Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?
Specific objections to “Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?”
Although I got through a lot of information about the unitarian/trinitarian debate in my last two posts (and I strongly suggest reading those before reading through this one), most of it was about making the negative case against trinitarianism rather than the positive case for unitarianism. Therefore, in this post I would like to explain why I do believe in unitarianism rather than trinitarianism (although I partially explained that in the first post in this series, “Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?”). First, though, we must define what is meant by trinitarianism and unitarianism.
Defining the doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity can be best explained as follows: God is simultaneously one being and three persons, the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial (meaning “one in substance”). The three persons of the “triune” God are all separate conscious wills, not merely separate manifestations of God’s being, which is the heresy of modalism. All three together make up God, and yet each one is individually fully God.
In contrast, unitarianism affirms that God is one being and one person, the Father, who is uniquely God and Yahweh (and shares these names with no other person). He is above the Son, Jesus Christ, who is a human. Unitarians are divided on whether the Son pre-existed His birth as Jesus, in which case He might be better described as an angelic being, and are also divided on the issue of the personality of the Holy Spirit. However, at its heart, unitarianism is simply the belief that the Father alone is God and Yahweh, one being and one person.
With these definitions in mind [1], the positive case from the Bible for unitarianism will now be considered.
1. God repeatedly presents Himself as only “one”
Throughout the Bible, Yahweh (the supreme God) repeatedly presents Himself as being only “one”. The words meaning “one” in Hebrew and Greek (echad and εις, μια, and εν respectively) never mean anything different than numerically one; any time that two or more parts come together to form one whole, this is very clearly represented in the context (for example, Genesis 2:24).
However, we are never told in scripture that, for example, “God is three in one”, “God is three parts in one”, or “God is three persons in one being”. There is never any indication that there are multiple parts, or persons, within God. Instead, we are repeatedly and emphatically told that God is one, with no caveat. For example, see the following passages.
Hear, O Israel, Yahweh [is] our God, Yahweh [is] one (Deut. 6:4)
And one of the scribes having come near, having heard them disputing, knowing that he answered them well, questioned him, “Which is the first command of all?” and Jesus answered him — “The first of all the commands [is], Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one“... And the scribe said to him, “Well, Teacher, in truth thou hast spoken that there is one God, and there is none other but He“ (Mk. 12:28-29, 32)
The God of Jews only [is He], and not also of nations? Yes, also of nations; since God [is] one (Rom. 3:29-30)
there is no other God except one... yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him (1 Cor. 8:4, 6)
and the mediator is not of one, and God is one (Gal. 3:20)
[There is] one God and Father of all, who [is] over all, and through all, and in you all (Eph. 4:5)
for God [is] one, one also [is] mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5)
thou dost believe that God is one; thou dost well (Jas. 2:19)
Now, if God were actually a “three-in-one” being as trinitarians assert, He could have easily presented Himself as such in these passages (for example, by saying that “God, although being three, is yet one”). But instead He repeatedly and emphatically refers to Himself as simply “one”. In fact, the statement that “Yahweh our God is one” is considered to be part of the greatest commandment, according to Jesus Himself.
If God is truly a Trinity, we would have to assume that He is being misleading by simply calling Himself “one”, or at the very least not telling the full truth. In contrast, the statement that “God is one” is fully compatible with, and supportive of, the doctrine of unitarianism. The question must be asked, which of these options is more compatible with the God who truly desires all people to know the truth (1 Tim. 2:4)? Would He willingly mislead us in this way?
2. The singular pronouns used by God
Quite literally thousands of times throughout the Bible, singular masculine pronouns are used to refer to God, both by Himself and others: “I”, “me”, “my”, “He”, “Himself”, “His”, etc. If God were a plurality of persons, as trinitarians allege, we would expect Him to consistently use plural pronouns like “we”, “us”, “our”, “They”, “Themselves”, and “Their”. Although this seems normal to many Christians who have never stopped to think about the consequences of this obvious fact of scripture, it is actually definite proof for the idea that God is one being and one person, the central tenet of unitarianism.
There are a comparatively negligible amount of passages in which God does appear to use plural pronouns in reference to Himself. These verses can be counted on one hand: Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. One would think that, if God truly is three persons (meaning three conscious beings, each of which use separate personal pronouns), He would use plural pronouns the vast majority of the time, rather than simply four out of thousands of instances of the singular pronoun [2].
Trinitarians object by saying that, although God is a plurality of persons, He has chosen to use the singular pronouns to relate Himself to us (for whatever mysterious reasons He may have). However, whenever more than one of the so-called “Persons” of the Trinity are mentioned together in the New Testament, they are described using plural pronouns. See especially John 14:23:
Jesus answered and said to him, “If any one may love me, my word he will keep, and my Father will love him, and unto him we will come, and abode with him we will make”
Therefore, if God is truly the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (three separate persons who each use separate personal pronouns) all together in one being, the fact that God reveals Himself using singular pronouns would not only contradict the rules of grammar, but also the few instances in which Jesus and the Father are mentioned together using plural pronouns. This is far more consistent with unitarianism than trinitarianism.
3. Jesus was a unitarian
Another reason that I believe unitarianism is because Jesus Himself was a unitarian. This is certainly a controversial claim, but it can be easily proved from scripture that Jesus believed that God was one being and one person, the Father, and that there was no other supreme God beside the Father. Probably the most clear passage that demonstrates this is Mark 12:28-34:
And one of the scribes having come near, having heard them disputing, knowing that he answered them well, questioned him, “Which is the first command of all?” and Jesus answered him — “The first of all the commands [is], Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of thy soul, and out of all thine understanding, and out of all thy strength — this [is] the first command”... And the scribe said to him, “Well, Teacher, in truth thou hast spoken that there is one God, and there is none other but He; and to love Him out of all the heart, and out of all the understanding, and out of all the soul, and out of all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, is more than all the whole burnt-offerings and the sacrifices.” And Jesus, having seen him that he answered with understanding, said to him, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God;” and no one any more durst question him.
First of all, Jesus says that the greatest commandment of all includes the statement “the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4). But what is important to note is that Jesus does not merely say “the Lord is your God”, but “the Lord is our God” - that is, the “Lord” in question here, of whom there is no other God but He, is also the God of Jesus Christ.
But who is the God of Jesus Christ? Answer: the same Being whom Jesus called “my God” (Matt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34; John 20:17; Rev. 3:2, 12) and whom Paul referred to as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3 cf. Rev. 1:6), namely, the Father. This means that, when Jesus said “the Lord is our God, the Lord is one... and there is none other but He”, what He meant is that “the Father is our God, the Father is one... and there is none other but He”. Consider the following logical argument:
Premise 1. According to Jesus, the Lord God (whom He referred to as “our God” and “my God”) is the one true God, Yahweh, and there is none other but He.
Premise 2. The Being whom Jesus referred to as “our God” and “my God” is the Father.
Conclusion. According to Jesus, the Father is the one true God, Yahweh, and there is none other but He.
Furthermore, when the scribe provided his own interpretation of the passage in question, Jesus affirmed that his interpretation was correct and said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God”. It is inconceivable to think that the Jewish scribe believed any other interpretation than the interpretation which has unanimously dominated Jewish thought since Abraham, which is that God is one being and one person. So the fact that Jesus actually affirmed this interpretation is highly problematic for trinitarianism; if God were truly three-in-one, He could have easily corrected the scribe by saying, “Well, that is close, but God is actually three persons within His one being”, but instead Jesus affirmed that the traditional Jewish understanding of the Shema is correct.
Jesus’ belief that the Father is the only true God, and there is no other God beside the Father, was also stated explicitly elsewhere, in the gospel of John. Traditionally, the gospel of John is understood as being the most favorable toward the doctrine of the “deity of Christ”. However, even (especially) in this gospel account, Jesus repeatedly affirmed that the Father alone is the one true God:
“I have come in the name of my Father... the only God” (John 5:43-44)
Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom ye say that He is your God” (John 8:54)
“I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)
These things spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to the heaven, and said — “Father... this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send — Jesus Christ” (John 17:1, 3)
Jesus saith to her... “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and my God, and your God” (John 20:17)
Trinitarians allege that although the Father is indeed the “only true God”, Jesus is also the “only true God”, because they are both one in substance and being. However, this is nowhere stated explicitly [2], and is in fact refuted by Mark 12:28-34 which (as I have shown) demonstrates that Jesus believed that the Father alone is the true God. There can be little doubt from these passages that Jesus believed in the central tenet of unitarianism, that God (Yahweh) is one being and unipersonal, the Father alone.
If we truly want to be like Christ, we should worship the same God that He worshipped (Matt. 4:10; 22:37; Mk. 12:29-30), pray to the same God whom He prayed to (Matt. 26:39, 42; Mk. 14:36; Lk. 22:42; John 17), and serve the same God that He served (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 7:16; 13:16; Acts 3:13, 26; Heb. 10:5-9): the Father alone.
4. Paul was a unitarian
A third reason why I am a unitarian is because Paul, who wrote half of the New Testament, was also a unitarian. Again, this is a controversial claim, but it is clearly demonstrated multiple times in his epistles. For example, see the following passages:
“God, who did make the world, and all things in it, this One, of heaven and of earth being [υπαρχων] Lord, in temples made with hands doth not dwell, neither by the hands of men is He served — needing anything, He giving to all life, and breath, and all things... indeed, He is not far from each one of us, for in Him we live, and move, and are; as also certain of your poets have said: For of Him also we are offspring... [God] doth now command all men everywhere to repent, because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.” (Acts 17:24-31)
This is perhaps the clearest passage of all as to Paul’s unitarianism. Here he distinguishes between God, the Creator of the world and all things in it, and Jesus Christ, a man whom God ordained. Whereas Paul says that God inherently possesses (υπαρχων) Lordship over heaven and earth, Jesus had to be made Lord of heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36) when He was exalted to the right hand of God in heaven (Lk. 22:69; Acts 2:33-35; Eph. 1:20-23; Heb. 1:3, 13).
Concerning the eating then of the things sacrificed to idols, we have known that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that there is no other God except one; for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as there are gods many and lords many — yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him (1 Cor. 8:4-6)
Notice here what Paul’s line of argumentation logically leads to. According to Paul, there is “no other God except one”, and “to us is one God, the Father”. If there is no other God except the one God, and the one God is the Father, the only logical conclusion is that Paul believed there is no other God except the Father.
Some trinitarians will argue that because Paul says that Jesus Christ is our “one Lord”, and yet the Father is also Lord, it is possible that both the Father and Jesus are the same “one Lord” and the same “one God”. However, this objection completely ignores the context of the verse. Paul is contrasting the one God and the one Lord with the “many gods [divine rulers] and many lords [human rulers]” of the pagans. The Father is the perfect contrast with the “many gods”, because He is the one divine ruler, whereas Jesus Christ is the perfect contrast with the “many lords”, because He is the one human ruler. In fact, if Jesus were inherently divine, Paul would be unable to contrast Him with the many human rulers of the pagans. Therefore, it is clear that Paul was expressing a belief in unitarianism in this passage.
[There is] one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who [is] over all, and through all, and in you all (Eph. 4:5-6)
Again, in this passage, like in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul presents the “one God” as the Father alone, and distinguishes Him from the one Lord, Jesus Christ. This logically leads to the central tenet of unitarianism, which is that God is one being and one person, the Father.
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation... for it pleased the Father that in him all the fullness should tabernacle... because in him doth tabernacle all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 1:15, 19, 2:9)
Although these passages from the epistle to the Colossians are often (unintentionally) twisted by trinitarians to support the belief that Christ is God, they actually provide much evidence that Paul was a unitarian. For Christ to be the image of God, He cannot be numerically identical with God, just as a picture of a person is not numerically identical to that person. For Christ to be the first-born (that is, the inheritor) of all creation, it is necessary that He actually inherited it from His Father; but if Christ is God, then He is already inherently the ruler of all creation, and so He cannot be the first-born.
Likewise, if the Father was pleased to cause the fullness of God to tabernacle within Christ, Christ cannot be numerically identical with God Himself. It would be meaningless to say that “it pleased God that in Himself all the fullness of Himself should dwell”, because if Christ is numerically identical with God, then He is already the fullness of God. However, if Christ is not God, then this passage suddenly makes sense; the fullness of God can tabernacle in Christ in the same way that it tabernacles in believers (Eph. 3:21), as God gives us His Spirit without measure just as He did in Christ (Gal 4:6 cf. John 3:34).
Finally, the fact that Paul repeatedly referred to God as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3) demonstrates that he must have been a unitarian. Consider the following argument:
Premise 1. According to Paul, God is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Premise 2. Also according to Paul, God is “above all” (Eph. 4:6), and so no person or thing can be above God.
Conclusion. Jesus Christ is not God, because according to Paul, He has a God above Him, who is the Father.
Trinitarians will argue that the Father might be the God of Jesus’ human nature, but Jesus’ divine nature is still “above all” and is unified with the Father within the triune God. However, one would be hard-pressed to find any kind of doctrine like this in the Bible; nowhere is it stated that Jesus has two distinct natures that can be considered separately from one another. If Jesus did have two distinct natures (such that one could be subject to God and the other actually be God), He would no longer be a single conscious being, which is very clearly unscriptural.
Therefore, the fact that Paul referred to the Father as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, along with the several times that he distinguishes the “one God, the Father” from Jesus, demonstrates that he did not believe Jesus Christ to be the supreme God, Yahweh, and instead believed in a unipersonal God: the Father alone.
5. The many passages that distinguish God from Christ
In the New Testament, there are approximately ten “prooftexts” that are often used to prove the idea that Jesus is the supreme God, Yahweh: John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 17:5; 20:28; Philippians 2:6-9; Colossians 1:16-20; 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; and Hebrews 1:10. These are the only texts for which the Greek text is unambiguous in supporting the trinitarian reading; all of the other trinitarian “prooftexts” either have an alternate unitarian reading that is better supported by the manuscript evidence, or the original Greek is ambiguous as to whether the trinitarian reading is correct. These ten texts, when examined more closely in their contexts, do not support the Trinity, as I showed in my last post.
In contrast, there are over five dozen verses in the New Testament that distinguish between God and Jesus Christ. These verses do not merely distinguish between Jesus and “the Father”, but between Jesus and “God” Himself. See the following list of passages: Matt. 4:9-10; 9:8; 19:17; Mk. 9:18; 16:19; Lk. 1:68-69; 3:7-8; 18:19; 22:69; Jn. 1:18; 3:16-17; 34; 6:29; 7:16-18; 13:3; 16:27-28; 17:3; Acts 2:22; 24; 33-36; 3:13-15; 26; 4:10; 5:30-32; 7:55; 10:38-42; 13:30; 37; 17:31; Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3; 34; 15:6; 1 Cor. 3:23; 8:6; 11:3; 15:15; 24; 2 Cor. 1:2-3; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:3; 17; 20; 4:4-6; Col. 1:3; 2:12; 3:1; 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 Tim. 2:5; 6:13; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 2:8-10; 9:14; 12:2; 23-24; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:4; 3:21-22; 1 Jn. 3:9; Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12; 7:10; 12:10; 14:4.
These sixty-seven verses clearly distinguish between the human known as Jesus Christ and God. Trinitarians may argue that this is simply a distinction between Jesus’ “human nature” and God, but is there any reason to believe this from the Bible itself? Since there are only two verses that unambiguously call Jesus “God” (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8) and each of these can be understood as using “God” in the representational sense by which other human beings are called God or gods (Exod. 4:16; 7:1; Ps. 45:6; 82:6), it would be wise to believe the vast majority of places in the New Testament where God and Christ are shown to be separate entities rather than the comparatively negligible amount of trinitarian “prooftexts” which all have legitimate, alternate interpretations.
Even one passage that distinguished between God and Jesus would be enough to show that they are separate beings, so the fact that there are no less than sixty-seven passages where they are considered to be distinct entities is essentially irrefutable proof that Jesus is not the supreme God, Yahweh. Because Jesus and God are referred to as separate entities throughout nearly all the books of the New Testament, the writers of the New Testament should be recognized as unitarians, not trinitarians as is usually assumed.
6. Jesus never claimed to be God
One further reason why I am a unitarian is because Jesus never actually claimed to be God. If you’re a trinitarian reading this, you’re probably thinking of a few verses right now (likely from the gospel of John) in which you think Jesus did claim to be Yahweh God. However, there are actually no instances where He certainly claimed to be God.
The three main verses in which trinitarians believe that Jesus claimed to be God, found in the gospel of John, are John 8:24; 8:58; and 10:30. In the first two of these verses, Jesus identified Himself with the phrase “I am” (εγω ειμι), which, based on the similarity of the two phrases in modern English translations, is often considered to be equivalent to Yahweh’s title “I am what I am” in Exodus 3:14.
However, the LXX translation of Exodus 3:14 into Greek (which is what the Jews of Jesus’ day would have been familiar with) translates God’s title as Ο ΩΝ, essentially meaning “the self-existent One”, which bears no similarity to εγω ειμι. In fact, throughout the Bible, an unpredicated εγω ειμι never represents a claim to deity; we are told that the blind beggar who had been healed by Jesus went around the town saying, “εγω ειμι”, not meaning “I am [Yahweh]” but meaning “I am [the one who had been blind]” (John 9:8-9). Likewise, almost every time Jesus says εγω ειμι, one of His titles like “Messiah” or “Son of Man” is the implied predicate (Mk. 13:6 cf. Matt. 24:5; Mk. 14:61-62; John 4:25-26; 8:28; 13:18-19; 18:4-5).
Essentially, the only reason to believe that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh when saying εγω ειμι is if one already believes that Jesus is Yahweh, in which case the implied predicate would be Yahweh (“I am [Yahweh]”). But was this the implied predicate in John 8:24, one of the passages commonly pointed to by trinitarians to prove that Jesus was claiming to be God? Let’s see:
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning.” (John 8:24-25 NKJV)
According to this passage, if the Jews did not believe that “I am He”, they would die in their sins. So what was the message that, if they believed, they would be saved by? According to John, what his audience needed to believe to be saved is this: “that Jesus is the Messiah“ (John 20:31). Therefore, when Jesus said “I am He”, the implied message was “I am [the Messiah]” - not “I am [Yahweh]”. Furthermore, in v. 25, Jesus says that He has been telling them that “I am He” from the beginning. So what is the message that He has been telling them from the beginning? Again, according to John 10:24-25, this message is that Jesus is the Christ, not that He is Yahweh. Consider the following arguments:
Premise 1. If the Jews did not believe that “εγω ειμι”, they would die in their sins.
Premise 2. The message which, if the Jews believed, they would not die in their sins, is that “Jesus is the Christ” (John 20:31).
Conclusion. When Jesus said “εγω ειμι”, the implied message was “I am the Christ”.
Premise 1. Jesus had been telling the Jews that “εγω ειμι” from the beginning.
Premise 2. The message that Jesus had been telling the Jews is that He was the Christ (John 10:24-25).
Conclusion. When Jesus said “εγω ειμι”, the implied message was “I am the Christ”.
These deductive arguments show that Jesus’ statements of “εγω ειμι” in the gospel of John were not divine claims equating Him with Yahweh, but were Messianic claims.
But what about John 10:30? Didn’t Jesus claim to be God when He said, “I and the Father are one”? Well, Jesus could have meant one of three things here:
1. That He and the Father were one person (modalism).
2. That He and the Father were one being (trinitarianism).
3. That He and the Father agree as one (unitarianism).
Although the second option is possible, the third option is more in line with how this Greek idiom is used elsewhere (for example, see 1 Cor. 3:6, 8 and 1 John 5:8). In Greek idiom, to say that multiple people “are one” was similar to the modern idiom, “of one mind”; that is, that Jesus and the Father were of one mind on the issue of giving age-during life to those who follow Him (John 10:25-30).
The unitarian interpretation (option 3) is also more compatible with the following context:
“I and the Father are one.” Therefore, again, did the Jews take up stones that they may stone him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works did I shew you from my Father; because of which work of them do ye stone me?” The Jews answered him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone thee, but for evil speaking, and because thou, being a man, dost make thyself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not having been written in your law: I said, ye are gods? If them he did call gods unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture is not able to be broken), of him whom the Father did sanctify, and send to the world, do ye say — Thou speakest evil, because I said, Son of God I am?” (John 10:30-36)
According to this passage, the Jews tried to stone Him for this statement, because they believed that He, “being a man, made [Himself] God”. However, Jesus corrected them by saying that He was not claiming to be God in the same sense that Yahweh is God, but in the sense that humans can be called God/gods, by quoting Psalm 82:6. For more on this secondary, representational use of the title “God”, see my previous article that touches upon this subject.
So, then, there are actually no places in the New Testament where Jesus claims to be God in the absolute sense that Yahweh is God. In fact, as He explicitly clarified in John 10:34, He can only be called God in the representational sense that humans (when appointed to positions of authority by Yahweh) can be called God/gods.
This is strong proof (albeit an argument from silence) for unitarianism, because if Jesus were truly God and this were an issue of salvation, He would presumably have made this very clear in His teachings, at the very least privately with His disciples. Instead, the disciples of Jesus understood that He was “the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 16:15-17; Mk. 8:29-30; Lk. 9:20-21), and this was the only charge brought against Him by the Jewish authorities (Matt. 26:62-66; 27:11; Mk. 14:60-64; 15:2; Lk. 22:66-71; 23:2-3; John 18:33-37). Should we not trust that Jesus provided us with an accurate picture of Himself, as the human Messiah and Son of God?
7. Trinitarianism is just one doctrinal faction that happened to “win out” in the 4th century
Although it is difficult to imagine today that anything other than the Trinity could have ever been the prevailing belief about God’s nature, the fact is that prior to the late fourth century, there were actually many different doctrinal factions, including modalism, binitarianism, what would today be called Arianism, and trinitarianism. It just so happened that in the fourth century, the “trinitarian” faction gained enough political power to declare the other doctrines “heresies”; but this was not an issue settled by biblical exegesis, instead, it was marked by internecine fighting and political manipulation.
In the late first century, immediately after the time of the apostles, we unfortunately do not have enough information about their beliefs to determine which faction they belonged to. However, the statements they made seem to be more in line with unitarianism than trinitarianism. If the Martyrdom of Ignatius is regarded as genuine, Ignatius believed in “one God, who made heaven and earth... and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God” (Martyrdom 2). Likewise, his contemporary Polycarp seems to have regarded God as separate from Christ, as he repeatedly refers to “God and Christ” throughout his Epistle to the Philippians. Furthermore, just before his martyrdom, he is recorded as having said:
O Lord God Almighty, the Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ... I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14)
Polycarp, therefore, saw the title of “Lord God Almighty” as belonging to the Father alone as distinguished from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If these accounts are all regarded as genuine, then the beliefs of the “apostolic fathers” seem much more in line with unitarianism than trinitarianism.
In the second century, we see the beliefs of the so-called “early Church Fathers” much more clearly expressed. But these were not modern, orthodox trinitarians; rather, they ascribed to the theology known as “two-stage Logos theory”. These writers, including the major apologists like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Theophilus, saw the Logos (Son) and Sophia (Holy Spirit) as originally being a part of the consciousness of the Father (being His “reason/logic” and “wisdom” respectively), until at the moment of creation the Father caused them to become separate agents through which He acted out the creation of the world [4].
Although these writers saw the Logos as “God”, they believed that He is a divine being subordinate to (and created by) the Father. As Justin Martyr wrote,
[The Logos is] another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things — above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them. (Dialogue with Trypho 56)
Justin Martyr was the first one to coin the word “trinity” (to explain the relations between God and the two subordinate “gods”, not to represent a “triune” God), but it is clear from the above that he would not have been considered a trinitarian even two centuries later. Instead, all of these second century theologians - including Tertullian as well, who coined the Latin word “trinitas” [5] - were what we would call today Arians. With this in mind, it is no wonder that in the early fourth century Arius claimed that his theology was “received from our forefathers and learned from you [Alexander] as well” (Letter to Alexander).
Around the same time, a separate doctrinal faction arose in opposition to the two-stage Logos theologians. These were the “modalistic monarchians”, who believed that the Logos theologians’ belief in two or three “Gods” went against the monotheism of the Bible. In response, they argued, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must simply be manifestations of one and the same person - the one true God, Yahweh. The debate between these two factions raged on throughout the second and third centuries, as the Logos theologians believed that the monarchians were too “Jewish” in their theology, and the monarchians charged the Logos theologians with polytheism.
In the mid-third century, Origen of Alexandria ended up combining these two theories to propose a compromise: the “one-stage Logos theory”. He believed that the Logos must have been eternally pre-existent and conscious with the Father, so as to remove all appearance of polytheism. This is the origin of the trinitarian theory of “eternal generation”. However, even Origen did not take it so far as the orthodox trinitarians of the following centuries did; in fact, at one point he calls the belief that Jesus is the supreme God a “most obscure sect of heretics”, and argues that Jesus cannot be on the same level as the Father, but must be distinct from and “inferior to... the God and Father who is Ruler over all” (Contra Celsus 8.15).
By the late third and early fourth centuries, two new sects arose as a final compromise between the modalistic monarchians and the Logos theologians. These were what we would today call “binitarians” (who believed that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father, but did not believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit) and orthodox “trinitarians”. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, a trinitarian, convened a local synod in 318 and again in 320 of these binitarians and trinitarians to condemn Arius and his two-stage Logos theology (which was now slandered as “Arianism”).
Finally, in 325, the Council of Nicaea was convened, and all of the bishops from non-Arian doctrinal backgrounds (modalists, binitarians, and trinitarians alike) were able to agree upon a creed which used language specific enough to ‘refute’ Arius, but vague enough that all of the other doctrinal factions could agree on it. This led to half a century of internecine fighting between these groups, most notably between the Church historian Eusebius (at first a binitarian), Marcellus (a modalist), and the growing trinitarian faction including Alexander, Athanasius, and the three ‘Cappadocian Fathers’. The fighting finally ended in 381, when the ecumenical Council of Constantinople was convened, and a creed which decidedly favored full trinitarianism was formulated [6].
Although this is obviously not a comprehensive analysis of the development of trinitarian orthodoxy in the first four centuries of the church, it should be clear that the idea of the Trinity was not always regarded as biblical or orthodox. Instead, it developed slowly as the result of internecine fighting, and political and theological compromise, between the Logos theologians and the modalists (both of which are now considered to be damnable heresies). So it is extremely unwise to accept the doctrine of trinitarianism simply because it has “always been accepted”; the history of doctrinal “orthodoxy” is riddled with political maneuvering, and has very little to do with actual biblical exegesis.
8. The Trinity is logically contradictory
Another reason why I am a unitarian rather than a trinitarian is because the traditional view of the Trinity is actually logically impossible. Consider the following diagram, which has been used since the Middle Ages to visually demonstrate the doctrine of the Trinity:
This picture can be summed up in six statements:
1. The Father is numerically identical to God.
2. The Son is numerically identical to God.
3. The Holy Spirit is numerically identical to God.
4. The Father is not numerically identical to the Son.
5. The Son is not numerically identical to the Holy Spirit.
6. The Holy Spirit is not numerically identical to the Father.
These statements are entirely consistent with the orthodox definition of the Trinity that was stated in the first section of this article. However, the first set of statements - that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each numerically identical with the single Being known as God - are logically contradictory to the second set of statements - that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not numerically identical with one another.
There are four separate ways to reconcile this logical contradiction: first, if each of the three persons are only one-third of the whole God, then the six statements are no longer contradictory. However, this commits the heresy of partialism, and denies the principle that God is indivisible. Second, if each of the three persons are separate Gods, and all share the title God, then the six statements are no longer contradictory. However, this commits the heresy of tritheism, and denies the strict monotheism of the Old Testament. Third, if the final set of statements is false, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are numerically identical, then there is no logical contradiction. However, this commits the heresy of modalism, and denies the obvious fact that the Father is separate from Jesus throughout scripture. Finally, if the first set of statements is false, and only one of the persons is actually God (the Father), then there is no logical contradiction. This is unitarianism.
Trinitarians like to argue that it is impossible to fit God inside a box of “logic”, and our human sense of reason is too unreliable to discern what is true. To such trinitarians, I ask the following question: can God create a rock that is too heavy for Himself to lift (or any variation on such a question)? If so, then God is no longer omnipotent; if not, then you must admit that God’s omnipotence (and therefore His nature) is limited by the rules of logic.
From this exercise, we can see that there are five different ways to interpret and/or alter the above diagram which describes the ‘Trinity’: (1) with orthodox trinitarianism, (2) with partialism, (3) with tritheism, (4) with modalism, and (5) with unitarianism. Of these five options, the only one which is both logically possible and consistent with scripture is unitarianism.
9. The hypostatic union is logically contradictory
Another aspect of trinitarianism that is logically contradictory is the idea of the hypostatic union: that Jesus, from the “incarnation” onward, has simultaneously possessed the nature of God and the nature of humanity (that He is “fully God and fully man”). The definition of a “nature” according to trinitarians is elusive and slippery; according to them, Jesus’ two “natures” are not separate consciousnesses, and yet one can be subject to God while the other is God. But at its heart, to possess the nature of something means to have the properties or characteristics of that thing. A rock possesses the nature of a rock by virtue of its properties as a rock; a man possesses the nature of a man by virtue of his properties as a man; and God possesses the nature of God by virtue of His properties as God.
So, for Jesus to fully contain within Himself the nature of God and the nature of humanity simultaneously, we would have to conclude that He possesses all of the characteristics of both God and humanity. But what exactly does this mean? Let’s compare the characteristics of God with the characteristics that Jesus possessed as a human:
1. God is omniscient (Isa. 46:9-10), yet Jesus did not know everything (Mk. 13:32)
2. God is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16), yet Jesus died (1 Cor. 15:3)
3. God is not temptable (Jas. 1:13), yet Jesus was tempted (Heb. 4:15)
4. God is above all (Eph. 4:6), yet Jesus is inferior to the Father (John 14:28)
5. By definition, God is not a human (Hos. 11:9), yet Jesus was a human (John 8:40)
As you can see, from just these five examples (although one would be sufficient to prove the logical absurdity of this view), it is impossible that any being could simultaneously hold all the properties of God and all the properties of humanity. And yet, we repeatedly see Jesus exhibit the properties of humanity, whereas He never exhibits divine properties apart from the authority given to Him by God the Father (Matt. 9:8, John 5:19).
This alone is enough to prove the illogicality of the hypostatic union, which demonstrates that Jesus cannot have the full nature of God at the same time as being a man, therefore refuting trinitarianism (and any other belief system that places Jesus on the level of the supreme God) in favor of unitarianism.
Conclusion
In this article, I have provided nine different reasons for believing in unitarianism - that God is a single divine being Who is unipersonal, the Father alone - rather than the Trinity, based on scripture and logic:
1. God repeatedly presents Himself as only “one”
2. The singular pronouns used by God
3. Jesus was a unitarian
4. Paul was a unitarian
5. The many passages that distinguish God from Christ
6. Jesus never claimed to be God
7. Trinitarianism is just one doctrinal faction that happened to “win out” in the 4th century
8. The Trinity is logically inconsistent
9. The hypostatic union is logically inconsistent
Any one of these nine points would be enough to refute, or at the very last cast significant doubt on, the idea that God is a Trinity of three persons in one divine being. These points, along with the fact that all of the major trinitarian “prooftexts” have more likely unitarian interpretations (as I showed in my previous post on this blog), should be more than enough to show virtually beyond a doubt that the Father alone is Yahweh, the one true God, and that Jesus Christ is His human Son who has been exalted to a position second only to the Father Himself, as the Lord of heaven and earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment