IS THE TRINITY A FORM OF LEGALIAM?
Steve Marlowe
What is the Trinity?
There are various concepts to explain the Trinity. Generally, the Doctrine is One God in three distinct Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet not three Gods (Elohim), One God (Eloah). Further, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father, and as it follows the Son is not the Father. If it is that God never revealed Himself as a Triune God, and never taught the Trinity and that the Trinity has only come by way of men in a council bickering over who is right and who is wrong, and yet no one realizing that God is removed, and His revelation is not explicit, but determined by men to be implied, is it any wonder that the idea that the Trinity may actually be a form of legalism, that is a prerequisite for our very salvation?
When we read the words of our Savior, the Lord YAHSHUA, do we understand the manifestation of a Trinity?
John 17:1 YAHSHUA 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, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and YAHSHUA the Christwhom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
YAHSHUA Prays for His Disciples
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You, and they have believed that You sent Me.
9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
YAHSHUA Prays for All Believers
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 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. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 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. 24 “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. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 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” (John 17 NKJV).
“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name, which You have given Me; and I guarded them, and not one of them perished except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled” (John 17:12 NASB). The God and Father of our Lord and Savior, who is indeed our God, as the Father has given Him, the Son, all things including His name (YAH, see where Christ’s name is revealed from the angel from Heaven, Matthew 1:21). His disciples belong to His Father and were given to Him, and the Name by which He was given, YAH, the Savior attributes His name as the Father’s name even though this name was given to Him, the Son. And so this does not clarify how the Son is a separate Person, and yet He is the same God as the Father. The Son is our God because the Father gave Him all things, which is why the Son claims that His personal name, YAHSHUA, belongs to the Father, as the Son also belongs to the Father, as well as His disciples.
The Trinity is defined by the Roman Catholic Church, and her rebellious daughters, the Protestant Churches, follow her, “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion… ‘Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed (which was written long after Athanasius’ death): the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet not three Gods (Elohim) but one God’ (Eloah). In this Trinity…the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, see Trinity).
IN PRE-TRINITARIAN TIMES
In pre-Trinitarian times, the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the books that constitute the New Testament, it was first formulated as later 4th-century Christians attempted to understand the relationship between the Son and God the Father.
Once the Trinitarians of the fourth century established that God was Triune, they sought early references to the three "Persons” of the later Trinitarian doctrine that may have appeared in the first, second, and third centuries. They looked with their Trinitarian focus to find collaboration, which they thought was alluded to in the writings of Clement of Rome, who rhetorically asks in his epistle as to why corruption exists among some in the Christian community; "Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?" (1 Clement 46:6). However, Clement had no conception of acknowledging a Triune God when he wrote this. Many Trinitarians sought the first-century Didache, which directs Christians to "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", which seemingly quotes Matthew 28:19, however, in the fourth century Eusebius, the Church Historian, quotes Matthew 28:19, as written in the Matthew text of his day, as, “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name” (Eusebius, The History of the Church, Penguin Classics, 1965, p.68). The strong indication is that both the Didache verse and Matthew 28:19 have been subjected to interpolations by overzealous Trinitarians forcing the Trinity Doctrine onto earlier texts.
Ignatius of Antioch similarly refers to all three persons around AD 110, exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit'', however, in context, Ignatius was speaking of unity of the brethren, not a Trinity, as can be seen, “Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual” (Chapter VIII of Ignatius to the Magnesians). It is hardly a Trinitarian statement on the part of Ignatius, who denies the co-equal status of the Father and the Son, who is in subjection to the Father. This problem of Subjectionism was later dealt with by the Trinitarians. In AD 325, the Council of Nicaea was called together by Constantine the Great. For the reasons of his being moderate in the religious and political spectrum of beliefs sought unity in his empire using Christianity as the cohesive element to achieve his goal, Constantine turned to Eusebius of Caesarea to try to make peace between the Arians and their opponents at Nicaea I.
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote, in On the Theology of the Church, that the Nicene Creed is a full expression of Christian theology, which begins with: "We believe in One God..." Eusebius goes on to explain how initially the goal was not to expel Arius and his supporters but to find a Creed on which all of them could agree and unite.
Eusebius of Caesarea suggested a compromise wording of a creed, in which the Son would be affirmed as "homoiousios", or "of similarsubstance' ' with the Father. But Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, and his representative, Athanasius saw that this compromise would allow Arius and his Arians, as his supporters were called, to continue to teach their doctrine, but stay technically within orthodoxy, and therefore rejected that wording. Both Arius and Athanasius claimed Orthodoxy, but that moniker would go to the victor. Orthodoxy in this case is defined as the generally accepted beliefs of society at a particular time (Cambridge Dictionary). The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely,homoousios, comes from no less a person than the emperor himself showing the great influence over the bishops at the Council of Nicaea. The fact that these bishops relied upon the emperor to tell them how to understand the nature of the Father and the Son is telling. The whole Council of Nicaea relied upon human reasoning to define God, and they did this without one, “Thus says the Lord, I am the Triune God!” To the present day, no one has cleared up the idea of where the emperor got the term (Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1966, p. 51-53). Homoousios means "of the same substance" as the Son with the Father. Many had their objections to the term “homoousian.” It was considered to be unscriptural, suspicious, and of “Sabellianism.” Sabellianism is the Eastern Church equivalent to Patripassianism in the Western Church, which are both forms of theological modalism (G. T. Stokes, “Sabellianism,” 1887, p. 567). Condemned as heresy, Modalism is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are three different modesof God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct Persons within the Godhead." "But the emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three (Hippolytus, of Rome. "The Refutation of All Heresies”, Book 10, Early Christian Writings)."
Athanasius was opposed to subordinationism. He was a man of rancor, and a character assassin, and was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings of the Divine Persons (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Pp. 51-55, SVS Press, 1997). It was also opposed by Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa (Metzger, Bruce M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1994, Pp. 647-649). It was condemned in the 6th century along with other doctrines taught by Origen, which threw Origin into the heretical camp. Epiphanius, writing against Origen, attacked his views of subordinationism. Though all of these early sources do reference the three persons of the Trinity, none articulate full divinity, equal status, or shared being as elaborated by Trinitarians in later centuries.
Justin Martyr (AD 100 – c. 165) also writes, "In the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Iesous Christos, and of the Holy Spirit". Justin Martyr’s terminology is identified in that it would later become widespread in Trinitarian theology. He describes that the Son and Father are the same "being" (ousia) anticipating the three persons (hypostases) that come with Tertullian and later authors. Justin describes how Iesous (the substitute name of the Savior in the Greek language), the Son, is distinguishable from the Father but also derives from the Father. Justin Martyr wrote that "we worship Him [Iesous Christos] with reason since we have learned that He is the Son of the living God Himself, and believe Him to be in second place and the prophetic Spirit in the third" (1 Apology 13, cf. ch. 60). Clearly Justin Martyr did not write within the context of the Trinitarian Doctrine.
The Bishop Theophilus of Antioch served from 169 until 182 the year of his death (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iv. 20). The first of the early Church Fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He abstractly defines the Trinity as God, his Word [Logos], and his Wisdom [Sophia] in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation, following the early Christian practice of identifying the Holy Spirit as the Wisdom of God (Theophilus, Apologia ad Autolycum, Book II, Chapter 15).
Although not fully developed, the alleged first defense of the doctrine of the Trinity was thought to be given by Tertullian who was born around 155 and died 220 AD (Audi, Robert, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1999, Cambridge University Press, p. 908). Tertullianwas a prolific early Christian writer from Carthage, a Roman province of Africa. He was the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Christian literature in the Latin language. He was a Christian apologist and a polemicist against the heresy of the Christian Gnostics. Tertullian has been called "the founder of Western theology.” Tertullian originated new theological concepts and advanced the development of Christian doctrines, like the Trinity. For example, he is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term Trinity (Latin: Trinitas). Despite the new Trinitarian terminology, his teaching clearly is the subordination of the Son to the Father (Wilhite, David E., Tertullian the African: An Anthropological Reading of Tertullian's Context and Identities, 2011 p. 134). He lost sainthood for his condemnation of remarriage for widows, and that He would flee from religious persecution. Later, he began to contradict the doctrines that He helped formulate, which caused his later rejection of the then-established orthodoxy. He would become a believer in Montanism, which precluded him from the church considering him as a Church father, and yet this despite being an important ecclesiastical writer. Because much of what is known about Montanism comes from anti-Montanist sources, it is difficult to know what they actually believed and how those beliefs differed from the Christian mainstream of the time (Tabbernee, William, Prophets, and Gravestones: An Imaginative History of Montanists and Other Early Christians, pp. 1–3, 2009).
Clement of Alexandria, Egypt, ( c. 150 – c. 215 AD), was a Christian theologian and philosopher who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria in Egypt. Among his pupils were Origen the Catechetical School referenced all three persons of the Trinity in their doxologies and St. Basil likewise, in the evening lighting of lamps (Mulhern, Philip, "Trinity, Holy, Devotion To", 1967, p. 205).
Origen of Alexandria (AD 185 – c. 253) has often been interpreted along the lines of subordinationism believing in shared divinity of the three persons but not in co-equality. The concept of the Trinity can be seen as developing significantly during the first four centuries by the so-called Orthodox in reaction to theological interpretations known as Sabellianism, and Arianism, and in reaction to the Jews accusing Alexandrian Christians in Egypt of worshiping two Gods. Adoptionism was the belief that Iesous the Christ was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at His baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata, who lived from 200 to 275 AD, and was Bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268, for his Adoptionist theology. Adoptionism, also called Monarchianism, is an early Christian nontrinitarian theological doctrine, which holds that Iesous (Christ) was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism. Adoptionist views among early Christians appear to have been most popular in the first, second, and third centuries. Adoptionist views sharply declined in prominence in the fourth and fifth centuries with the rise of Trinitarianism, as Church leaders condemned it as a heresy, as Adoptionism also condemned the term homoousios in the modalist sense in which he used it (Chapman, Henry Palmer, "Paul of Samosata", Catholic Encyclopedia).
Sabellius (ca. 215) was a third-century priest and theologian who most likely taught in Rome and may have been a North African from Libya. Basil and others call him a Libyan from Pentapolis, but this seems to rest on the fact that Pentapolis was a place where the teachings of Sabellius thrived, according to Dionysius of Alexandria, circa 260 (Chapman, J., Monarchians, The Catholic Encyclopedia). What is known of Sabellius is drawn mostly from the polemical writings of his opponents. To be polemical or being a polemic is to be willing to defend a controversial viewpoint. Among the nontrinitarian beliefs, Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same describing different aspects or roles of a single being. For this view, Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220.
New doctrines affect how the church operates. For example “Baptisms,” in the first, second, and third, centuries were done in the name of the Savior only, and originally done in the name of YAHSHUA. It is speculation when the actual time and change from baptizing in the name of Christ only to baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, took place. Most Christian Churches use the Trinitarian baptismal formula that is "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Trinitarians identify this collective name with the Christian faith into which baptism is an initiation, however, Eusebius, Church Historian, copied Matthew 28:19 from an ancient copy of the Gospel According to Matthew, which he wrote, as the actual quotation of Christ, “Go and make disciples in my name.” When did the verse, [in Matthew 29:18] change to “ Go [a]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…” It is interesting to note, that the word, “[a]therefore,” was added at a later date, as footnote notation reveals.
Historically, it seems apparent that the Trinitarian baptismal formula was established after the First Council of Constantinople (381), which says, "This is the Faith of our baptism that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith, there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). This may be taken to indicate that baptism was associated with this formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence, which is definitely not the case. The Trinitarians seek after the Trinity formulas in the New Testament including 2 Corinthians 13:14, however, this verse is hardly a proof text for the Baptism Formula, which states, “14 The grace of the Lord YAHSHUA the Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” This does not describe the Trinitarian Doctrine by the mere mention of the three, as the Bible does not teach the Trinity. Trinitarianism has arrived due to the attempts by mankind, namely fourth-century Christians, seeking to define God, without one “Thus says the LORD.” Another Scriptural reference used to imply a Triune God is 1 Corinthians 12:4–6, which says, 4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.” When the apostle Paul refers to the Father as the “all in all”, this “all in all” is a distinction used by the apostle Paul between the Son and the Father, as can be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, and we read,
27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it isevident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Also Ephesians 4:4–6, 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” These verses are not a proof text for the Triune God, and it is sad, and/or pathetic that Trinitarians think it is. 1 Peter 1:2 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,” and so are we to believe that the mere mention of the Father, and Son, and God’s omnipresent Holy Spirit, that the Trinity is proven in the Scriptures for all concerned? Nonsense! and Revelation 1:4–5, “4 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, 5 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…”
“...peace from Him who is and who was, and who is to come” is our Lord YAHSHUA, not the Father.
“...and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne…” Is a reference to Christ’s throne.
“and from YAHSHUA the 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…” Granted the “and” at the beginning may be confusing, but these verses, unless the Father or the Holy Spirit are mentioned directly, are all about Christ, and therefore, not a proof text for the Trinity.
The fact that the LORD has not revealed Himself to be Triune has led to confusion about the Godhead. Oneness Pentecostals demur from the Trinitarian view of baptism and emphasize baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" only, what they hold to be the original apostolic formula. For this reason, they often focus on the baptisms in Acts. Those who place great emphasis on the baptisms in Acts often likewise question the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 in its present form. Most scholars of New Testament textual criticism accept the authenticity of the passage since there are no variant manuscripts regarding the formula. Commenting on Matthew 28:19, Gerhard Kittel states:
This threefold relation [of Father, Son, and Spirit] soon found fixed expression in the triadic formulae in 2 Corinthians 13:14, and 1 Corinthians 12:4-6. The form is first found in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 Did., 7. 1 and 3. ... [I]t is self-evident that Father, Son, and Spirit are here linked in an indissoluble threefold relationship.
This is what men do when they form their own traditions, they completely ignore the evidence of God’s word in the Bible, as in this case baptism in the name of the Lord only, and hold to men and their take allowing for the Word of God, and the testimony of Acts to become void.
When talking to Trinitarian Christians, they may use the Trinity Doctrine as a litmus test to find out if you are a Christian or not. The problem is that never has being a Trinitarian according to the Bible been a criterion for proving one to be a Christian. If one believes the whole Bible, specifically the New Testament, how is it that he is not a Christian? There is no prerequisite in Scripture that postulates believing in the Trinity in order to belong to Christ. James White, author, and professor of theology, writes, “We hang a person’s very salvation upon the acceptance of doctrine.” He further states about his fellow believers in the Trinity, “No one dares question the Trinity for fear of being branded a ‘heretic.” And if that is not enough, he states, “We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully and completely Christian” (The Forgotten Trinity, 1998, pp. 14-15). Can we “understand” the Trinity? For the answer, we look to A Handbook of Christian Truth, which states: “The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity” (H. Lindsell and C. Woodbridge, p. 51). According to these scholars, you must understand the Trinity, but wait you cannot understand the Trinity, what? It makes one wonder, how we are to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good”? The doctrine of the Trinity puts each believer into an impossible task of having to believe and understand the Trinity, but it is impossible to understand the Trinity! On every level, Christians are told to understand the Trinity, and seemingly in the same breath, that it is impossible to do so, as Theologians admit, the Trinity is beyond the grasp of human reason” (“The Trinity,” The Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 27, 1980). Theologians are telling us, “The dogma of the Trinity is an absolute mystery which we do not understand even after it has been revealed” (Karl Rahner, The Trinity, 1986, p. 50).
A sincere Christian would be deeply confused. The apostle Paul clearly tells us, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Professor Cyril Richardson of New York’s Union Theological Seminary, stated, “My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct… It produces confusion rather than clarification… It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms” (The Doctrine of the Trinity, 1958, pp. 148-149). A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge states, “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves” (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1985, “Trinitarians”).
The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]” (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, “Trinity”). Historian H.G. Wells, points out, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Christ ever heard of the Trinity–at any rate from Him” (The Outline of History, 1920, Vol. 2, p. 499). Martin Luther, of the Protestant Reformation, surprisingly said, “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). If truth be known, this could be Martin Luther’s veiled attempt to acknowledge that the whole Trinity doctrine is a man-made construct never revealed by God to us, and has no bearing on our salvation. Those who teach the necessity of believing in the Trinity in order to be saved are truly by every definition of the word, legalists.
Presented by The Nazarean Ministry of YAHSHUA
