trinity for salvation?
• preface
every so often, i happen to stumble into a conversation with someone about the subject of the "trinity doctrine". one thing for sure that i found out quickly, was that this subject was very crucial to many professing Christians' beliefs about salvation. in other words, many people i have discussed this subject with believe that UNLESS one believes in the "trinity doctrine", or believes that God "is a trinity" of some sort, one cannot be "saved". for me, this immediately raised a red flag. i began to wonder what this doctrine was all about, and more importantly, what the Bible had to say about this subject. i also wanted to learn about the differing views regarding this subject among the world of "mainstream Christianity", that is, the precepts and doctrines held by the majority of professing Christian churches. as i already mentioned, i have found out that among the majority of mainstream Christianity, it seems that the trinity doctrine is not only subscribed to, but is believed to be mandatory for salvation.
although not the norm, i have found that not ALL professing Christians believe God is a trinity. after doing my own Biblical and non-Biblical study on this subject, i for one, do not subscribe to the trinity doctrine as written by the Roman Catholic Church and adopted by mainstream Christianity. if i saw the doctrine fully exemplified in the Bible, i would accept it, but i do not, so therefore i cannot accept it.
i feel the subject regarding the Godhead relationship, including the Holy Spirit, is very important for Christian study. the purpose of this study is to take a closer look at the philosophies of the trinity doctrine and compare it to the teachings found within the Bible. my goal is not to attempt to come to an "end all" conclusion about the Godhead relationship, so much as to show that belief in the trinity doctrine is NOT a qualification of, or essential to salvation according to the Bible. most importantly, i hope this study will show the "trinitarian" Christian that it is an error to assume that the "non-trinitarian" Christian is not a Christian.
• origin of the trinity doctrine
i have heard one person claim that after looking up the word "trinity", he found that it means, "a union or group of three often closely related individuals or things." his reasoning then, was that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three very closely related beings, so therefore they could be considered a "trinity". i could agree with this if we define "trinity" in this way, but by this same logic i could also reason that because my mother, father and myself are closely related, we are also a trinity. and then we could go on to find all sorts of groups in threes that we can also designate to be "trinities" as well. for that matter, we could find groups of closely related things in varying numbers and define "dualities", "quadralities" and all sorts of other appointed definitions as well!
it seems evident to me that the word "trinity" in most religious schools of thought implies the definition as given by the most commonly accepted religious document i know of regarding this subject which is the "Doctrine of Trinity", written and established by the Roman Catholic Church in 382AD at the Council at Constantinople. this was over 300 years after the last books of the New Testament were written.
however, i have also found that it is documented within various historical sources such as encyclopedias and other reference sources that the concept of a triune god did not originate in the Catholic Church. it seems that in some pagan religions, there was a similar belief and worship of a triune god. there is much info to study about these ancient Babylonian religions and i highly recommend taking some time to read about them. you might be shocked to find the similarities between pagan and mainstream Christianity's beliefs about a triune God as interesting as i did.
because of these and other findings, i have come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church borrowed this concept, along with many others, and used it as a foundation for the "Doctrine of Trinity". besides the findings contained in this study, i know from other Biblical studies that we are told not to observe how pagan religions serve their gods and do likewise. another interesting point, i understand that while the RCC was formulating this doctrine, there was a toss up as to whom would be the third part of the trinity - apparently, Mary was a runner up in the decision process!
during the course of this study, i have read portions of the Trinity Doctrine to confirm its various precepts. i had begun to read the document from the beginning but quickly became bogged down with cumbersome and confusing ideas that failed to give Biblical support to the doctrine presented. in my opinion, it reads about as fluently as a modern day legal document! i highly suggest everyone who is following the teachings of God to read as much of the Trinity Doctrine as they can for themselves while comparing it to Biblical precepts, before just accepting it as Biblical fact.
• Biblical descriptions of God
while growing up in a mainstream Christian church, "trinity" was used to kind of "explain" or outline the makeup of the being(s) we call God. if we are tryng to kind of "explain" God, it seems appropriate that we search through the Bible to find scripture that does so:
1Cor 8:5-6 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
if the “trinity doctrine” is true, wouldn’t the Holy Spirit be even mentioned here where Paul is describing to the gentile church in Corinth who God is? in fact, this is a plain statement by Paul describing God. if Paul thought of God in a Trinitarian way, surely he would have supported it here... but he didn’t. let's look at John's description of God:
John 1:1-18 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, `He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'" And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
here, John seems to attampt to almost "define" to the best of his knowledge, his perception of God. if John thought of God in a Trinitarian way, wouldn't this be the best place to explain this notion?
i'd like to look at the original Greek words used in order to get a clearer understanding of what John is saying here. so many ideas come to people's minds when we hear the word "God" that it sometimes helps to go to the original text (shown in italics):
John 1:1 In beginning was Logos, and Logos was with Theos, and Logos was Theos. 2 He (Logos) was in the beginning with Theos.
this seems a bit confusing at first glance, but it really isn't when you break it down. in Greek, logos literally means "word" or "speech"; theos literally means "god" or "deity".
there are three definite conclusions that can be drawn from what John gives us here in these two verses:
1. Logos and Theos existed in the beginning
2. Logos and Theos were with each other
3. Logos and Theos were the same (somehow)
perhaps, a trinitarian would use point number 3 as proof text for some facet of the trinity doctrine... Logos and Theos are the same! i ask, "the same how?" what is John meaning by saying the Logos WAS Theos? does he suggest they are the same being? or are they perhaps the same type of being?
i also question, if this suggests that God is a triune being, where is the third party here? John only mentions two beings here! also, why does John come back in verse 2 and restate that Logos was in the beginning WITH Theos - after all, he just said that, right? perhaps he wanted to make his point more clear - that Logos was actually WITH Theos - that they weren't the same exact being, but were of the same "race", if you will.
here's something to think about... can someone be with another, and simultaneously be that other? at my own beginning - at birth, i was (my existance began). and i was with my kind (mom & dad - humans). and i was my kind - human. is this not similar to the description we are given within the scripture above? is it not possible that this is the same method of how John was trying to explain, as best as he could with words, Godkind or Godhead relationship? perhaps John is saying that Theos and Logos are related to one another (spiritkind) as human families are related (humankind)?
we know from various scripture that God's children will eventually become members of the God family at a future date from our perspective. when Christ marries His Church, He will essentially be our brother as well as King! while taking the viewpoint that Christ and the Father are Godkind, and that they are distinct Godly beings, acting THROUGH the power of the Holy Spirit, we DO NOT deny the Father's or Christ's deity at all, nor do we deny the existence and power of their Holy Spirit. we just deny the man made doctrine that attempts to define God as an impersonable and confusing hypo stasis, but rather understand the Godkind relationship as a family, similar to our humankind family relationship. this will be exemplified later in this study.
i believe John 1 is one of the most important references which shows that the Father & Christ are two beings of Godkind that have always existed together as a race of Godkind. i believe the reason why John does not include an explanation of the Holy Spirit as another being of Godkind is because John did not think of the Holy Spirit in this manner, but thought of the Holy Spirit as the power of God. if it is a point of salvation to believe in God as a trinity, wouldn't John have even mentioned that point here, where he goes to great lengths to explain the relationship of Godkind? wouldn't he have at least mentioned the Holy Spirit in this section?
if you have not studied this first chapter of John, i encourage you to do so. you will find that "Logos" is Jesus Christ and that all things were made through Him. also, you will see strong evidence that "Theos" is the Father in studying verses 14 & 18 of this chapter. if we read on in John, we can also find another description of God as being the Father and Christ, but does not include the Holy Spirit:
John 15:1-8 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. "By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.
here, Christ uses symbolism to convey His teachings regarding the relationship with the Father. if Christ thought of Himself, His Father and His Spirit as a trinity, and furthermore, His Church's acceptance of this trinity as a point of salvation, wouldn't He have somehow mentioned the Holy Spirit as part of that vine? also, wouldn't He have taken the time to teach this trinitarian precept here, or if not here, at least at some point in His ministry?
notice also in John, Christ recognizes the Godhead as His Father with no mention of the Holy Spirit:
John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, `I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"
again, Christ does not include the Holy Spirit as part of the Godhead that He will ascend to. another interesting point Christ brings out here is that He includes Mary, whom He is speaking with, as part of this Divine Family of God - that Christ's Father is her Father as well. here He is not going into detail of why He is doing this, but when you continue to study Biblical scripture, you will see that we humans who follow Christ will inherit or be adopted into the family of God at some point in the future.
another point of scripture regarding the nature of God in context is found in Romans:
Romans 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
so, in creation we should be able to see the invisible attributes of God. on a microscopic level, all of creation is made up of atoms which are made up of positive and negative charges - an attribute of two. however, the people of Christ's day were not capable of knowing such things that science later discovered, so they would have concentrated on the things their eyes could see plainly. consider for a moment the most basic element of creation, gender, in ALL forms of known life including mankind, animal kind, and plant kind: male & female - again that's 2, not 3 genders. these are all attributes of the creation that can be seen by man that exemplify God's invisible attributes as noted here in Romans.
if the “trinity doctrine” was such an important and relevant doctrine to Christian salvation, there would surely be more than just a few places in the Bible where the Holy Spirit was mentioned along with the Father and the Son. there would be real statements explaining this hypostasis and there would be a totally different portrayal of the relationship between the Father and the Son.
• poetically speaking
when defending the trinity doctrine, the trinitarian will undoubedly bring up some verses in the Bible that seem to suggest God's Holy Spirit is a being, like "He" or "comforter" (parakletos - Greek), etc. understanding that the Bible often uses poetic literary tools, these scriptural citings show no evidence that these descriptions are anything more than metaphors. let's look at some of these scriptures:
John 14:15-17, 26 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
the word “Helper” and “Comforter” was translated from the Greek: parakletos {par-ak'-lay-tos} which means comforter or advocate. if the context of these verses were describing God, then there would perhaps be a case to further try to explain the Holy Spirit as a being, however this isn't the case. so we must at least consider that the language used here could be poetic in nature.
there are various metaphors used in the Bible that exemplify the poetic nature of scripture. another style of metaphor usage is personification, exemplified here in Genesis:
Genesis 4:9-10 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
did the blood become a sentient being that spoke to God, or is this an example of personification? it is fairly safe to say that this is an obvious example of personification - giving personable attributes to something that isn’t a “person” or “being”. here is another example of personification of the Holy Spirit in Acts:
Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
here the Holy Spirit is said to speak. do we therefore conclude from this scripture that the Holy Spirit must be another “being” of Godkind? if we were to conclude this we might be in error, for we know it was Christ who called Saul directly in Acts 9 - as it was Christ who was speaking with Saul/Paul throughout this section of Acts. but, if we were to consider the Holy Spirit as an extension and power of God, we can see how these scriptures would make perfect sense, for Christ speaks to His children by and through the Holy Spirit, or power of the Most High.
in seeking other Biblical examples of metaphor usage involving the Holy Spirit, here are two different versions of the same account where Luke chooses to use personification, and Matthew does not:
Matt 12:28 "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Luke 11:20 "But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
in these scriptures, we not only see that the apostles themselves can access or utilize the Holy Spirit of God (aka "finger of God") in order to cast out demons, but we also see another example which shows how the apostles understood God's Spirit as some kind of extention of God, not as part of a triune God being. otherwise, Luke wouldn't have attributed the metaphor of God's "finger" to His Spirit.
another example of a literary tool used in the Bible is parallelism. here is one example of this involving the Holy Spirit:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
this scripture states that the Holy Spirit IS the power of God! the literary tool used here is called parallelism - restating the same point in a similar, but different way. i have heard it said that these are two seperate things - that there is the Holy Spirit AND there is a "Power of God". but i question, isn't it through the use of power that work gets accomplished in the physical realm? here are several scriptures which show that God also accomplishes work through His power of His Holy Spirit:
Acts 1:2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen,
Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. They told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
1Cor 2:10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
1Cor 12:8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit,
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Eph 3:16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man,
2Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,
Titus 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
Hebrews 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
1Peter 1:12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into.
getting back to Luke 1:35, the scripture further goes on to distinguish the individuality of Christ saying that also the Holy One born will be called the Son of God. Is the Holy Spirit the Son of God? no! is the Father the Son of God? well that would make no sense whatsoever! yet, the trinity doctrine would have us believe just that since it claims they are “all one being”. however, we know through the scriptures it is only Christ who is the Son of God. digressing on this point a bit further, consider the following scripture:
Matt 1:20-21 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."
here, it states plainly that Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit. bearing this in mind, if the Holy Spirit was in fact an entity as the Father & Christ are, rather than the power of God, wouldn't Christ have called the Holy Spirit, "Father?" but He refers to Theos as being His Father, NOT the Holy Spirit.
much of the language of the Bible IS poetic in nature, and scripture is often written using various literary tools. we see this throughout the Bible in the form of verse, rhyme, symbolism, metaphor, personification, and allegory (parable). so why is the usage of personification for God's Holy Spirit in John 14 and in other scripture so unbelievable for many trinitarians? no scholar of the Bible can conclude, beyond a shade of doubt, that these instances where the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a "comforter", "He/Him", "It", "guide", etc., are not examples of metaphor/personification. for, cannot the Spirit, or Power of God be used BY God to comfort, teach, reprove, guide, love, etc.? is the fact that scripture occasionally personifies the Holy Spirit really proof that the doctrine of the trinity is true?
i submit that in each case the Holy Spirit is referred to as a being, It is being personified in the poetic language of the Bible. if a trinitarian, or anyone for that matter, takes a moment to read the same scriptures with the viewpoint that the Holy Spirit is the POWER of God, the true meaning and teaching of these verses remain entirely in tact, if not more easily understood.
• the Holy Spirit by name
often the trinitarian will cite scripture containing "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in the same phrase in attempts to show that the trinity doctrine is exemplified in the Bible, but does this really support the trinity doctrine? let's examine a couple examples of this closer:
Matt 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
if we read this scripture alone, one could again attempt to conclude that this is “proof” of God being a trinity. but let’s look at another example of baptism in the NT:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 19:4-5 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
when comparing scripture to find “how” a disciple might go about performing a baptism, we see that in these examples Peter includes the Holy Spirit by name, and Paul does not. is one disciple wrong and the other correct, or is this a Biblical contradiction? i do not believe so... i believe it is through the Holy Spirit that Christ and the Father makes an abode with the one getting baptized - that the Holy Spirit is the means as to how God accomplishes the indwelling of Himself within us:
Ephesians 3:14-17 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith...
as this verse confirms, it is through the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ and the Father can dwell within the Christian. therefore, it is not mandatory to include the Holy Spirit by name in a baptism, as the above examples illustrate.
let's look a bit closer at what Christ says about this abode that is made:
John 14:23-24 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
if Christ thought of Himself in terms of a trinity, why then does He not make mention of the Holy Spirit as the third being that makes "Our home with him?" here, the only Godly beings Christ mentions that will dwell within the Christian are stated as the Father and Christ, Himself. then He goes on to say that the Father will send the Holy Spirit for teaching and guidance:
John 14:25-26 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
why didn't Christ include the "Helper" in the previous scripture as One of the God beings that would make a dwelling with the Christian? because the Holy Spirit IS the POWER of God which the Father sends in Christ's name to help us. note that it isn't until AFTER the Father and Christ come to him who loves Christ and keeps his words that the Father sends His Holy Spirit as a helper to teach and remember the words.
so, does the fact that scripture will on occasion refer to the Holy Spirit by name really provide evidence that the trinity doctrine is true? for a trinitarian to use this as a proof text in attempts to give credence to this Roman Catholic doctrine, one can easily open their Bible to the letters of the New Testament and read the various opening blessings for a comparison of reasoning:
Acts 1:7 To all who are 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 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Cor 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Cor 1:2-3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort...
Gal 1:3-5 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Phil 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Thess 1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Thess 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Tim 1:2 To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
2Tim 1:2 To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Titus 1:4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.
Philemon 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 1:1-4 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
1Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
2Peter 1:2-4 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
1John 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life--the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us--that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
2John 1:3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
Jude 1:1-2 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ: Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.
Revelation 1:3-6 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. John, to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
if the trinity doctrine was taught by Christ and was considered by the early Christian church as a fundamental point of salvation, how can it be possible that Christ's apostles would not include the entire Godhead in their blessings as written in the New Testament?
i haven't taken the time to prove it, but based on the scripture cited above, i would be willing to bet that there are more places in the Bible that speak of the Father and Christ in the same phrase than there are which also include the Holy Spirit by name along with Them. so if the trinitarian will use examples of scripture where the name of the Holy Spirit is mentioned along with the names of the Father & the Son in attempts to Biblically prove the trinity doctrine, then by the same method of reasoning, the non-trinitarian could more effectively prove that the Godhead is made up of the two distinct beings known to us as the Father & Son. regardless, by the many examples of scripture, the apostles apparently did not think of God as a trinity, or else they would have surely included the Holy Spirit in on these blessings.
but to use occasional scripture which happens to mention the Holy Spirit by name along with the names of Father & Son in order to build a lengthy doctrine upon is to be in danger of transgressing these Biblical warnings:
Deuteronomy 12:30-32 "take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, `How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.' "You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
Ecclesiastes 3:14-15 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past.
Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
• examples of the Godhead relationship
there are various examples in scripture where Christ has interactions with the Father that exemplify Them as seperate beings. in some examples, Christ prays to the Father... does the trinitarian believe Christ is praying to Himself? to imply this could be to imply schizophrenia, which seems to border on heresy! one can only conclude that Christ is really praying to His Father. these Biblical examples show Christ praying to the Father which illustrate that Christ and His Father are two distinct beings rather than the same being, as offered in the trinity doctrine:
Matt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
John 17:1-5 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
Matthew 26:53 “Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
another difficult subject for the trinitarian philosophy to reconcile is that of Christ's resurrection from the dead. Christ Himself says He gives no sign but that of Jonah - He would be 3 days & 3 nights dead in the grave, and then He would be resurrected. the Bible plainly says that it is the Father who resurrects Christ from the dead and that He now sits at the right hand of the Father. in all of these cases, there is no third distinction of the Godhead:
Mt 26:64 Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Mr 14:62 Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Col 3:1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.
Acts 3:26 "To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities."
Ac 4:10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.
Ac 2:24 "whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
Ac 2:32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
Ac 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Ac 13:23 "From this man's seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior--Jesus--
Ac 13:30 "But God raised Him from the dead.
in these examples, the word, "God" equals "Theos" (Greek) which refers to the Father as previously seen in John 1. the word, "Power - Gk: dunamis" that is used in Matthew and Mark is not the same as the word "Spirit - pneuma" which is used when referred to as the Holy Spirit.
so, if Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father, where is the Holy Spirit sitting? and, if God is a trinity, that would mean that Christ would be taking part in resurrecting Himself, which the scripture does not say - it says Theos (the Father) resurrects Christ. also, if He were to be resurrecting Himself, He could not be dead for 3 days and 3 nights, which He said is the only sign given of His Messiahship - to deny this sign would be to deny Him being the Messiah! again, the trinity theory fails.
another interaction worth noting which further clarifies the distinction between Christ and the Father is the account of Christ's baptism. a voice came from heaven delivering a message proclaiming the adoption of Christ as Son of the Father:
Matt 3:17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
i have heard it said that this voice was the direct voice of the Father, but i do not believe this to be true for numerous reasons.
firstly, the scripture does not say this is the voice of the Father. we must always be careful not to assume our ideas upon scripture and to try and understand it by what is given rather than adding to it. this scripture does not say, "the Father said...," but rather, "a voice came from heaven, saying..."
secondly, other Biblical scriptures indicate that no man has ever heard the Father’s voice, nor seen Him:
John 1:18 No one has seen God [Theos] at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 5:37 "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
John 5:36-37 "But I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish--the very works that I do--bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
John 6:46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
it seems on the surface level from the context of Christ's baptism, that witnesses actually heard this voice from heaven. if this is true, then it certainly could not be the Father's voice, for these scriptures plainly state that no man has ever heard the Father's voice. this precept is another interesting topic for study, for having done so i have discovered that it was Christ (the Logos) who appeared and/or spoke with Abraham, Moses and other prophets in the OT, not the Father Himself. also, if the Godhead is inseparable as a trinity, the statements Christ makes describing His being sent by the Father would not make sense.
thirdly, while Matthew doesn’t spell out whether or not the voice from heaven is heard by just Christ or all in the general area, the language itself also indicates that this voice is not directly being spoken by God the Father to Christ alone for the voice says, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” NOT, “You are My beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.” it is a statement of declaration in the third person, not the second person.
perhaps this voice was that of a messenger, or angel sent by the Father to proclaim this statement. after all, the word "angel" - mal'ak [Hebrew] or aggelos [Greek] - means literally, "messenger." regardless of what being spoke the words in Matthew 3:17, we can certainly affirm that these words were a message from the Father about His newly adopted Son upon baptism.
so here again, the Bible presents the Father and the Son as two separate entities that speak individually to one another. why then do some Christian organizations insist that these two beings are to be defined as a “triune hypostasis” rather than two entities, and further, that one is not a Christian or cannot inherit salvation unless one accepts this trinity doctrine?
setting this interaction aside for a moment, i'd like to digress slightly on Christ's title of "Son of God". i find it an interesting point of study that Christ first receives this title upon His baptism. i have looked for an example in the Bible where Christ is called, "Son of God" BEFORE His baptism, and i have yet to find it. notice also in Luke:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
this message, given by an angel of God, was to be a future event, for at this time Christ had not yet been born unto a woman in the flesh. as we know from previous scripture cited, He was already in existence as the Logos, with Theos in heaven. therefore, we can conclude that before Christ's human birth, He was not considered the "Son" of God.
i believe the important lesson here for the Christian to understand, is that Christ exemplifies God's plan for us in His family. this example is given to us by God throughout the Bible in various forms, that all of the followers of Christ will eventually become one with God in that they will be resurrected and transformed into spirit bodies and will inherit their place in the Kingdom of God as heirs:
Rev 21:7 "He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.
Matthew 12:50 “For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Galatians 4:7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
1Cor 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
this example of the family model further exemplifies the Godhead relationship in a way that all humans can grasp and understand with much more clarity than that of the trinity doctrine. understanding the Godhead as a family relationship allows us to better understand how we all have the opportunity to be begotton into the family of God!
• being one
often times there will be an attempt to defend the trinity doctrine by using scripture where Christ states that, "I and the Father are one". however, do these really support the trinity doctrine? consider the following scripture:
John 10:30 "I [Jesus] and My Father are one."
does this statement mean they are one being? or could Christ not have been speaking of the Himself and the Father being one in a different way? for, when two are joined together in matrimony, does the Bible not describe this as a union of the flesh being made "one"? does anyone take this to mean that married couples are some kind of "duality" two-in-one hypostatis?
when conceptualizing the Father and Christ as being Godkind, "being one" can refer to being one race, as humankind is one race. and if Christ were to support the trinity doctrine when He makes statements such as these, why then does He not include the Holy Spirit in His speech? for example, if God is a trinity, shouldn't Christ have said, "I, the Father AND the Holy Spirit are one?" let’s compare these thoughts with another precept... on the night of His betrayal, Jesus uses the same term to refer to His disciples:
John 17:20-26 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."
here, still in the book of John, Jesus involves His disciples in this unity or “oneness” in the same way as His “oneness” with the Father. wouldn’t it be fair to say that Christ is not speaking of Himself and the Father as one being, any more than He speaks of His disciples as becoming one being? sure, Christ is praying to the Father asking that all His believers "may be one", but does this mean we are all to be some kind of multi-fold hypostasis together?
or does it mean that we should all be one in like-mindedness as a family? reason would have us believe the latter. as a side note, read these verses again and consider that Christ is praying and speaking to His Father... another distinct being, rather than to Himself. also, consider in Galatians:
Galatians 3:26-28 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
here again, the Bible teaches that "we are one" in God. so, the idea of God "being one" that many trinitarians bring up in attempts to prove the trinity doctrine as being Biblical is NOT a valid case in point. as students of Christ, we must keep in mind that the Word of God has different ways of teaching us. in some cases, statements are very literal, in other cases, teaching is in the form of a parable, proverb, metaphor or in some other form of figurative language. realizing this, we must be careful to not read our own interpretations into the scriptures, for there is so much worldly tradition we are brought up with that it is easy to make false assumptions when we read scripture. we must search the scriptures, compare them, and let the Bible reveal these precepts to be true, so that we do not misinterpret them.
on the heels of the subject of "being one", there is a similar argument that many trinitarians will bring up involving the statement made by Christ, "you have seen Me, you have seen [the Father]." let's take a look at this in context:
John 14:6-12 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." 8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, `Show us the Father'? 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.
is Christ speaking literally in verse 9? the word "seen" is "horao" in the Greek. in one concordance, there are three definitions given: 1) to see with the eyes; 2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know; 3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience. notice that only the first definition means to literally "see." after considering so many other scriptures already cited, how can anyone be so sure that Christ was not intending the second or third meaning of this word?
compare these verses to what Christ says to the Pharasees earlier in the same book:
John 5:17-19 But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.
John 5:26-27 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man."
John 6:46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father."
remaining in the book of John, here Christ speaks to the Pharasees regarding His relationship with the Father. He describes Their unity in thought and mind. He also declairs His authority that has been given to Him by the Father. then, 6:46 sums up our question at hand - no one has literally seen the Father, except Christ!
it is upon the precept that no one has ever witnessed the form nor voice of the Father that my belief rests, of which i can be sure that the being of the Godhead that Moses glanced upon the back side of when he was on Mt. Siani, was non other than Christ Himself - in His glory as He proceeded to write the 10 Commandments with His finger into stone.
what would it profit for the apostles to "see" the Father? could they even survive being in the Father's presence? i don't think so. recall that Moses turned white after being exposed to the back of God! and if this Being was Christ, imagine how much more of an effect the Father would have had on Moses' physical being.
i believe the scripture John 6:46 is the key to better understanding what Christ is saying in John 14:9. if one sees Christ, it as like seeing the Father - He is speaking of the unity of the will of Himself and His Father. going beyond this to see the Father would be humanly impossible.
one other scripture that has been used as a possible proof text of Christ being the Father is found in Isaiah:
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
here, the words "Everlasting Father" as a description of Christ does not conclude that Christ IS God the Father. the prophet Isaiah was giving praise to Christ by attributing various exalting titles to Him. after all, Christ is not only the Creator of everything (John 1:1-3), but is also our eternal King of Kings. in a way from our human point of perspective, Christ could very well be thought of as our "Everlasting Father", for He IS everlasting, and He gave not only physical life to us, but also gave us the opportunity to accept the gift of eternal life.
not only in this account, but in every case i have found the word "father" in the Old Testament, the original word "'ab" does not reference "God", but rather "father" literally in the original Hebrew; therefore Isaiah's title of "father" is quite literal. in the OT, the Hebrew words which reference "God" are "elohiym" (God), and "Adonay" or "Y@hovah" (LORD). based upon this evidence, we cannot conclude that Isaiah was attributing Christ as being the Father (Theos).
another point of consideration regarding the Father & Christ "being one" is addressed in the following scripture:
Matthew 24:35-36 "but My words will by no means pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."
Mark 13:31-33 "but My words will by no means pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
in these passages of scripture, Christ is answering the disciples who questioned regarding the sign of His return at the end of the age, and when exactly this event would take place. Christ plainly says that only the Father knows the hour.
perhaps the most simple and pertinent question i can ask at this point is, "if the Father & Son are 'one' as some kind of triune being, then how could the Father know something that Christ doesn't?"
this is one of the most blatant Biblical examples which entirely contradicts the very concept of God as a trinity.
• coequality in the Godhead?
an interesting point of the trinity doctrine as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, is that these "personalities of God are coequal". let's see what Christ has to say about that:
John 14:28 "You have heard Me say to you, `I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, `I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.
here Christ clearly states, "My Father is greater than I." this is an interesting point to note in our study of the trinity doctrine. this statement means there is some kind of hierarchy in the Godhead. therefore, every place throughout the trinity doctrine that claims God is coequal parts is also inaccurate. this also means that Christ answers to the Father... notice:
John 14:31 "But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here.
here, Christ says He is given commandment by the Father. did He say that He gives Himself commandment? NO! the Father gives Christ commands, probably similar to that of a human father giving his son or daughter commands. the mere fact that Christ calls His Father, "Father", sums up that He is honoring His Father in doing His will, as we honor our parents. we do not claim equality with our parents, for in doing so, we would not be honoring them. we are only equal to our parents in kind - human kind. notice other scriptures that signify there is not coequality among Godkind:
John 13:16-20 “Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’ “Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He. “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
John 15:20-21 “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. “But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me.
1Cor 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ [Christos] is God [Theos].
this passage in Corinthians also exhibits one of the many places in the Bible where the Trinitarian formula just doesn’t fit into the text properly. here, if you were to read in the Trinitarian formula the passage would read, “... and the head of Christ is the Father, Christ and Holy Spirit,” and that just doesn’t make sense!
in light of these scriptures, how is it possible to conclude that the trinity doctrine speaks truth in regards to the idea of co-equality in the family of God? the trinity doctrine says Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit are equal... Christ disagrees. let's ask ourselves, "are we to believe Christ, or the doctrine of the trinity as originated within the Roman Catholic Church, which is comprised of mere mortals?" as we continue to reach deeper into scripture, it seems that attempting to prove the trinity doctrine as truthful and Biblical, and worse, forcing the belief of it upon Christians as a requirement for salvation, rapidly approaches the point of being an exercise in futility.
• the image of God / the image of the Holy Spirit
apparently, God has an image, and mankind is created in that image:
Gen 1:26-28 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Rom 1:17-18 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
the original Hebrew words used for "image" (tselem) & "likeness" (d@muwth), mean literally "likeness of resemblance" and "similitude". it's hard for us to imagine exactly how resemblance can occur between spirit and fleshly beings, but we do know that Christ came into the flesh as a human being - our likeness. even after His resurrection, He returned in Spirit form in the likeness of His human form. Thomas even touched His wounds to make sure it was Him. at other times, angels have appeared as resembling humans as well. compare these examples to the following which exemplify the likeness of the Holy Spirit:
Acts 2:1-4 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Matt 3:16-17 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
in both of these cases, the writer chooses not to describe the Holy Spirit as having a real physical form. tounges as of fire appeared and they were filled with the Holy Spirit, but it doesn't say the Holy Spirit took the form of this fire. also, the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, not in the "form of a dove". in fact, none of these scriptures actually give any kind of physical description of the Holy Spirit at all! i have yet to find any scripture that does describe the Holy Spirit as having a physical form or likeness. this further supports the notion that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct being, but an extention of God's power which is only spirit, not physical.
also note that Matthew clearly depicts Christ's baptism as He watches the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descend upon Him - Christ is watching the Holy Spirit come to Him. in the Strong’s concordance, "alighting" is from the Greek word "erchomai" which means to come, to appear, make one's appearance, to come into being, come forth, show itself, find place or influence, to be established, to become known. so, it could be said that Christ watched the Heavens open up and saw the Holy Spirit come to Him to be established in Him, or to come into being in Him. does this scripture illustrate the Holy Spirit as being the same entity as Christ? not at all!
• blastpheming One but not the other?
another point in scripture that challenges the trinity doctrine can be found in Matthew 12:
Matthew 12:30-32 "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
if the trinity doctrine is true, how is it possible to blaspheme the Father or Christ without blasting the Holy Spirit? if God WAS a trinity - a three in one triune hypo-stasis - Christ's words here would not make sense. it would be impossible to blaspheme one without the other. the mere fact that you CAN blastpheme one and not the other contradicts the trinity doctrine.
to digress on this subject, i believe that Christ may have been speaking metaphorically here. perhaps the only way you can blastpheme the Holy Spirit, is by never repenting of sin: consider that God uses His Holy Spirit by which to accomplish His works. God's saving grace through His son, Jesus Christ, is accomplished through the indwelling of the Father and Christ in our abodes - our bodies. it is through God's power of His Holy Spirit that He does this. however, He cannot make His abode with us if we deny His Holy Spirit by not repenting for our sins, thus blastpheming the Holy Spirit. otherwise, does it sound more resonable that God would destroy a mortal permanently if "blastpheming the Holy Spirit" is merely speaking words (of some kind) against the Holy Spirit at some confused point in life? does this seem unrepentable? i think not, for we all make stupid mistakes.
• "infallibility" of the KJV & Biblical errors
there is a philosophy in existance that claims infallibility of the King James Version translation of the Bible. i believe it is important to understand that although the Word of God will stand forever, it is impossible for human languages to be perfectly translated by humans. in other words, it is naive to assume that anything mankind has a hand in would wind up a work of perfection. this is one of the main reasons the Bible teaches us to gain wisdom "precept upon precept, here a little and there a little" (Isaiah 28:9-13). God knew man would be deceived by the great deceiver into twisting His Word over time, so He gave us plenty of built in "checks and balances". i find it helpful at times to dig into the history and origin of a word, phrase or verse to get a better handle on what the writer of a passage was trying to convey. bearing this in mind, i wish to call attention to one particular section of scripture that is often used as proof text in attempts to support the trinity doctrine:
1John 5:6-9 6. This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.
the section i have italicized here might very well be italicized in your Bible as well. in many Bibles, italicized words usually indicate that the text was "added for clarification". while often this is helpful, occasionally it is misleading.
from a brief study i've found notation in the NKJV margin notes and in Strong's Concordance that the section italicized here was not found in any manuscripts earlier than the 16th century! the margin notes of my NKJV says that the NU (Greek NT Critical Text) and M (Majority Text) omit these words and that only 4 or 5 very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.
if we simply compare verse 7 with verse 8, we can see two different approaches to the understanding of this mystery. the italicized text in verse 7 says that “these three are one”, where the original text in verse 8 says “these three agree as one” - two totally different statements! so which is correct? if the margin notes are correct, it would seem plain that the text should read:
1John 5:6-9 This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.
this passage speaks of Christ coming to us by "water and blood", which makes sense since the flesh is made up of mostly water & blood. we already know that Christ was in heaven, then came to us in the form of a human, was executed and lay dead in the grave (hades / "hell") for 3 days and 3 nights, then rose from the grave and ascended into heaven. He later returned, showing Himself to the apostles for the first time in spiritual and physical form.
adding my own clarification, the text goes on to say that "there are three [elements] that bear witness [to this fact] in heaven: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these thress agree as one." notice the three elements: the Spirit, the water, and the blood... there is no mention of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in the original text at all! i believe this passage is simply stating that as the water and blood which made up Christ's earthly and fleshly body during His time on earth bear withness of His coming to us, so does His Holy Spirit, for He is still alive in heaven! therefore, the three elements - the Spirit, the water and the blood - agree as one.
i find it ironic that many will stand firm on a short passage such as this, that was not in the original Greek text in attempts to prove a man-made doctrine, but will effortlessly do away with the obligations consistently given to outline the characteristics of the Christian walk, stated in this same chapter a couple verses earlier:
1John 5:1-3 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
isn't it amazing that so many professing Christians will not only hold on to doctrines written centuries after the last letters of the Bible, but will sit in a place of judgment and balance another's salvation against these man-made doctrines! then often when one following after Christ witnesses about the great increase of wisdom obtained through obedience to God's laws and statutes as a fruit of receiving God's gift of His Holy Spirit through His Son, he often finds himself being counted as a heretic for not believing a man-made doctrine such as the trinity... does that not seem absurd?
another minor point which also exemplifies a case of erroneous translation is that of the Holy Spirit being rendered, "Holy Ghost". is God's Holy Spirit really a ghost? consider the original words translated in some Bibles as "ghost":
in the OT, the word "ghost" is used more as a verb: gava` {gaw-vah'}- to expire, die, perish, give up the ghost, yield up the ghost, be dead, be ready to die. similarly, "ghost" appears in the NT as the same: ekpneo {ek-pneh'-o}- to breathe out, breathe out one's life, breathe one's last, expire. also in the NT, ghost can be found as: phantasma {fan'-tas-mah}- an appearance, an apparition, spectre.
but when the Holy Spirit is mentined, the word is: pneuma {pnyoo'-mah}- spirit... which is an entirely different word altogether! so we see that anywhere a Bible calls the Holy Spirit the "Holy Ghost", it is a mistranslation.
another definition given for pneuma is, "the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son," which i find amost amusing after doing this study, as we have already proven this to be false. isn't this interesting how one of the trinity doctrine's most visable flaw - "coequality in the Godhead" - is stated as a matter of fact, managing its way into Strong's Concordance! yet another definition given for pneuma in Strong's is "the soul", which is also a completely different word in the original text!
these are but a couple examples of translation errors found in ALL Bible translations. as a student of Christianity, we must always be on the lookout for such errors.
• conclusion
regardless of these few points that i have brought up - and i'm certain there are many more - that reveal some of the various flaws of the trinity doctrine from a Biblical perspective, my intent has not been in this study to slam the trinitarian, and especially not to offend. my intent has been to challenge the trinitarian to think hard before deciding in his mind whether acceptance of the trinity doctrine, written by the Roman Catholic Church, is a condition of salvation... i beg that he/she pray hard on this before making such a decision in judging another's opportunity at salvation.
to restate the most important point i'm trying to make in this study, when we find ourselves on one side of a religious discussion, we should remember that ALL mankind is fallible. thus, we should never place ourselves into a position of judgment, claiming another to be a heretic... it's better to let the Word of God to do the condemning, for God ALONE knows who is of His flock - it is not for us to decide!
8-)
bernard baruch carman
www.seedsoftruth.org
7/05
•••