The Trinity is Bibical

[Rev. Derek Joshua E'Lon]

Is The Trinity Biblical?
From the Christian Research Institute
www.equip.org
The Trinity is a basic doctrine of orthodox Christianity. Yet the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Bible. Is the doctrine of the Trinity really biblical?
The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one All Mighty One (God) who exists eternally as three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I can assure you that the elements of this doctrine are all taken directly from the Bible.
The first plank of the Trinitarian platform is that there is only one All Mighty One (God). The Bible could not be more explicit on this point, which it states explicitly about two dozen times. In Isaiah 44:8 Yahweh (The LORD) says that even He does not know of any other (mighty ones)gods!
Yahshua (Jesus) often spoke of the All Mighty One (God) as His Father, and the apostles frequently spoke of "the Almighty One (God) the Father." But the New Testament also insists that Yahshua (Jesus) is The Almighty One (God). For example, Thomas acknowledged Yahshua (Jesus) as, "My Lord(master) and my Almighty One (God)" (John 20:28), and both Peter and Paul spoke of Yahshua (Jesus) as "our All Mighty One (God) and Savior" (2 Pet. 1:1; Tit. 2:13). Yet the New Testament also makes the distinction between the Father and the Son as two very different persons. In fact they tell us that they love one another, speak to each other, and seek to glorify each other (e.g., John 17: 1-26).
The Old Testament refers often to the Holy Spirit as The Almighty One (God) at work in the world, without distinction from the Father. But Yahshua (Jesus) in John 14 to 16 explained that this Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father at the Messiah’s (Christ's) request. The Holy Spirit would teach and guide the disciples, not speaking on His own initiative, but speaking on the Messiah’s 9Christ's) behalf and glorifying The messiah (Christ). Thus, the Holy Spirit is revealed by The Messiah (Christ) to be a third person distinct from the Father and distinct from the Son.
In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely and totally biblical, and it is essential that all the Followers of the Messiah Yahshua (Christians) give assent to this doctrine.

[Della Morton]

Clear Explanation Difficult

If you were to confine yourself to reading the articles on the Trinity in popular religious literature for laymen, you would conclude that the Trinity is everywhere and clearly taught in the Bible. However, if you were to begin to read what the more technical Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries and books say on the subject, you would come to an entirely different conclusion. And the more you studied, the more you would find that the Trinity is built on a very shaky foundation indeed.

The problems inherent in clearly explaining the Trinity are expressed in nearly every technical article or book on the subject.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia begins:

"It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette" (Vol. XIV, p. 295). (Emphasis ours throughout article)

But why should the central doctrine of the Christian faith be so difficult to understand? Why should such an important doctrine present an unsteady silhouette? Isn't there a clear biblical revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity? Didn't Christ and the apostles plainly teach it?

Surely the Bible would be filled with teachings about such an important subject as the Trinity. But, unfortunately the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible.

'The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," p. 3012).

Not only is the word "Trinity" never found in the Bible, there is no substantive proof such a doctrine is even indicated.

In a recent book on the Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner recognizes that theologians in the past have been:

". . . embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of the 'imminent' Trinity (even John's prologue is no such doctrine)" (The Trinity, p. 22). (Author's emphasis.)

Other theologians also recognize the fact that the first chapter of John's Gospel--the prologue-- clearly shows the pre-existence and divinity of Christ and does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. After discussing John's prologue, Dr. William Newton Clarke writes:

'There is no Trinity in this; but there is a distinction in the Godhead, a duality in God. This distinction or duality is used as basis for the idea of an only-begotten Son, and as key to the possibility of an incarnation" (Outline of Christian Theology, p. 167).

The first chapter of John's Gospel clearly shows the pre-existence of Christ. It also illustrates the duality of God. And as Dr. Clarke points out, the key to the possibility of the incarnation—the fact that God could become man.

The Apostle John makes plain the unmistakable fact that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1-4). Yet we find no Trinity discussed in this chapter.

More Biblical "Proof" for the Trinity?

Probably the most notorious scripture used in times past as "proof" of a Trinity is 1 John 5:7. However, many theologians recognize that this scripture was added to the New Testament manuscripts probably as late as the eighth century A.D.

Notice what Jamieson, Fausset and Brown wrote in their commentary:

"The only Greek MSS. [manuscripts], in any form which support the words, 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth . . .' are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Rauianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a MS. [manuscript] at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words."

The conclusions arrived at in their commentary, written over 100 years ago, are still valid today. More conservatively oriented The New Bible Commentary (Revised) agrees, though "quietly" with Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.

". . . The words are clearly a gloss and are rightly excluded by RSV [Revised Standard Version] even from its margin" (p. 1269).

The editors of Peake's Commentary on the Bible wax more eloquent in their belief that the words are not part of the original text.

"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT [New Testament] of Erasmus" (p. 1038).

Scholars clearly recognize that 1 John 5:7 is not part of the New Testament text. Yet it is still included by some fundamentalists as biblical proof for the Trinity doctrine.

Even the majority of the more recent New Testament translations do not contain the above words. They are not found in Moffatt, Phillips, the Revised Standard Version, Williams, or The Living Bible (a paraphrase).

It is clear, then, that these words are not part of the inspired canon, but rather were added by a "recent hand." The two verses in 1 John should read:

"For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Three things bear record. But what do they bear record to? A Trinity? We shall see.

Bear Record to What?

The Spirit, the water and the blood bear record of the fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is living His life over again in us. John clarifies it in verses 11-12:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

But how do these three elements—the Spirit, the water, and the blood—specifically bear witness to this basic biblical truth?

"The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Romans 8:16).

Water is representative of baptism, which bears witness of the burial of the old self and the beginning of a new life (Romans 6:1-6).

The blood represents Christ's death by crucifixion, which pays the penalty for our sins, reconciling us to God (Romans 5:9, 10).

Now understand why Christ commanded the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). First of all, Jesus did not command the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit as an indication that God is a Trinity. No such relationship is indicated in the Bible.

Why, then, were they to baptize using these three names? The answer is clear.

They were to baptize in the name of the Father because it is the goodness of God that brings us to repentance (Romans 2 4), and because the Father is the One "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Ephesians 3:15). In the name of the Son because He is the one who died for our sins, and in the name of the Spirit because God sends His Spirit, making us His begotten Sons (Romans 8:16).

Many theologians have misunderstood the part that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit play in each person's salvation. The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of that misunderstanding.

The Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. It has no basis in biblical fact. Then how did this doctrine come to be believed by the Church?

History of the Trinity

The ancient idea of monotheism was shattered by the sudden appearance of Jesus Christ on the earth. Here was someone who claimed He was the Son of God. But how could He be? The Jewish people believed for centuries that there was only one God. If the claims of "this Jesus" were accepted, then in their minds their belief would be no different from that of the polytheistic pagans around them. If He were the Son of God, their whole system of monotheism would disintegrate.

When Jesus plainly told certain Jews of His day that He was the Son of God, some were ready to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33).

To get around the problem of a plurality in the God-head, the Jewish community simply rejected Jesus. And to this day, Orthodox Jews will not accept Jesus' Messiahship. However, the more liberal Jews will at least admit that He was a great man -- maybe even a prophet.

But the "new" Christian religion was still faced with the problem. How would proponents explain that there was only one God, not two?

"The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was the church's profound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian concept of God from the first origin of Christianity turned" (International Standard Biblical Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," p. 3021).

But the Deity of Christ does not mean that a doctrine of the Trinity is necessary, as we shall soon see.

Roots in Greek Philosophy

Many of the early church fathers were thoroughly educated in Greek philosophy, from which they borrowed such non-biblical concepts as dualism and the immortality of the soul. However, most theologians, for obvious reasons, are generally careful to point out that they did not borrow the idea of the Trinity from the Triads of Greek philosophy or those of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians.

But some are not so careful to make such a distinction.

"Although the notion of a Triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the Trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and the Egyptian religion with the Trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother and Son in medieval Christian pictures. Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by Plato..." (Hasting's Bible Dictionary, Vol. 12, p. 458).

Of course, the fact that someone else had a Trinity does not in itself mean that the Christians borrowed it. McClintock and Strong make the connection a little clearer.

"Toward the end of the 16t century, and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology" (article "Trinity," Vol. 10, p. 553).

In his book, A History of Christian Thought, Arthur Cushman McGiffert points out that the main argument against those who believed that there was only one God and that Christ was either an adopted or a created being was that their idea did not agree with Platonic philosophy. Such teachings were

"offensive to theologians particularly to those who felt the influence of the Platonic philosophy" (ibid., p.240).

In the latter half of the third century, Paul of Samosata tried to revive the adoptionist idea that Jesus was a mere man until the Spirit of God came upon Him at baptism making him the Anointed One, or Christ. In his beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ, he:

"rejected the Platonic realism which underlay most of the Christological speculation of the day" (ibid., p. 243).

At the end of his chapter on the Trinity, McGiffert concludes:

". . . It has been the boast of orthodox theologians that in the doctrine of the Trinity both religion and philosophy come to highest expression" (Vol. I, p. 247).

The influence of Platonic philosophy on the Trinity doctrine can hardly be denied.

However, Trinitarian ideas go much further back than Plato.

"Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic; yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south. Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one.... The definition of Athanasius [a fourth-century Christian] who lived in Egypt, applied to the trinities of all heathen religions" (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, by James Bonwick, F.R.G.S., p. 396).

It was Athanasius' formulation for the Trinity which was adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his philosophy was also deeply rooted in Platonism.

"The Alexandrian catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologians of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was theological speculation. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians had been included among its members . . ." ( Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, by Hubert Jedin, p. 29).

In order to explain the relationship of Christ to God the Father, the church fathers felt that it was necessary to use the philosophy of the day. They obviously thought that their religion would be more palatable if they made it sound like the pagan philosophy that was extant at the time. These men were versed in philosophy, and that philosophy colored their understanding of the Bible.

It was the doctrine of the Trinity -- colored by the philosophy of the time—that was accepted by the Church in the early part of the fourth century — over three hundred years after Christ's death.

Even theologians recognize that the Trinity is a creation of the fourth century, not the first!

"'There is recognition on the part of exegetist and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition —that when one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," Vol. 14, p. 295).

The Council of Nicaea

It was at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that two members of the Alexandrian congregation, Arius, a priest, who believed that Christ was not a God, but a created being; and Athanasius, a deacon who believed that the Father, Son and Spirit are the same being living in a threefold form (or in three relationships, as a man may be at the same time a father, a son and a brother), presented their cases.

The Council of Nicaea was not called by the church leaders, as one might suppose. It was called by the Emperor Constantine. And he had a far from spiritual reason for wanting to solve the dispute that had arisen.

"In 325 the Emperor Constantine called an ecclesiastical council to meet at Nicaea in Bithynia. In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony. Constantine himself of course neither knew or cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound" (A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 258).

The decision as to which of the two men the church was to follow was a more or less arbitrary one. Constantine really didn't care which choice was made—all he wanted was a united church. (Arius was banished, but later recalled by Constantine, examined and found to be without heresy.)

The majority of those present at the council were not ready to take either side in the controversy.

"A clearly defined standpoint with regard to this problem — the relationship of Christ to God—was held only by the attenuated group of Arians and a far from numerous section of delegates, who adhered with unshaken conviction to the Alexandrian [Athanasius'] view. The bulk of the members occupied a position between these two extremes. They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those of his opponents . . . the voting was no criterion of the inward conviction of the council" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., article "Nicaea, Council of," p. 641).

The council rejected Arius' views, and rightly so, but they had nothing with which to replace it. Thus the ideas of Athanasius—also a minority view—prevailed. The rejection of Arianism was not blanket acceptance of Athanasius. Yet, the church in all the ensuing centuries has been "stuck," so to speak, with the job of upholding— right or wrong—the decision made at Nicaea.

After the council the Trinity became official dogma in the church, but the controversy did not end. In the next few years more Christians were killed by other Christians over that doctrine than were killed by all the pagan emperors of Rome. Yet, for all the fighting and killing, neither of the two parties had a biblical leg to stand on.

[Della Morton]

This is not a prejudiced anti-trinitarian opinion. It is a fact that is recognized even by Trinitarian theologians!

Discussing the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, Dr. W. N. Clarke, writes:

"The New Testament begins the work, but does not finish it; for it contains no similar teaching [like John 1:1-18 concerning the divinity of Christ] with regard to the Holy Spirit. The unique nature and mission of Christ are traced to a ground in the being of God; but similar ground for the divineness of the Spirit is nowhere shown. Thought in the New Testament is never directed to that end. Thus the Scriptures take the first step toward a doctrine of essential Trinity, or three-ness in the being of one God, but they do not take that second step by which alone the doctrine could be completed" (An Outline of Christian Theology, p. 168). (Author's emphasis.)

Theologians have to recognize that there is no biblical proof for the divinity or personality of the Spirit. And that in order to arrive at a doctrine of the Trinity, they have to go outside of the Bible.

Karl Barth, one of the most noted theologians of the 20th century, admits that the church has gone beyond the Bible to arrive at its doctrine of the Trinity.

"The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God Himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations which go beyond the witness of the Bible are the twofold content of the church doctrine of the Trinity" (Doctrine of the Word of God, p. 437).

Since, as theologians recognize, the Bible is not the source of the Trinity doctrine, how can they square it with the Bible teaching that inspired Scripture should be the source of doctrine? (2 Timothy 3:16).

The answer is, they can't. They must freely admit the painful facts.

The Spirit of God in the Bible

The personality of Jesus Christ is thoroughly provable from the Bible, but there is no such proof for a personality of the Holy Spirit.

"The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's Power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Isaiah 48:16; 63:11; 32:15)." so say the authors of the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

But let them continue:

"Very rarely do the Old Testament writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isaiah 63:10; Wis. 1:3-7). When such expressions are used, they are mere figures of speech that are explained by the fact that the ruah was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feeling (Genesis 41:8). Neither is there found in the Old Testament or in rabbinical literature the notion that God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the spirit of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pg. 574).

In the Old Testament, God's Spirit is pictured as His power. The power by which the One who became Jesus Christ, as Executive for the Father, created the entirety of the universe. these theologians also recognize that when the Spirit is spoken of as a person or in a personal way, the Bible writer is merely personifying the Spirit, as he would wisdom or any other attribute.

Now what about the New 'Testament? They Say: "Although the New Testament concepts of the Spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the Old Testament , in the New Testament there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God is a person."

But this would seem true only if you are armed with a preconceived notion that God is a Trinity. We will see there are only a few scriptures that can even remotely be construed as presenting the Spirit as a person, and in each case only as the result of a grammatical misunderstanding.

But again let's let the New Catholic Encyclopedia continue.

"The majority of New Testament texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God."

Though theologians would like for the Bible to say that the Spirit is a person, they must admit that the majority of the scriptures connected with it show that it is not someone, but something. Even the personification of the Spirit is no proof of its personality.

"When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8 29; 16:7; Romans 8:9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see Romans 6:6; 7:17). Thus the context of the phrase 'blasphemy against the spirit' (Mt. 12:31; cf. Mt. 12:28; Lk. 11:20) shows that reference is being made to the power of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIH, p. 575).

After such admissions, it is almost inconceivable that any theologian could still teach that the Spirit is a person —yet some do.

A Lesson in Greek Grammar

The one place that most theologians feel describes the Spirit as a person is resolved by a lesson in the Greek language. In the Greek language, like the Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, French, and others), every noun has what is called gender; that is, it is either masculine, feminine or neuter. The gender of a word has nothing to do with whether it is really masculine or feminine—it is more of a grammatical tool.

The verses most Trinitarian theologians will fall back on for their proof that the Spirit is a person are in the 14th, 15th and 16th chapters of John's Gospel. Here Jesus is recorded as referring to the Spirit as "the Comforter." The pronoun "he" is used in connection with the word "comforter"—parakletos— however, the reason for the use of the personal pronoun "he" is for grammatical, not theological, or spiritual reasons.

All pronouns in Greek must agree in gender with the word they refer to, therefore the pronoun "he" is used when referring to the Greek word parakletos. Only John refers to the Spirit as the parakletos— "Comforter." The other New Testament writers use the word pneuma which means "breath" or "spirit." This is the Greek equivalent of ruah, the Hebrew word for "spirit" used in the Old Testament. Pneuma is a grammatically neuter word and is always represented by the pronoun "it."

However, the translators of the King James Version, being swayed by the doctrine of the Trinity, have generally mistranslated the pronouns referring to pneuma as masculine. One instance where they did not mistranslate is found in Romans 8:16.

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

John's use of the parakletos is no proof the Spirit is a person. For if the simple gender of a noun were the basis for the personality of the Spirit, then the Spirit changed gender from the Old to the New Testament, the Hebrew word for "spirit" in the Old Testament being in the feminine gender in a majority of cases and in a masculine sense less often.

The fact that the word "spirit" is feminine in the Hebrew did lead some to believe that the Spirit was a feminine being of the Godhead. They believed in a Trinity of the Father, the Mother and the Son. Interestingly enough, their belief was condemned by the Trinitarians who used the same kind of ploy to prove that the Spirit was a masculine being!

The Holy Spirit — God's Begettal Power

What is the Spirit? As we saw earlier, theologians admit that the Spirit of God is the power of God. They would have no reason to believe otherwise unless they had a preconceived idea of a Trinity.

The Spirit, or Holy Spirit, as it is called in the New Testament, was the power by which Jesus Christ was begotten.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" (Matthew 1:18).

When Joseph was about to put Mary away because she was pregnant,

"the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" (Matthew 1:20).

Jesus was begotten in the womb of Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. He was literally born with God's Spirit in His mind. He became the Son of God and died for us that we might have the same opportunity to become God.

The Apostle Paul plainly taught this vital scriptural truth that we just read in Romans 8:16.

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Paul did not mean this in some sentimental sort of way, as he goes on to show in the next verse.

"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ...."

Paul goes on to point out that Jesus Christ is the heir of all things in Hebrews 1:2. We then have the opportunity, if we have God's Spirit in our minds, to inherit all things with Jesus Christ.

The Spirit of God unites with our minds, and we are as begotten (or conceived} again—this time spiritually— not as we originally were, physically. We become a new person.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1Peter 1:3).

And verse 23 says,

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."

The Holy Spirit impregnates us with God's nature. That spiritual begettal imbues us with the nature and mind of God. Throughout our Christian lives we continue to grow and develop in the understanding and mind of God until we are finally born into the God family and made immortal at the return of Jesus Christ to this earth (1Corinthians 15:49-52).

How can we obtain this Spirit? The answer was given by the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost mentioned in Acts chapter two. When Peter was asked at the end of his sermon what to do, he answered-

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" (Acts 2:38).

Here again we can see why the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the "baptismal formula" in Matthew 28:19. God the Father is the One who brings us to repentance; Jesus Christ—God the Son—is the one who died that we can have our past sins forgiven; and the Holy Spirit is the power by which God the Father begets us.

How plain the truth of the Bible is. The Holy Spirit is the power of God. It is not a person. It is the power by which we are begotten that we might become sons of God.

God Is a Family

Early theologians were driven by the need to explain the appearance of Jesus Christ. Some found their explanation by fabricating the Trinity doctrine. But since God is not a Trinity and since Jesus Christ is God, what is the relationship in the Godhead? Is God one, or are there two separate Gods and is Christianity, therefore, polytheistic?

In Chapter Two we found that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, and that He became flesh and came to this earth to die for mankind. He is called the Son of God and He calls God His Father. By now the relationship should be coming clear—God is a family.

We found in Chapter Three that we also can become begotten sons of God by the impregnation of God's Spirit —again a family relationship.

When we understand that God is a family—that God is reproducing after His kind —we are no longer confronted with the problems inherent in the Trinity doctrine, nor are we faced with the problem of worshipping many gods.

There is only one God family, yet there are presently two members, and in the future there will be many more. Jesus was called "the firstborn of many brethren" (Romans 8:29)

Look at yourself. Whether married or single, you are part of a family. You have parents and maybe even children or grandchildren of your own. Yet, you are still one family.

It was God who created man and put him on the earth. He created marriage and the family relationship as a type of His divine family.

God's Name is Plural

The Hebrew word for "God" used in Genesis 1:1 and 26 is Elohim. Elohim is plural in form. Though this word taken by itself does not prove that there are two beings in the Godhead, it does allow for the plurality that is clearly indicated in other parts of the Bible.

By what we can understand from the rest of the Bible, this word Elohim can act like our English words "family," "group," "church," or "crowd." These words are often regarded as singular and take a singular verb form, but they all contain more than one member.

The Apostle Paul exemplifies this for us in 1 Corinthians 12:20. Speaking about the Church he says:

"But now are they many members, yet but one body."

God is a family. There presently are two members in that God family, God the Father — the Head of the family, the Lawgiver—and Jesus Christ the Son—the Spokesman, the Creator. But the word Elohim is not just dual. There is a dual number in Hebrew, but this would have to be Elohaim. The God family, however, is destined to be truly plural—to have many members. And this is what the word Elohim describes and allows for.

Belief in a Trinity clouds the real purpose that God has in store for mankind. If we are taught that God is a closed Trinity of three persons, we lose sight of the fact that God's real purpose is to create many more members of the God family.

Look at the creation account in Genesis 1: God created fish after the fish kind, birds after the bird kind, and animals after the animal kind. But in verse 26 God made man—not after any of the animal kinds, but after the God kind—in God's image and God's likeness.

"And God [Hebrew, Elohim] said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

God created man in His own image. Man is greater than the rest of the creation, because God gave him mind power. He has dominion over all the creatures. Man is not an animal. He was created in the image of God—after the God kind.

Taught in the New Testament

The Apostle John understood God's plans for man-kind. Notice what he wrote in 1 John 3:1:

"Behold, what manner of love the Father [here is the family relationship—not a closed trinity] hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we [already] the [begotten] sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

Jesus Christ, the One who was the God of the Old Testament, the Creator God, became flesh, died and was resurrected as a part of God's plan to make man God. Jesus Christ is not to be the only son of God. He is the only born Son now, but as John wrote, "when he shall appear, we shall be like him." We are begotten sons now, and will be born sons of God at the resurrection.

It is clearly God's plan to bring many sons into His family.

"For it became him, [God the Father] for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation [Jesus Christ] perfect through sufferings" (Hebrews 2:10).

The pages of the Bible are filled with this—God's great purpose for man. And yet the majority of this world's Christians are blinded to this central biblical truth. Why? Because Satan has deceived the whole world (Revelation 12-9). God is not a closed Trinity, He is a family—a family in which you can become a member.

Why the Deception?

Why has Satan palmed off the doctrine of the Trinity on the world? Because he doesn't want you to rule in his place! Satan was originally created to carry out God's rule on earth. But, he refused to serve the Creator and even fomented a rebellion to dislodge God from His position as Ruler over the whole universe (Ezekiel 28: l9; Isaiah 14:12-14). A third of the angels united with Lucifer in that rebellion and were cast back down to this earth with him (Revelation 12:3-4)—having forever disqualified themselves and Satan from ruling in the government of God. However, Satan and his demonic cohorts remain in office until Christ actually returns.

Yet being disqualified, they do not want anyone else ever to take their place. For that reason, during nearly 6000 years of man, they have tried to hide from all the world the breathtaking truth of God. If they can make you believe in the Trinity, you will be deceived into thinking that the Godhead consists of only three persons. You would then never in your wildest dreams ever imagine that you were created to be born into the God family—to actually have a part in ruling this earth!

Satan wants you to think that God is a limited Trinity—not a growing family or Kingdom into which we may, through the grace of God, enter.

There you have it. That is the truth about the Trinity. God's family isn't closed to mankind as Satan would have you believe.

It's wide open to you, your family and all mankind. You can be made in the exact likeness of God at Christ's return!

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Ms Della Morton:

You can continue to post your 3 hour long posts for another few months, but the fact of the matter is this: its wrong! When I was speaking with you from months before concerning this subject, I came first from the Bible, and next from Church history to prove that the Trinity is a truth and a fact. You in all this time have NEVER answered for a few things however, and I would appreciate if you finally did:

- Please answer for Sabellius' theory.
- Please explain as to why JESUS spoke to the FATHER and the FATHER spoke back to Him.
- Please explain as to why JESUS prayed to the FATHER if He was the FATHER.
- Please explain why Apostle Paul said in 1st Corinthians 15 that JESUS Himself would relinquish all authority to the FATHER and finally submit to Him as well.


Please refrain from boring me with another 4hr posting, and just answer my questions/statements directly. Short sweet and blunt will do it perfectly.

[Della Morton]

Trevor I answered everyone of these questions and then some in my posts! You just don't want to brother reading my posts. Love in Christ Della Morton

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

I wont bother because they take years to read!!!!!

If you can't communicate in a simple manner, then you need some serious help. NO ONE is going to take all of that computer time to read ONE posting that is longer than some of the books and epistles of the Bible!

[Della Morton]

Don't just take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. The pope openly admits they changed the wording from in my Name to the titles Father Son Holy ghost to fit their doctrine of the trinity which was not affirmed in scripture. The trinity was added after the true church of Jesus and his Apostles in the bible were already established.

I have provided the references with the page numbers.

Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.

Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity.

World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Fath
, Voler, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.

Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels"

Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the words "rapture" and "Bible" are .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book".

Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, a theory which is NOT specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute to describe a "tag-team of wrestlers". And, while the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God, it does accurately describe God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. There is more Scriptural to support three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds or ... three "roles" in which God functions ... than there is THREE PERSONS of God. That is strictly a flawed theory!

If it’s a matter of semantics, "one God in three persons" is an "add on" that people would be wise to just leave off.

My Dad can be very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and administrator. While He functions in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wears a number of different hats, He is still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, He can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, His wife and daughters, and He can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons He is or who is talking.

English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim).

**IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.

Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system. As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.

Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH aka Jesus Christ would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself.

Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:2-3; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13.

Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learning this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10. Cornelius was a good man but he still needed salvation.

A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of JESUS. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:44-48; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". Besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. And, nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides the baptism examples, here are a couple other places (direct "quotes") where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ....

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

History also documents baptism in the name of Jesus ...

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the triune name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: " evidence .. suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself!

Any United Pentecostal Church or Apostolic Pentecostal church in your area!

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I really hope you will consider what you've read in these articles and Pray. When we meet Jesus one day face to face, we will have to answer to Him what we believe. And I don't want it to be said about me that I didn't follow His Apostles Teachings to be saved but rather traditions of men! Jesus can open the Book and judge us out of it!
By then it will be too late. I am going to end with these verses for you to consider a well.

Colossians 2:7-9 (King James Version)

7Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
In Who? Christ! I don't see three,but One God!

The Lord Bless you! Love in Christ, Della Morton

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

After FAST-FORWARDING through an extremely lengthy message from Della, I found something that I will respond to. This one raises MAJOR issues for the Oneness Pentecostals/Sabellius cult:

"My Dad can be very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and administrator. While He functions in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wears a number of different hats, He is still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, He can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, His wife and daughters, and He can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons He is or who is talking."

Della, I must ask you this. You call JESUS your Father, but no one else within the Bible even did so. Why is that? Also, you said that He can can be described as "Son". Yes, JESUS can be described as such, but that leaves an intellectual question wide open for you: WHOSE SON IS HE? Are you saying that JESUS is the Son of JESUS? JESUS begot JESUS??

(PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, if you can't answer this in a simple manner, then don't bother because I refuse to sit down and read your post for 3 hours)

[Della Morton]

Trevor: When I say Jesus is the Father what I mean is that the Father
is one indivisible God (Deuteronomy 6:4). We know that God is a Spirit (John
4:24) and therefore invisible to man (John 1:18; I Timothy
6:16). He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent (Psalm 139;
Revelation 19:6). In the Old Testament, God manifested Himself
many times in visible ways (Genesis 18:1; Exodus 33:22-23). These
temporary, visible manifestations are called theophanies. In the
New Testament, God manifested Himself in human flesh as Jesus
Christ, the Son of God (John 1:1, 14; I Timothy 3:16).

[Della Morton]

Trevor You Said: Della, I must ask you this. You call JESUS your Father, but no one else within the Bible even did so. Why is that?

Acts 7:59
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. He wasn't talking to Two gods in a trinity!! But called address God as Jesus. He didn't say father God receive my spirit and then pray to Jesus and Then Pray to The Holy Spirit! No He knew Jesus was God by saying receive my Spirit!

[Della Morton]

This video will give you scholarly proof that man through out history has tried to alter the bible to fit their doctrine. We Must know the truth of God's word and be not deceived by the doctrines of man.


Find more videos like this on Jesus Loves You!

[Della Morton]

THE TRINITY ON TRIAL!

In most any trial there is usually evidence to support both sides. Yet only one side is true. For instance the O. J. Simpson trial. There was enough evidence to acquit him in the state trial and convict him in the civil trial. Yet, we know that either he did, or didn't commit the murders. Only one side is true.

The Bible has just enough bones of a skeleton of the Trinity after being clothed with the creeds to create a doctrine that has stood for almost 1700 years. How? Consider some of the facts from the time that it was first presented. Shortly after Nicea, an "anathema" clause was added to the Athanatius Creed. Thus in 385 A.D., Priscillian Avilla was put to death
for failing to believe. It was around this period of time that the Bible was
taken away from the laity. Only the Priest would have access to the Scriptures.
A non-authorized person found in possession of a Bible would be killed. All the
way to 1536 A.D. Tyndale was killed for translating the Bible into the
vernacular. And mass was held in Latin so the people could not question.

Think about that. The Roman Catholic Church had the full support of the Emperor. Why, you could teach 2+2=5, and eventually everyone that was still alive would believe it! In fact, you could make Mary as important as Jesus without a single verse to go on! And they did! It was in this climate the Trinity flourished. You were told what to believe, and you believed
it or died! Thank God for religious freedom! And the truth of His Word!

There are many varying views of the Trinity. Some say Co-equal, Co-eternal. Other say simply three distinct persons. We will examine each of these possibilities.

Exhibit A: Co-Equal. To have three distinct persons that have equal power would be a challenge in any set up. Particularly when the Scripture is clear that this is not the case.



Item 1: John 14:28, Jesus said, "…the Father is greater than I."




Item 3: John 10:29, Jesus said, "My Father… is greater than all."

Exhibit B: The Holy Ghost: Missing In Action. If the Holy Ghost were a distinct "third person," then there are several occasions in Scripture that its absence defies all reason!



Item 1: 1 Cor. 8:6, "But to us there is but one God, the Father all, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." When Paul defined the "one God" he failed to mention the Holy Ghost!



Item 2: Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." It's as if Mark goes through the list of possible candidates to know, yet omits the Holy Ghost!



Item 3: John 16:32, Jesus said, "…I am not alone, because the Father is with me." If the Holy Ghost were a distinct "third person," wouldn't he be with Jesus? Also, Matt. 11:27, LK. 10:22

Exhibit C: Jesus Christ was NOT "God the Son!" When Jesus came to earth he did not do so in and of the power of the "second person" of the Trinity!



Item 1: Jesus tells us "the Son can do nothing of himself." John 5:19. This is repeated in verse 30. "I can of mine own self do nothing." This thought is expressed in John 5:17, 19, 30, 36; 8:28, 29; 9:4; 10:25, 32, 37; 14:10,11, 31; 17:4; Fourteen times John records this fact, the works Jesus did were not
his own, but they were the Fathers!



Item 2: Jesus tells us the words he spoke were not his own. In John 12:49, Jesus says, "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." This thought is expressed in John 7:16-18; 8:28, 29, 38; 12:49, 50; 14:24,31; 16:15; Nine times John
records Jesus revealing the words he spoke were the Father’s!



Item 3: John 12:44, Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me."

Exhibit D: The Father was not the father!



Item 1: Matt. 1:18, "…Mary… was found with child of the Holy Ghost."



Item 2: Matt. 1:20, "…for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."



Item 3: Luke 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee…"

Exhibit E: The absence of key terminology necessary for understanding the Trinity.



Item 1: Key words missing from the Bible but found in the creeds. "God the Son," "God the Holy Ghost," "persons," "Eternal Son," "Co-Equal," "Co-Eternal," "God in Three Persons," "Trinity," "Substance," "Essence," etc.

Exhibit F: The people who wrote the Bible, who understand the original language, do not believe in a Trinity!



Item 1: The Jews are a very strict monotheistic nation. They cannot even begin to conceptualize "God in Three Persons." And Jesus said that they were correct in their worship of God! John 4:22, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

Exhibit G: Miscellaneous texts that the "Trinity" should be mentioned in.



Item 1: The Lord's Prayer. Here Jesus is teaching his disciples to pray. Does it not defy all logic not to mention the Son or Holy Ghost here? Matt. 6:9-13.

"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our
daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtor. And lead us
not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and
the power, and the glory, forever. Amen. Just an incredible place not
to mention the Trinity! Colossal! Huge!



Item 2: On the Mount of Transfiguration. Here Jesus is transfigured before Peter, James, and John. And Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus? Wouldn't it seem more logical for the Father and Holy Ghost to appear here? Did Peter know about the Trinity? If so, why build temples for Jesus, Moses and Elijah? Mark 9:2-10



Item 3: Jesus calls the Father, the ONLY true God! John 17:1-3 Wouldn't the Son and Holy Ghost be included?

So what is the verdict? Does the Trinity stand up under examination from the Scripture? Or is it time to re-examine your faith? One day we will all stand before the White Throne. It's best to make the acquaintance before you get there!

Appendix
The Creed of Athanatius

"Whosoever will be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic [Apostolic or Universal] faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally."

"Now the Catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal."

"Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the Father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternal but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is Almighty, the
Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty; and yet not three Almighties but one
Almighty."

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there
be three Gods or three Lords."

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and one Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or
after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are co-eternal
together and co-equal."

"So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who will be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity."

One of the most incredible things about this Creed (as well as the others) is it contains NO Scripture references! Think of that! What facts can a writer present to you today with any anticipation you would believe it without some sort of bibliography? And yet all of the Creeds omit this very critical aspect of Scriptural support! And while it is understood that the Bible
was not divided into chapters and verses until the 16th century,
those individuals who believe such creeds have had over 400 years to do so, and
yet have NOT!

[Della Morton]

WHAT DO YOU THINK? DID JESUS PRAY TO HIMSELF?

Jesus' prayers open our understanding to the majesty of the Incarnation, for through them we grasp the divine-human
relationship between God and His Son. Trinitarians often refer
to statements Jesus made about His father, including those in
His prayers, in an effort to prove that two persons were involved
- who they identify as God the Son and God the Father. Since they
reason that only persons and not natures communicate with each
other, they regard the prayers as clear evidence that Jesus
is a separate person from "the Father". Moreover,
they cite Jesus' remarks about the Father as scriptural support
for the Trinitarian theory. However, the prayers and remarks by
Jesus destroy any concept of God as being a trinity of co-equal,
and co-existent persons.

The Bible clearly distinguishes God the Father from His Son. The Son was born in Bethlehem, but the eternal God does
not know a beginning. The Son grew into maturity - physically,
mentally, socially, and spiritually. He became tired, hungry,
weary, sleepy - just as other men. Although He did not commit
sin, He was tempted in all points as other men are tempted. He
suffered from the trials in Jerusalem and died on the cross-just
as the two thieves also died. God does not grow, nor can He die.
These facts alone clearly distinguish the Son from the Father.

The Bible tells us that the man Christ Jesus is the mediator between God and men (I Timothy 2:5). God is one, but
a mediator serves more than one - He stood between God and mankind,
effecting reconciliation. Only as a man could Jesus be our sacrifice,
mediator, advocate, and high priest, acting on our behalf for
our justification.

Jesus offered Himself as a spotless lamb to God. Having lived as a human being, He offered the blood from His own
body as the basis for the forgiveness of our sins. God did not
die on the cross, nor did a divine eternal person offer blood
from a divine eternal body. As the Son of God Jesus offered His
own human body and His own earthly blood to God. The distinction
between God and His Son can also be seen in the events after the
crucifixion. God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9, Ephesians
1:20), gave Him all power in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18),
made Him Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and exalted His name to
be above every name in heaven, on earth, and beneath the earth
(Philippians 2:9). If the Son had been a co-equal person in the
Godhead, this exaltation would not have been possible, for He
would have had these positions and attributes from eternity. It
is evident, therefore, that the Son of God was not a second divine
person in the Godhead.

Biblical facts reveal that Jesus lived as an authentic human being, that He did not merely assume the appearance of flesh
(1). Therefore we should not be surprised that He prayed to God,
seeking strength, guidance, and assurance. Moreover, we should
not be surprised that Jesus had a will distinct from God (2),
that He was truly human in spirit and soul, that He possessed
a self-awareness of His humanity. We are not to suppose, however,
that the human Jesus was not different from other people, for
only He was begotten by the Holy Ghost. God was His immediate
Father. He is rightfully called the "only begotten of the
Father". His miraculous birth meant that His humanity was
not tainted with the inherited sinful nature of the Fall, and
through Him God could reveal Himself to us in redemptive love.

Jesus' prayers to God the Father came from His human life, from the Incarnation. His prayers were not those of one
divine person to another divine person of God, but those of an
authentic human praying to the one true God. Prayer is based on
an inferior being in supplication before a superior being. If
the one praying is equal in power and authority to the one to
whom he is praying, there is no genuine prayer (3). A conversation
can be held between two equals, but an omnipotent person does
not need to pray for help from an equal. Even intercessory prayers
are meaningless unless the one praying is inferior to the one
to whom he prays (4). If he were of equal power, knowledge, and
wisdom, he could take care of the needs of those for whom he prays
without asking help of another. If Jesus prayed as "God the
Son", then God the Son is inferior to God the Father. But
such inferiority destroys the Trinitarian theory (5) In submitting
His will to the Father, Jesus confessed that His will was inferior:
"Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke
22:42). He also stated the he did not seek to do His own will,
but the will of the Father (John 5:30). If the Son had been an
eternal divine person sharing equal power and knowledge, and wisdom
with two other persons in the trinity, His will could not have
been inferior to theirs.

Jesus also stated that the Father was greater than He was: "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
It is absurd to say that this statement was made by a co-equal,
eternal person in a trinity. Jesus was not speaking as God, but
as the Son of God. Moreover, Jesus said, "the Son can
do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what
things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise"
(John 5:19). He credits the Father as the source of His works,
as having the power to give life, and the authority to execute
judgment (John 5:19-30). If the Son were an equal person in a
trinity, He would have these attributes innately within himself;
He could not derive them from a superior Father6.

But we should not suppose that His humanity detracted from His deity. Jesus
was not the incarnation of one person of a trinity, but he was
the incarnation of the fullness of God - everything that God is
was in Him. Thus the Bible says the "God was manifest in
the flesh" (I Tim 3:16) and that "in Him [Jesus] dwelleth
all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).
As God incarnate, He identified Himself with the Father: "I
and my Father are one" (John 10:30; 31-33);

"If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen
him ... he that has seen me hath seen the Father" (John
14:7-9). As God with us, Jesus revealed His deity, identifying
Himself as the God of Abraham and the One who revealed Himself
to Moses as the I AM (John 8:24, 58).

Jesus was both God and man. Although this union is sometimes referred to as God-man, this
term may be misleading, for it may lead some people to think of
Him as a demigod. On the other hand, it is equally incorrect to
refer to Him as a anointed man. Although quantitatively God cannot
be confined to a body, qualitatively he could reside in a body.
Neither was Jesus a part-human, but he was man in the full sense.
He was fully God and fully man. He possessed both the nature of
God and the nature of man. He was aware that He was He was God
and that He was man. He could and did speak and act as a man,
and he could and did speak and act as God. As a man, he did not
know the day or hour when the Son would come in power and glory
(Mark 13:22); as God he forgave sins. Both His humanity and deity,
although fused into His one being, remained distinct within His
one personality. Admittedly, the Incarnation is a mystery beyond
the comprehension of the human mind.

Did Jesus pray to Himself ? No, not when we understand that Jesus was both God and man.
In His deity Jesus did not pray, for God does not need to pray
to anyone. As a man, Jesus
prayed to God, not to his humanity (7).
He did not pray to Himself as humanity, but to the one true God,
to the same God who dwelled in His humanity and who also inhabits
the universe. No further explanation is given, and none is needed.
Does Jesus pray now since his exaltation ? The answer is no. He
prayed in the days of His flesh (Hebrews 5:7). The work of the
mediation was finished through His death on the cross at Calvary
(Hebrews 9:14-15). There is no more sacrifice for sins, for once
and for all time His blood was shed for the remission of sins
(Hebrews 10:12). Unlike the Old Testament priests, he does not
continually offer sacrifices for sins. There is no more offering,
but there remains remission of sins for those who repent and are
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:18, Acts 2:38).
His present role as intercessor consists not only of daily prayers
but the application of the benefit of the cross to our lives (Romans
8:34; 1 John 1:7-9; 2:1-2).

Jesus said, "At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for
you: for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved
me, and believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the
Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world and
go to the Father" (John 16:26-28). Jesus does not pray
now, but as God He hears and answers prayers prayed in His name.


(This article appeared in the July issue of the Pentecostal Herald. The footnotes did not appear in the original, and were
added by the editor)

_______________________________

1. That is, he was not a phantasm, as some Gnostics held. Jesus was quite real, from birth to death.

2. As a man, while in the flesh

3. In recent years, heretical teachers have often exploited a basic misconception of the nature of God and man in
proposing a form and attitude of prayer not demonstrated by scripture.
Examples include K. Copeland, F. Price, and others in the "Word
of Faith" movement, such as graduates of Hagin's Rhema Bible
school. In the imbalance resulting from improper understanding,
these people have suggested both the "commanding of God"
as "co-equal heirs with Jesus", and that Jesus was indeed,
no different that "born-again man". In the editor's
opinion, all such distortions clearly conclude in blasphemy.

4. In the quality of inferiority, the author does not include voluntary submission. A prayer to a saint, or angel
is therefor without Bible basis, except as a petition to one in
authority. We are not led to believe that ascended saints have
more authority that those who are flesh bound, on earth, thus
there is no support given for prayers to heavenly powers, other
than to God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.

5. Thus we agree that the scriptures do not teach subordinatism, such as do neo-Arians.

(6) Seeing numerous proofs that sonship is not in equality with fatherhood, the question must be asked, "In
what dimensions then is the Son equal to the Father, if distinct,
or does such equality only pertain to those aspects in which the
Father and Son are indistinct ?"

7. While some contend that this suggests that Jesus is schizophrenic, or split in personality, once again, it is important
to understand the difference between nature and person. We are
also reminded that Jesus, as man, set the pattern for all "followers
of Jesus" who would through the new birth become and abide
as sons, or children of God. His prayer illustrates the prayer
of all who are of a human nature. And No God did not STOP being God at any time.