THE TRINITY: FACT OR FICTION?

1. A Christian is one that believes things his reason cannot comprehend... 2. He believes three to be one, and one to be three; a Father not to be elder than his Son;a Sonto be equal with his Father; and one preceding from both to be equal with both; he believing three persons in one nature, and two natures in one person. 3. He believes a virgin to be a mother of a son, and that very son of hers to be her Maker. He believes Him to have been shut up in a narrow room whom heaven and earth could not contain. He believes Him to have been born in time who was and is from everlasting. He believes Him to have been a weak child, carried in arms, who is the Almighty; and Him once to have died who only hath life and immortality in himself. -Francis Bacon (WORKS, vol vii, p.410)

Lord Francis Bacon, the seventeenth century philosopher and Chancellor of England who wrote these words, was obviously a believer in the Trinity. The essay quoted consists of thirty-four such "Christian Paradoxes" which illustrate his belief that:

"The more absurd and incredible any divine mystery is, the greater honor we do to God in believing it...." (as quoted by James Yates, A VINDICATION OF UNITARIANISM, Wells & Lilly, 1816, p. 278).

The Trinity has always been a mystery. In fact, it is usually described as a divine mystery. When I was young I asked several good Christians to explain the Trinity to me. I was told that the Trinity must be accepted on faith because we cannot always understand the ways of God. Such an answer requires the acceptance that blind faith is a virtue.

The concept of Trinity is that "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God" (as stated in one of the critical statements of the doctrine, the Athanasian Creed). These three are all thought of as uncreated, eternal and omnipotent.

You can see why a confused student is told to accept on faith alone!

All this seems to have been confusing for early Christians too. Before the controversy over the Trinity came to a head in the Councils of Nicene during the fourth century, there were many different understandings of the nature of Christ, and an even wider range of understandings about the Holy Spirit. There were those who believed that Jesus was just a mortal man who had a very special relationship with God. Then there were those who agreed with Theodotus of Byzantium that Jesus was born a mere man and attained the ability to work miracles at the time of his baptism. Some of Theodotus' students later believed that Jesus became God after his resurrection. And then there were those known as Monarchians who believed that God and Jesus were one and the same from the beginning of time.

Many of those same views are still held today by various groups of Christians.

SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE

What do we know about the early belief in the Trinity? Clearly the strong Jewish tradition among the first Christians slowed the initial development of the doctrine. This is especially true since Jesus never preached it. The only place in the gospels that even hints at the doctrine of the Trinity are the last verses of Matthew:

Jesus came forward and addressed them in these words: "Full authority has been given to me both in heaven and on earth; go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. Baptize them in the name `of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' " [Matthew 28:18-19]

Nor is the doctrine stated in the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles. In fact, there is no place in the Testaments, Old or New, which speaks directly of the Trinity.

The whole concept also runs contrary to many verses and themes in the Bible. The most obvious of these is monotheism itself. The next few verses demonstrate this point clearly.

Jesus made it clear that there is only one God:

Eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God.... [John 17:3]

God is `Almighty.' God uses this word only as a description of Himself:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said: "I am God the Almighty...." [Genesis 17:1]

`Almighty' means by definition that He has all power. There is nothing and no one else with any real power. All power stems from God, and it is not shared by anyone.

No one else can ever fit that word! There is only One who is Almighty:

I am God, there is no other; I am God, there is none like me. [Isaiah 46:9]

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The recognition of the Trinity as an innovation started very early in Christian history. Back in the seventh century, the Eastern theologian John of Damascus, in defending his icons, stated that icons were as unscriptural as the Trinity: "

You will not find in scripture the Trinity or the homoousion [of the same essence as God] or the two natures of Christ either."

Yet, having acknowledged that icons, the Trinity and the incarnation are innovations, John of Damascus continued to defend them because they were "venerable traditions delivered to us by the fathers." (See THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, p. 133.)

The trinitarian doctrine developed gradually over several centuries, through numerous controversies. There were many influences in its formulation and development: the Apostles Creed (around A. D. 160), the Arian controversy (about A. D. 318 to 380), the Nicene Council (A. D. 325), the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381), the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), and the Athanasian Creed (about A. D. 460) are the major ones.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 initiated the Trinity formula in its statement that the Son is "of the same essence [homoousios] as the Father," even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half-century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula. By the end of the fifth century, the doctrine of the Trinity had taken essentially the form it has today.

The Nicene Creed was originally written in Greek. Its principal liturgical use is in the Eucharist in the West and in both Baptism and the Eucharist in the East. The following text has the additions used only by the Western Church in brackets:

I believe in one God the Father Almighty; maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I believe] in one Holy Catholic and ApostolicChurch. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The historical development of the Nicene Creed is more complex than most people realize. It was long assumed that the creed was initially stated in the council of 325 and then enlarged in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. Discovery of documents from the period has changed that assumption. What we now take to be the Nicene Creed may actually have been based on a pre-existing baptismal creed which was enlarged and first stated at the Council of Constantinople.

We know from the proceedings of the Robber Council that there was more than one version of the Nicene Creed in existence at the time of its convening in 449. This council was called to judge the case of the elderly head of a local monastery whose understanding of the nature of Christ was in question. This monk cited an earlier text of the creed than was currently in use, causing quite a bit of excitement and debate in the council (see Robert L. Wilken, THE MYTH OF CHRISTIAN BEGINNINGS, Doubleday & Co., 1971).

Even before the formalization of the Nicene Creed, the persecution of those with nonÄtrinitarian views began. For example, the bishop of Antioch was condemned in a synod held there around 270 for his reported belief that Jesus was a human being in whom the Word of God dwelt, much as a person's reason dwells in him. This was just the forerunner of centuries of similar persecution against those who did not conform exactly to the accepted doctrine of the time.

So far what we have mentioned concerns the controversy surrounding the various understandings of the nature of Christ. There was an equally vehement dispute around the Filioque clause which is:

"and the Holy Spirit...who proceedeth from the Father and from the son." This addition of the son's participation in the Holy Spirit's existence was gradually introduced starting in the 6th century. It is accepted only in the Western Church. The Eastern Church still rejects it as a theological error. Thus the controversy continues.

THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS

We have touched on the historical aspects of the development of this doctrine, but what of the psychological and theological aspects? John Hick, H. G. Wood Professor of Theology at Birmingham University, and editor of THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, attributes the development of the Trinity doctrine to a human tendency to exalt the religion's founder beyond his true identity. As mentioned in Chapter Two, he finds a parallel in the Buddhist trinitarian doctrine which was never preached by Buddha. Hick sums up the doctrine of the Trinity as follows:

Returning, then to the theme of the exaltation of a human being to divine status, the understanding of Jesus which eventually became orthodox Christian dogma sees him as God the Son incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity living a human life. As such he was, in the words of the `Nicene' creed, `the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father'. But this is...far from anything that the historical Jesus can reasonably be supposed to have thought or taught....

The expression "God the Son," an important component of the Trinity, is never found in the gospels. John Hick points out that "as Christian theology grew through the centuries it made the very significant transition from `Son of God' to `God the Son,' the Second Person of the Trinity" (Ibid., p. 175). The Trinity as an innovation is illustrated well by Michael Goulder, Staff Tutor in Theology at Birmingham University:

...I went to visit a patient in hospital. I had to wait, and was shortly joined by two further Christian ministers, the one a Congregationalist, the other (in my opinion at the time) of an even lower breed, completely without the law. There being nothing else to do, we fell naturally to theological disputation, and in the course of time the sister was somewhat startled to come in as my Congregationalist friend was saying, `Well, one thing is certain; he didn't think he was the Second Person of the Trinity'. I found the remark doubly annoying-partly because I had always supposed that Jesus thought he was the Second Person of the Trinity (although wisely not mentioning the fact), and now it was said, it somehow had the ring of the obvious. And partly also I did not relish being enlightened by a minister not of the established church. (Ibid, p. 48)

When we look at the Nicene Creed we easily see the human tendency to exaggerate and to exalt the founder of a religion beyond his own wishes. Referring to Jesus as "God of God" and "very God of very God" clearly reveals excessive emotionalism and exaggeration. One is reminded of the folk wisdom that: "Anything that exceeds the limits, turns to the opposite." When love exceeds the limits it becomes unbearable jealousy and possessiveness; it turns into hate. Obviously, the writers of the Nicene Creed aimed at endearing and exalting Jesus in the eyes of their followers. Their zealous attempts led to serious distortions of Jesus' message-to a point that would be horrifying to Jesus himself:

"None of those who cry out `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of God but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. When that day comes, many will plead with me, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? Have we not exorcised demons by its power? Did we not do many miracles in your name as well?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, `I never knew you. Out of my sight, you evildoers!' " [Matthew 7:21-23]

We cannot study the subject of the Trinity without looking at the views of other, more recent scriptures. The Quran, for example, condemns in the strongest possible terms both the concept of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity:

Unbelievers indeed are those who say that the Messiah, Son of Mary, is God. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship only God, my Lord, and your Lord." Certainly, anyone who sets up an idol to rank with God, God has forbidden for him Paradise; his sure destiny is the hellfire. Such evildoers will have no helpers. Unbelievers indeed are those who saythat God is one third of a trinity. Absolutely, there is no other god besides the One God. Unless they abstain from such utterances such unbelievers will incur painful retribution. Would they not repent before God and seek His forgiveness? God is forgiver, merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger like the messengers who preceded him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we clarify the revelations for them, then note how they still deviate. Proclaim: "Would you idolize, besides God, those who possess no power to harm you or benefit you?" God is the only One who is the hearer, the omniscient. [Quran 5:72-76]

CONTINUING UNITARIAN vs TRINITARIAN DEBATE

It is important to realize that the debate between Unitarians and Trinitarians continues today, and that a significant segment of modern Christians do not accept the Trinity as a valid doctrine. One denomination even calls themselves the Unitarians.

A typical modern-day unitarian Christian view of the Trinity was published in recent years by a group named "Unity" (Unity Village, Missouri 64065). In their book entitled THE MAGNIFICENT TOOLS OF THE MIND, Eric Butterworth writes:

The term "Holy Spirit" is an important but greatly misunderstood word in Christianity. It is thought of as one part of the Trinity (God in three persons); thus, it is clothed with a kind of individuality which comes and goes in our experience. The concept of the Trinity did not originate with Jesus. It is not even vaguely suggested in his teachings. It was a term that came into being as a result of an effort by the bishops of the early church to define the indefinable. It was a teaching symbol that may have had meaning in its time and among the people of thday. However, it needs to be clearly redefined in terms of contemporary insights and integrated into the "new model of the universe."

SUMMARY

The doctrine of the Trinity does not originate in the gospels, or in the teachings of Jesus. It demonstrates the human tendency to exalt the object of our love and admiration.

The Nicene creed is the most commonly known statement of the doctrine, but many events shaped its development. The doctrine was formulated over the third and fourth centuries, amid much discussion and controversy.

It still produces much discussion and controversy.

Chapter Seven

SACRIFICIAL LAMB OF GOD?

One of the basic doctrines of modern Christianity is that Jesus was crucified, suffered greatly, and died a humiliating death in order to redeem mankind from its sins. The corollary to this doctrine is that one must accept Jesus as a personal savior to enter the kingdom of God.

For many Christians these concepts have had the unfortunate effect of making Jesus the one to pray to, rather than to God. If you believe that someone will save you it is natural that you will implore him.

For other sincere believers this whole issue has led to doubt. In some cases, this doubt has given rise to theories which question the validity of the crucifixion. Such theories range from the unusual to the bizarre. Usually the theory is that someone else was crucified in Jesus' place or that he survived the event and went on to live and preach in one or more geographical locations.

REASONS FOR DOUBT

Perhaps one of the reasons that these doubts and theories exist is that, from a purely logical point of view, the Christian concept of the crucifixion is in conflict with God's qualities of omnipotence and mercy. The combined doctrines of Jesus' sonship to God and of his crucifixion create a picture of a helpless deity who cannot defend his offspring, or worse yet, a heartless one who deliberately created the circumstances under which his child was required to suffer greatly.

There is another crucial issue here-the issue of individual responsibility. The idea of a single individual atoning for the sins of humanity is in conflict with the concepts of free will and personal responsibility. One of the basic principles of western democracy is that no man can be held accountable for the mistakes of another. Each person is individually responsible for his own actions, with the freedom to make his own decisions and to reap the gain or loss resulting from those decisions.

This concept certainly is not foreign to the scriptures. The theme that "you reap what you sow" threads throughout the Bible:

When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. [Sirach 15:14-16]

The Old Testament book of Sirach has always been accepted by the Catholic Church as canonical and divinely inspired, but it will not be familiar to Protestant readers, who will not find it in their Bibles. The above quote demonstrates the Biblical principle of freedom of choice. The next quote demonstrates that we are punished or rewarded according to those free choices which we make.

Great as his mercy is his punishment; he judges men, each according to his deeds. A criminal does not escape with his plunder; a just man's hope God does not leave unfulfilled. Whoever does good has his reward, which each receives according to his deeds. [Sirach 16:12-14]

It is in the New Testament that we actually find the phrase "A man will reap only what he sows":

Each man should look to his conduct; if he has reason to boast of anything, it will be because the achievement is his and not another's. Everyone should bear his own responsibility.... A man will reap only what he sows. [Galatians 6:4-7]

The Quran also strongly supports this doctrine of individual responsibility:

Say, "You are not responsible for our crimes, nor are we responsible for what you do." [Quran 34:25]

It clearly states that no one can take on the sins of another. Each of us is individually accountable to God:

No soul bears the sins of another soul. Every human being is responsible for his own works. [Quran 53:38-39]

GOD AS SAVIOR

The issue of Jesus Christ as savior comes into the picture here. If each man reaps what he sows, how can Jesus be the savior? How could he have taken on the sins of mankind, or negated them? Only the One who can accept repentance and wipe out sins can do that.

Indeed, throughout the Old Testament, God alone is referred to as the savior:

David sang the words of this song to the Lord when the Lord had rescued him from the grasp of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul. This is what he sang: "O Lord, my rock, my fortress, my deliverer, My shield, the horn of my salvation, my stronghold, my refuge, my savior, from violence you keep me safe." [2 Samuel 22:1-3]

In Isaiah God Himself speaks, saying clearly that He alone is the savior: For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your savior.... It is I, I the Lord; there is no savior but me. [Isaiah 43:3 & 11]

He repeats this categorical statement in Hosea:

I am the Lord, your God, since the land of Egypt; You know no God besides me, and there is no savior but me. [Hosea 13:4]

CONCEPT OF JESUS AS SAVIOR

It is only in the New Testament that Jesus is mentioned as the savior of men. Even then, the Gospels use the term only twice to refer to Jesus. This is noted by Vincent Taylor (Ibid., p. 107-108):

The name `the Saviour' was not used by Jesus Himself, and traces of its presence in the Gospel tradition are few and of late date. The only Synoptic example is Lk. ii. 11, in the angelic message to the shepherd, where Jesus is described as `a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord' ....More surprising is the presence of only a single example in the Fourth Gospel, in Jn. iv 42, where the Samaritans say of Jesus, `This is indeed the Saviour of the world'.

Besides the two occurrences referred to by Taylor, the only other occurrence in the Gospels clearly refers to God, not Jesus:

Then Mary said: "My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit finds joy in God my savior, For he has looked upon his servant in her lowliness...." [Luke 1:46-48]

There is a related concept, the idea of `Redeemer.' In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, all of the references for this word are from the Old Testament (most in Isaiah) and all refer to God alone. Here are just two as examples:

Thus says the Lord, your redeemer, who formed you from the womb: I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens; when I spread out the earth, who was with me? [Isaiah 44:24]

You shall know that I, the Lord am your savior, your redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob. [Isaiah 60:16]

God is the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. The concept that Jesus had to suffer a painful and humiliating death in order to save mankind is not in accordance with the scripture, nor does it make sense. Why would a merciful and omnipotent God require such a thing?

WHY IS THERE SUFFERING?

The inevitable question arises: If Jesus was God's son in the sense that "all the righteous are sons of God," why does God allow suffering to afflict anyone? If God cares about His creation, why doesn't He abolish all suffering and render the world perfectly happy and secure?

Many of the remaining chapters of this book deal with these critical questions. But right now we just need to know that there is very strong evidence that Jesus, in fact, did not suffer at all. This startling statement is explained in detail along with scriptural evidence in Chapter Thirteen. In summary, Jesus' BODY background="bg.gif" was tortured and crucified after the real person of Jesus, i.e., his soul, had departed. Jesus had completed his mission, and his soul had departed at a precisely predetermined moment prior to any torture or crucifixion. Jesus' tormentors were unknowingly torturing and crucifying an empty shell devoid of any feeling. Jesus did not suffer at all.

GOD'S CHILDREN DO NOT SUFFER

God's children do not suffer. This appears to be an unrealistic concept, but it is prevalent throughout the scripture. In the Old Testament, we read the following:

You who dwell in the shelter of the Most High, who abide in the shadow of the Almighty, Say to the Lord, "My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust." For he will rescue you from the snare of the fowler, from the destroying pestilence. With his pinions he will cover you, and under his wings you shall take refuge; his faithfulness is a buckler and a shield. You shall not fear the terror of the night nor the arrow that flies by day; Not the pestilence that roams in darkness nor the devastating plague at noon. Though a thousand fall at your side, ten thousand at your right side, near you it shall not come. Rather with your eyes shall you behold and see the requital of the wicked, Because you have the Lord for your refuge; you have made the Most High your stronghold. No evil shall befall you, nor shall affliction come near your tent, For to his angels he has given command about you, that they guard you in all your ways. Upon their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone. You shall tread upon the asp and the viper; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon. [Psalm 91:1-13]

This Psalm proclaims a consistent biblical premise: that God's children are fully protected from suffering. This is in direct contradiction with any doctrine requiring the kind of suffering that Jesus-one of God's favorite children-supposedly endured. The Psalmist informs us that God "has given command to his angels that they guard you in all your ways. Upon their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone."

Yes, there are exceptions to this biblical rule, but such exceptions can be explained. The righteous must first pass what can be termed "admission tests," before being admitted into God's kingdom. Once the candidate is proven to be unshakably devoted to God, he or she is admitted into God's grace and perfect happiness.

The example of Job is a perfect illustration. We are told that Satan challenged Job's piety, and was allowed to afflict Job, within limits imposed by God, in order to prove Job's sincerity and steadfastness in his devotion to God:

But Satan answered the Lord and said, "Is it for nothing that Job is God-fearing? Have you not surrounded him and his family and all that he has with your protection? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock are spread over the land. But now put forth your hand and touch anything that he has, and surely he will blaspheme you to your face." And the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand upon his person." So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord. [Job 1:9-12]

Satan proceeded to test Job with affliction after affliction, but Job was not shaken from his devotion:

Job ...cast himself prostrate upon the ground, and said, "Naked I came forth from my mother's womb, and naked shall I go back again. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord!" In all this Job did not sin, nor did he say anything disrespectful of God. [Job 1:20-22]

When Job had proven himself and passed all of Satan's tests, God removed the afflictions:

Also, the Lord restored the prosperity of Job, after he had prayed for his friends; the Lord even gave to Job twice as much as he had before. [Job 42:10]

Once the tests were over, Job was accepted as a "child of God" and was generously rewarded for his steadfastness in the face of the suffering inflicted upon him by Satan.

The New Testament confirms the idea of perfect happiness for God's children. A good example is found in Luke 12:28-31 where God's children are exhorted to "stop worrying" about the provisions of this world. They are told that God is fully aware of their needs, and will automatically fill such needs once they belong with Him:

If God clothes in such splendor the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown on the fire tomorrow, how much more will he provide for you, O weak in faith! It is not for you to be in search of what you are to eat or drink. Stop worrying. The unbelievers of this world are always running after these things. Your father knows that you need such things. Seek out instead his kingship over you, and the rest will follow in turn. [Luke 12:28-31]

CONCLUSION

The scripture clearly tells us that we each "reap what we sow." Jesus will not save us. God, not Jesus, is the savior of each and every one of us. He is the one we must pray to. He is the one we must be devoted to.

Furthermore, God guarantees protection for those who become His children by their devotion. Once admitted into God's protection, there is no real suffering for God's children.

As the story of Job shows us, Satan is theinflictor of suffering. This suffering is inflicted, within strictly imposed limits, upon those undergoing the "admission tests" prior to entering God's protection, or upon those who freely choose to remove themselves from God's domain. In accordance with these biblical guidelines, Jesus never suffered during the last days of his life.

These guidelines apply to all of God's children:

All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. [Romans 8:14]