, Tertullian would not be
considered truly Trinitarian and by the final words of the creed (cited above)
was not even saved.
Even
among modern Trinitarians, there are two divergent camps when it comes to their
view of Jesus Christ and His relationship as God’s Son. We have on one hand, those who believe in the
“eternal Sonship of Christ” and on the other, we have those who believe in the
“incarnational Sonship of Christ”. At
the risk of oversimplifying, the eternal Sonship camp takes the position that
Christ has always been the Son of God.
Even in eternity past with God, the Son always having existed with His
Father, He was the Son of God, relationally.
The incarnational sonship camp states that it was not until the incarnation
of Christ Jesus, that He became relationally, the Son of God, but will from now
on, always be relationally, God, the Son.
Both
camps, predictably, have proof-texts that they can offer to back their
theology. The point is, that even in the
Trinitarian camp, itself, there is disagreement as to the Christology.
When
it comes to certain important truths, it is crucial not to be dismissive of
Jewish thought on important topics. As I
pointed out in an earlier article in this series, we only harm ourselves by
neglecting Jewish thought and understanding on scriptural matters. The reason is very simple. The Old Testament scriptures were written by
Israelites and/or Jews, in their language, who understood not only the
language, but the figures of speech used, and they intimately understood how
God presented Himself to them. The New
Testament; likewise, was written (with the exception of Luke’s gospel and Acts)
by Jews. Jesus Christ heralded the
kingdom to this audience and the apostle Paul stated that Jesus Christ was a
minister of the promises made to the fathers (see Romans 15:8). Of course, this does not mean that their
thinking was always correct. They
rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah; after all, and they also adopted
certain Pagan teachings on important matters while in Babylonian captivity, and
many of these teachings became oral tradition which carried as much if not more
weight with them, than the actual scriptures. That was what Jesus Christ was pointing at on
the occasions in which He called out the Pharisees for making God’s word “of
none effect”. Nevertheless, much more error
has become doctrine due to myths being gone after and truth turned away from,
and from the Western mindset, not reading Hebrew writings as a Hebrew would
have understood those writings. Much of
this error came about after the gospel went to the Gentiles who grew up inundated
in Pagan philosophy.
The
words, “Trinity” and “triune” never appear in either the Old or New
Testaments. Trinitarian theologians
admit that God as a Trinity or Triune God, cannot be found at all in the Old
Testament. Also, as it comes to a
doctrine and creed, we have examined thus far, how the doctrine has been
created by taking verses here and verses there, ignoring emphatic and explicit
statements of scripture to create a doctrine that creates problems and
contradictions. As we have examined
throughout this series in a progressive and logical manner, the Trinity
doctrine has been forced onto the texts of scripture (how we should not read
scripture) as opposed to being read out of the texts of scripture (how we
should read scripture).
We
read in the scriptures that Jesus Christ was “begotten” by God. What does “begotten” mean? The same Greek word translated as “begotten”,
“begat”, or “beget” is also translated as “conceived”. We are pretty much familiar with the usage of
the word. In Genesis, when it gives the
various lineages of families we read numerous examples, such as:
“And
Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons
and daughters.” (Gen. 5:7)
The
above example is like the overwhelming majority found throughout the scriptures
and I think we understand what it means.
A man conceived a son(s) and/or a daughter(s) with a woman, resulting in
the son and/or daughter becoming or coming into being. In Deuteronomy 32:18, God speaks of
having “begat” all the people of Israel; having “formed” them. In the New Testament, it is more of the same
with the words, “begat” and “begotten”.
In
all of these instances, we would understand that all of these individuals and
even groups of people, did not literally exist prior to having been “begotten”
at the specific, described point in time.
Even though we understand that none of these who were “begotten”,
existed literally prior to having been “begotten”; we also recognize that the
scriptures (in certain instances) use language that make it sound like we did
exist prior to having been begotten. Below
are some examples.
“Before
I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the
womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer.
1:5)
“Moreover
whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also
justified, them he also glorified.” (Rom. 8:30)
“”Then
shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt.
25:34)
There
are many more such examples, but what we have in these verses, are examples of
a very common Hebraic figure of speech.
Things existed in God’s plan and foreknowledge long before existing as a
literal fact. At times, things that are
yet to be realized are spoken of in the past tense or even as a present fact,
to accentuate that the subject in question is accomplished already in God’s
foreknowledge and will at some point be accomplished as to fact.
Continuing on our discussion of being
begotten, let us move to the special case of our Lord, Jesus Christ. In Matthew 1, we read the following:
“The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his
brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom;
and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson;
and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat
Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David
the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon
begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat
Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat
Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat
Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat
Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and
Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat
Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat
Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat
Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of
Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” (Matt. 1:1-16)
You’ll
notice that when we come to Joseph (v.15) we do not read that Joseph “begat”
Jesus Christ. We read that Joseph was
the husband of Mary, “…of whom was born, Jesus…”. This is consistent with the testimony of
scripture. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was
not begotten by Joseph. He was
begotten/conceived (same Greek word) by the Spirit of God; by Holy Spirit. See below:
“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
when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, hisname
was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in
the womb.” (Luke 2:21)
When
reading the New Testament as a Christian, having been taught certain doctrines
from a young age, it is extremely difficult to do so without reading those
doctrines into the text. For example, if a person raised in a
Trinitarian denomination, attempts to read the New Testament, beginning in the
Gospel of Matthew and continuing through the Gospel of Luke, the reader will
not understand Jesus being “conceived/begotten” in the same way the reader
understands every other occurrence in which a person is said to have been
“conceived/begotten” in the Bible. Such
a reader will impose a new meaning of “begotten/conceived”; that is decidedly
different than the meaning in every other occurrence of the word. Conversely, I would argue that if a person
who was completely ignorant of the dogmas and doctrines of Christendom is given
a Bible and told to begin reading Matthew 1, he will come to Matthew 1:20, read
the word “conceived” (when applied to Jesus Christ) and understand that word in
the same way in which that word was
used by Matthew in all of the previous 32 usages. In other words, the person with the
Trinitarian mindset, will understand that when speaking of the begetting of 32
persons in verses 1-15, those persons came into being at that time but in the
case of verse 16, they will ignore that meaning and understand that in the case
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; He existed before His having been begat/begotten/conceived
(same Greek word). Further, that reader
will not only understand that the text is not indicating that Jesus Christ came
into being at that point; but will understand that there was never a point in
time that He was not in being. The only
way to come to that conclusion is to read that into the text. The
understanding of pre-existing being conceived/begotten cannot be gleaned from these texts. This is where (correctly or incorrectly)
Trinitarians argue that the pre-existence and alternative understanding of the
begetting or conception of Jesus Christ is obtained by other revelations of
scripture. Is that true? After much study and prayer, it is my
contention that the idea of pre-existence in particular and the entire Trinity
Doctrine, in general; is forced upon the biblical text, through a combination
of several factors, including:
1. The
failure to read the scriptures through the lens of those who wrote the
scriptures.
2. The
failure to read key scriptures within the immediate context and remote context.
3. The
failure to consider figures of speech.
4. The
failure to recognize Christ Jesus’ titles of “Firstborn of creation” and
“Firstborn from among the dead”.
5. Failure
to recognize that Paul and John viewed Christ Jesus as the “second man/Adam” in
viewing the New Creation; not the creation of Genesis (Old Creation/former
things).
6. The
dismissal of scriptures which explicitly contradict Trinitarian concepts.
The portion of the
Athanasian Creed, cited at the beginning of this article, says, “…the Son is uncreated…”. This statement is critical as it pertains
to the integrity of the doctrine of the Trinity relating to the Son of
God. We have already established that
the scriptures teach that Jesus Christ (not “the flesh of Jesus Christ” or
“Jesus the Christ’s flesh”, etc.) Himself, was conceived/begotten. Would we in any way assume that the numerous
descriptions of others who were begotten/conceived in the Bible, would have
their conception be limited simply to their flesh and not of their entire
person? Not only do Trinitarians limit
the conception of Christ Jesus to His flesh, they do the same (as we explored
in Part 5 of this series) with His death.
And just as with His conception, the scriptures never speak of His death
being only of His body/flesh; but of His person, in His entirety. This is why death is a very real thing and
not merely another form of life, as most Christian denominations attempt to paint
it. We explored the words “begat”,
“begotten”, and “conceived”, but is there any scriptural verse that indicates
Christ Jesus being “made”? Indeed, there
are; at least four such verses. One we
will look at later in the article, but at the moment, let us look at Galatians
4:4:
“But when the fulness of the time was
come, God sent forth his Son, made of a
woman, made under the law,”
I emphasized “made of a
woman”, to draw the reader’s attention to the English word made, which comes
from the Greek word, “genomenon” (Strong’s G1096).
This Greek word occurs
over 700 times in the New Testament.
According to The Strong’s Concordance, its primary meaning is, “to become, i.e. to come into existence,
begin to be, receive being.”
As it pertains to the
controversy of Christ Jesus existing in some form, prior to His being
conceived/begotten in Mary; there is room for scriptural argument among
believers. I now take the position that
Christ Jesus was begotten and conceived in Bethlehem, by God, the Father and
that while Jesus Christ was always the centerpiece of God’s Plan, He literally
came into being upon being conceived by God.
Further, I take the position that in Colossians, Revelation, and the
passages that speak of Jesus Christ, being the firstborn of creation,
“creation” is not referring to the creation detailed in Genesis (the Old
Creation), but rather is speaking of the New Creation, in which all things will
be headed up in Christ Jesus and in which “all things will be made new”. For the sake of argument, let us assume that
we agree that Christ Jesus did, indeed, exist literally prior to Bethlehem and
that when Jesus Christ is spoken of in the context of “creation”, it is the
original creation in view. There are
some very key verses of scripture which argue entirely against the Trinitarian
concept that Christ Jesus is eternal (having not only no ending; but also no
beginning), in the same manner that God, the Father is eternal. Let’s examine a couple of such verses.
KJV
“And unto the angel of the church of the
Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning of the creation of God; (Rev.
3:14)
The meaning becomes even
clearer, when read in the following translation:
CLT
“And to the messenger of the ecclesia in
Laodicea write: 'Now this is saying the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness,
and God's Creative Original: (Rev.
3:14)
The “Amen” and the
“faithful and true witness” are titles of Christ Jesus. There is no disputing that. The Concordant Literal Translation (above) is
the only version that words Revelation 3:14 as it does, so let’s not use it for
our purposes, as most will object that it is the only translation that words
the verse in that way, using “God’s Creative Original” to also describe Christ
Jesus. In the King James Version (and
almost every other translation) uses a variation of “the beginning of the creation
of God” as a title for Christ Jesus.
Again, this is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is the
meaning of that title. Trinitarians who
take the position that Christ Jesus is eternal, having no beginning, argue that
this means that Christ Jesus began/created all things. He began creation. Those who are non-Trinitarian and would have
been in the camp of Arias (at the time the Trinity Doctrine was being debated
and codified into official doctrine) argue that this verse is stating that
God’s first creation was Jesus Christ.
This is obviously what is stated by the Concordant Literal Translation;
regardless of the accuracy of the translation.
The latter, non-Trinitarian position for interpreting this verse seems
to me, to be most in keeping with rules of grammar and the testimony of other key
scriptural passages.
The ”creation” that is
spoken of in verse 14 is said to be “of
God”. As I argued in part 5 of this
series, unless there is a contextual reason for doing so, “God” should be
understood to be speaking of God, the Father, because that is Who is identified
as “God” in almost all of the 4,325 occurrences of that title in the
Bible. Trinitarians would also take the position that in verse 14,
“God” is in reference to the Person of God, the Father. So, how do Trinitarians make the argument
that Jesus Christ Who did the actual creating while “creation” in verse 14 is obviously
stating that God, the Father is Who the creation is “of”? This argument is made by what I consider to
be the misinterpreting of what John 1 and Colossians 1 are both actually
talking about. We will examine those two
passages in great detail in part 7 of this series, where we will examine the
most popular biblical proof texts used by Trinitarians. Whenever a passage of scripture is somewhat
vague or difficult, doctrine should not be built upon it; when it contradicts
explicit and plain scriptures. Do we have
even one scripture that plainly states that God, the Father is Who created the
original creation? We do. And that verse is very problematic for the
Trinitarian argument that God created the original creation (Genesis) through
His Son.
(KJV) “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he
that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that
stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” (Isaiah
44:24-25)
When you see “LORD” in
the Bible, this is the word and capitalization indicating that the word
translated from is either the Hebrew Yahweh or Hebrew Jehovah. These are two of the names for the God of
Israel. “Jehovah” tends to be used more
often when the context deals with issues of Covenant, while “Yahweh” tends to
be more contextually used of Creator, God.
The point is, Trinitarians will claim that Jehovah/Yahweh is the
pre-existent, Jesus Christ. Not only
that, but Trinitarians will also
claim that Jehovah/Yahweh is both
God, the Father and God, the Son; two
different “Persons”. Modalists, on the other hand, make the even
more incredulous argument that God, the Son and God, the Father are both
Jehovah/Yahweh, and the same “Person”.
This becomes patently absurd when one reads the prayers made by Jesus
Christ to His God and Father; if they
are the same “Person”.
According to renowned
Trinitarian theologian, Dr. James White, “Why
the change of emphasis between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament,
Jesus? Are we being introduced to some
rival deity in the New Testament when we encounter so much emphasis on the name
of Jesus? That is the way some nearly
react when it is suggested that the answer lies in the fact that the New
Testament identifies Jesus with Yahweh.
Bear in mind that I am not saying Jesus is the Father! Rather, what I am saying is that Jesus and
the Father share the same Name and are not in some sort of competition.”[3]
Isaiah 44:24 truly is a
nail in the coffin to the Trinitarian argument on all fronts as it pertains to
the distinction between God, the Father and His Son. On one hand, we have singular personal
pronouns used (“he”, “I”, “myself”) and the fact that the LORD declares that He
created the heavens and earth “alone”,
would grammatically and logically eliminate two Persons from creating cooperatively. How can God, the Father be creating the
universe (heavens and earth) through His Son, (two “Persons”) if the LORD
declares that “I” (singular) did these things “alone” (that would indicate
singularity) by “myself” (singular)? Making
the argument even more absurd, is the Trinitarian position that both God, the
Father and God, the Son have the same name (Jehovah/Yahweh), both did the
creating in Isaiah 44:24, used singular personal pronouns to modify the LORD
Who created, and are still distinct and different “Persons”.
The absurdity doesn’t end
there; but only becomes more obvious when it comes to the identity of the
“angel of the LORD” in the Old Testament.
Can you guess who Trinitarians believe is the “angel of the LORD”, who
speaks on behalf of the LORD? If you
guessed, the LORD, Himself, you would be correct. Of course, as we learned in Part 5 of this
series, Trinitarian scholars like the aforementioned Dr. James White, are very
careful to say that God, the Son is not the same as the man, Jesus Christ. After all, Jesus Christ died, but God, the Son Who is Jesus Christ,
did not die. Confused yet?
So, when it comes to the verses of scripture in which the “angel of the
LORD” is speaking; keep in mind that the Trinitarian scholar believes that the
angel/messenger of Jehovah/Yahweh/the LORD is none other than…Jehovah/Yahweh/the
LORD. So, in at least some of the Old
Testament passages in which the LORD sent His angel to speak on His behalf, He
actually sent Himself, but stated that He was His own messenger; speaking on
His own behalf.
Likewise, there is a particular
time that Christ Jesus was “begotten” a
second time” by God. That is
correct. We have the language of God
having begotten Jesus Christ at a time after; being begotten in Bethlehem. And, likewise, I cannot see any way for it to
be understood in a limited or restricted fashion. I believe it applies not only to the man,
Christ Jesus, in the flesh; but to His totality. Consider the following passage carefully:
“But God raised him from the dead: 31
And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to
Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you
glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath
fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus
again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee. 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead,
now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the
sure mercies of David. 35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt
not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 36 For David, after he had served
his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his
fathers, and saw corruption:”(Acts 13:30-36)
When did Paul, quoting
the Psalms, state that God (speaking of His Son) begot Jesus Christ? What context is Paul mentioning throughout
this passage? Has Paul once mentioned
“Bethlehem”? Has Paul, once, mentioned
“Mary”? Not at all. Instead, resurrection from the dead is the
context; and not simply “resurrection”; but resurrection to immortality. It is not coincidental that Paul writes,
concerning this, to the Corinthians in the first letter, chapter 15, verses
21-23, that Christ Jesus is the “first fruits” of all men being made alive
(immortal).
Both Paul and John speak
of Christ Jesus in terms of the New Creation and firstborn. Paul contrasts Christ Jesus, as the ideal
man, with the head of the Old Creation, Adam.
In Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul places all men under two, Adam
and Christ Jesus. Adam heads up all men
in the original, fallen creation; while Christ Jesus heads up those same, all men in the new, restored
creation. In fact, I would argue that
many of the passages of scripture that Trinitarians use as proof texts in
claiming that Jesus Christ created the original creation; ignore the fact that
scripture is actually making the point that Christ Jesus was and is making all
things new; as part of God’s Plan to restore all things to Himself, through the
“…Mediator between God and men, the man,
Christ Jesus…”(Gal. 3:20).
As I stated in my first
article in this series, I am willing to be proven wrong on the issue and will
happily change my mind/repent of my current opinion; IF my current position can
be proven incorrect AND the opposing view be proven correct; solely through the
scriptures.
We should be comfortable
in debating and even disagreeing with a doctrine that not only is not
explicitly taught in the scriptures, but is a doctrine that must be
extravagantly constructed through a very dubious, cafeteria-like method of
picking, choosing, dismissing, and adding to the scriptures.
As I have elaborated on
in previous installments of this series, there are MANY verses of scripture
that are VERY problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity. For the sake of those new to this series or
for those who may not remember specific examples, let’s review just a few.
Trinity
Doctrine: The Holy Spirit is a Person; distinct from
God, the Father.
Scripture: The Holy Spirit is the
spirit of God, the Father and is power; not a “person”.
Trinity
Doctrine:
The Father and Son are co-equal; equally God.
Scripture: The Father has no God. The Son has a God. The Father does the will of none other. The Son does the will of the Father; not His
own. Only God, the Father knows certain
things. There are certain things the Son
did not know and the Holy Spirit (if another “Person”) also does not know at
least one thing the Father knew. God,
The Father has all authority and power.
No one gave it to Him. The Father
gave the Son His power and authority.
The above distinctions
and differences represent only a few of the problem areas for the doctrine of
the Trinity when being compared with scripture.
Further, it is the doctrine of the Trinity which requires its various
declarations to be believed. This is not
true of the scriptures when it comes to the same. If the scriptures describe the Holy Spirit as
being God’s Spirit and power, but not a distinct “person”; where do we find the
requirement of believing that the Holy Spirit is a “Person”? The obvious answer would be, “Outside the
Bible and inside manmade creeds.” There are, by contrast, things the scriptures do tell us to believe; and they have not
one thing to do with a “Trinity”.
As it pertains to the
Athanasian Creed and its claim that God the Father and His Son are
“co-eternal”; I believe that the scriptures indicate that they are not
“co-eternal” at all. Whether a believer
takes the position that Christ Jesus literally existed prior to His being
conceived/begotten by God’s Spirit in Mary, or believes that Christ Jesus
existed in another way prior to being conceived/begotten in Mary; scriptures
can be used to argue either view.
Further, I can respect and sympathize with the latter view. The intention of this article was not to
argue entirely against pre-existence; but was rather intended to argue against
the Trinitarian claim that the Son is “co-eternal” and has “always been”, just
as God, The Father is eternal and “always has been”.
In the next article, we
will look at the most convincing proof-texts in favor of the Trinity Doctrine
and answer those texts.
[1]
Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition Copyright © 2014 by
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
[2]
Wikipedia.org “Homoousion”
[3]
White, James Dr. (January 1, 1985).”Is
Jesus Yahweh?” Retrieved from http://aomin.org
