Some Republican Views of the Negro

Some Republican Views of the Negro

Thomas Allen

On pages 265–267, in Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 (Memphis, Tennessee: A. R. Taylor & Co., 1904), George Edmonds gives the views of several leading Republicans on the Negro during Lincoln’s War.

He writes, “It is known to all that the Creator has implanted in the very atoms of the human being, as well as in the being of animals, certain instincts for the preservation of life and the perpetuity of the race. Among these instincts is that of kinship. Our affections first go out to our parents, our children, our relatives. Next they go out to the people of our own country, our own color and blood. The white race loves white people more than it does the yellow, the red or the black. Negroes prefer their own color; they naturally affiliate with negroes in preference to whites, Chinese or Japanese. This is the law of kinship. [This law of kinship, most Whites today have forgotten or condemned. Most Blacks believe and accept this law.] Any reverse of this law is perversion — perversion is species of insanity. We have shown that in the year 1796 certain New England Federalists, to attain a certain object they had in view, set themselves to work to promulgate the gospel of hate toward the people of the South. By dint of teaching hate the teachers developed that feeling in their own hearts. As the teaching went on, the feeling increased in intensity until it became an insanity, a monomania utterly beyond the control or the influence of reason. Finally it came to pass that from this insanity of hate there sprung an insanity of love. The former was directed toward the white people of the South, the latter toward the negroes. Without evidence from the papers and publications of that day, the white men of this generation will not be able to believe that New England, as well as large numbers of the Republican party, came to admire and respect the negro race as morally and mentally superior to the white. At first this strange insanity only held that the negroes in the South were far superior in every way to Southern whites; but as time passed the insanity took on a more violent form, and those so afflicted believed and taught that as a race the negro was greatly superior, morally and mentally, to the whole Caucasian race, and not only this, they came to admire every peculiar quality of the negro, the blackness of their skins, their woolly hair. Their whole makeup New England orators and writers dwelt on with a sort of worshiping rapture and urged intermarriage between blacks and whites, not to elevate the former, but the latter.” (pp. 265-266.) The only thing that has changed since Edmonds wrote his book is that many Southerners have become inflected with this Negrophilic-Dixiephobic perversion.

To support his claim, Edmonds quotes several New England Republicans. First, he quotes Wendell Phillips, a leading abolitionist. Edmonds writes, “In the early stages of his insanity Wendell Phillips was fond of announcing to his audiences that ‘negroes are our acknowledged equals. They are our brothers and sisters.’ As time went on Mr. Phillips’ distemper became more heated. He was not satisfied with asserting that ‘negroes are our equals;’ he made the startling announcement that — ‘Negroes are our Nobility!’ And began to clamor that special privileges be granted to ‘our nobility.’ He wanted all the land in the Southern States divided and bestowed on ‘our nobility’ and their heirs forever. What ‘our nobility’ had done to deserve this rich reward Mr. Phillips did not explain. Perhaps he thought the fact that negroes had been brought from Africa in a savage state, and had acquired in the hard school of slavery some of the arts of civilization, fitted them to become a noble class.” (p. 266.)

Next, Edmonds quotes Governor Stone of Iowa. Edmonds writes “in a speech made at Keokuk, August 3, 1863, [Stone] was certainly in the first stages of this insanity when he said to his audience, ‘I hold the Democracy in the utmost contempt. I would rather eat with a negro, drink with a negro, and sleep with a negro than with a Copperhead’ (meaning a Democrat).” (pp. 266-267.) 

Then, he turns to Morrow Lowry. Edmonds writes, “The disease certainly had struck Mr. Morrow B. Lowry, State Senator of Pennsylvania, when at a large meeting in Philadelphia, in 1863, he said to his audience: ‘For all I know the Napoleon of this war may be done up in a black package. We have no evidence of his being done up in a white one. The man who talks of elevating a negro would not have to elevate him very much to make him equal to himself.’” (p. 267.)

Next, Edmonds cites the New York Independent. He writes, “The faithful old New York Independent sorrowfully wailed over the long delayed coming of the Black Napoleon, which all the insane negro-worshipers confidently looked for. ‘God and negroes,’ said the Independent, ‘are to save the country. For two years the white soldiers of this country have been trying to find a path to victory. The negroes are the final reliance of our Government. Negroes are the keepers and the saviors of our cause. Negroes are the forlorn hope of our Republican party.’” [One primary reason that Republicans promoted the Negro in the South was to establish Republican dominance in the South through the Negro. Now Republican racial nihilists complain that Blacks have double-crossed the Republican Party by supporting the Democratic Party. Another primary reason for promoting the Negro in the South was to genocide the Southerner.]

Then, Edmonds quotes James Parton. He writes, “James Parton, the noted biographer, was strongly touched with the prevailing disease — insane love of negroes. ‘Many a negro,’ wrote James Parton, in 1863, ‘stands in the same kind of moral relation to his master as that in which Jesus Christ stood to the Jews, and not morally only, for he stands above his master at a height which the master can neither see nor understand.’” 

Finally, he cites General Phelps. He writes, “J.W. Phelps, General in the Republican army, thought the negro race much better adapted to receive Christianity than the white. ‘Christianity,’ said Phelps, ‘is planted in the dark rich soil of the African nature. Negroes are as intelligent and far more moral than the whites. The slaves appeal to the moral law, clinging to it as to the very horns of the altar; he bears no resentment, he asks for no punishment for his master.’” (p. 267.)

If the people cited by Edmonds believed what they said, they had not spent much time around Blacks. To disprove their assertions, they needed only to look at Haiti.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

King on Black Power – Part 2

King on Black Power – Part 2

Thomas Allen

According to King, Black Power has many positive aspects compatible with the civil rights movement. However, he believes that its negative value prevents “it from having the substance and program to become the basic strategy for the civil rights movement in the days ahead.” (P. 45.) Further, “Black Power is a nihilistic philosophy born out of the conviction that the Negro can’t win. It is, at bottom, the view that American society is so hopelessly corrupt and enmeshed in evil that there is no possibility of salvation from within.” (P. 45.) (Regardless of Black Power, the Negro did win. Yet, now, many Negroes still believe, and many Whites agree, that American society is hopelessly corrupt and enmeshed in the evil of racism, whatever that means, and White supremacy, even though that died decades ago.)

After commenting on the hostile reaction that he received from the Black Power folks in Chicago, King concluded that they had lost patience because all the benefits that the civil rights movement promised had not come to fruition. (Within a decade, they not only received the benefits that King promised and advocated, but they also received much more. Now, they can even become doctors, engineers, executives of major corporations, high-ranking government bureaucrats, etc. with their race being their primary qualification and often their only qualification. One of the few high-paying occupations that they have earned by merits instead of race is athletics.)

King criticizes the Black Power movement because “it rejects the one thing that keeps the fire of revolutions burning: the ever-present flame of hope.  . . . The Negro cannot entrust his destiny to a philosophy nourished solely on despair, to a slogan that they cannot implement into a program.” (P. 47.) 

Next, King comments on the Negro’s disappointments and frustrations. (The Negro may have been disappointed in King’s day. However, today, he should have none, for he has far more privileges and benefits than King ever demanded. Yet, the Negro is still not satisfied and demands more — even the genocide of the White race. His insatiable greed and the kowtowing of Whites keep him from ever being satisfied.)

Continuing, King writes, “We Negroes, who have dreamed for so long of freedom, are still confined in a prison of segregation and discrimination.” (P. 47.).  (Whatever discrimination that Negroes face today is the result of merit and not of race, which is why Negroes want advancements and rewards to be based on race. Today, the White race is the only race discriminated against. If Negroes are still not free, it is because their demands have destroyed freedom for everyone.)

Comparing Black Power to Garvey’s Back to Africa movement, King writes, “The Black Power movement of today, like the Garvey ‘Back to Africa’ movement of the 1920s, represents a dashing of hope, a conviction of the inability of the Negro to win and a belief in the infinitude of the ghetto.” (Pp. 48-49.) (Although the Negro won, his connate traits still keep many in the infinitude of the ghetto. However, refusing to accept responsibility for his failure to escape the ghetto mentality, the Negro still blames nonexistent White supremacy. Moreover, if Garvey had succeeded, most of the race problems of the United States would not exist.)

King remarks, “Black Power is an implicit and often explicit belief in black separatism.” (P. 49.) King adamantly opposed Black separation. He preferred a society where all races are amalgamated and homogenized into indistinguishable mongrels. Such amalgamation is the objective of the oligarchs. Moreover, Black separation preserves the Negro and his uniqueness, which the policies that King promoted destroy. While King expressed a desire for Negro unity and Black identity, his integrationist policies destroy instead of preserving them. Moreover,  under Black separation, Negroes would govern themselves.)

Further, King declares, “that effective political power for Negroes cannot come through separatism.” (P. 49.) (So, Negroes governing themselves do not give them effective political power. Apparently, King thought that Negroes needed to integrate with Whites to govern themselves effectively. Thus, King implies that Negroes cannot effectively govern themselves without the assistance of Whites.)

Some Black Power adherents and King thought small — gaining control of and governing counties and cities. King’s small thinking is one reason that he opposed Black Power — controlling a few counties would give the Negro little influence in State politics. Instead, he preferred focusing on getting Negroes elected to Congress (where they could push the federal government to bully the States into surrendering unconditionally to King. If King had thought big, he would have advocated Negroes having an independent country ruled by Negroes.) While many Black Power adherents wanted the Negro to be independent of Whites, King did not.

Continuing, King writes that “the Negroes’ problem cannot be solved unless the whole of American society takes a new turn toward greater economic justice.” (P. 51.) The federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to create new jobs, low-cost housing, quality integrated education, etc. for the benefit of the Negro. Also, State and local governments have spent many billions of dollars more for the benefit of the Negro. (Thus, for King, the solution to the Negro’s problem is looting Whites for the benefit of Negroes.)

In condemning Black Power, King remarks that “the weakness of Black Power is its failure to see that the black man needs the white man and the white man needs the black man.” (P. 54.) (Whites are not dependent on Negroes. However, if Negroes want to live in a technologically advanced society, they are dependent on Whites.)

King declares, “Negroes should never want all power because they would deprive others of their freedom.” (P. 55.) (Negroes have not gained all power — White oligarchs prevent that — but in alliance with progressive Whites, they have deprived Whites of their freedom. For example, no White can refuse to hire or serve a Negro because of his race, which makes him a slave of the Negro.)

Continuing his attack against Black Power, King asserts, “Probably the most destructive feature of Black Power is its unconscious and often conscious call for retaliatory violence.” (P. 56.) Nevertheless, King admitted many people in the Black Power movement were not advocates of violence. Yet, others believed that only violence would bring liberation.

Another reason that King opposed the violence of Black Power was that it would not work. (However, over time, riots and the threats of riots earned more booty for Negroes that did peaceful demonstrations.)

King notes that “power and morality must go together, implementing, fulfilling and ennobling each other.” (P. 61.) (Unfortunately, he errs. With rare exception, those who wield political power lack morality.)

About segregation, King writes, “Racial segregation is buttressed by such irrational fears as loss of preferred economic privilege, altered social status, intermarriage and adjustment to new situations.” (P. 61.) (Irrational or not, these fears have come to pass. Not only have Whites lost economic privileges, but they have also lost economic neutrality. Whites have to give Negroes preferential treatment in hiring [affirmative action and quotas]. Interracial marriages have soared since the late 1960s. No longer can Whites have any kind of public social activity without allowing Negroes to participate.) According to King, Whites should free themselves of these fears (and surrender unconditionally and genocide themselves along with genociding the Negro via integration and the resulting miscegenation. Of course, this genocide would be in the name of love.)

King states that the Negro will not “be totally liberated from the crushing weight of poor education, squalid housing and economic strangulation until he is integrated, with power, into every level of American life.” (P. 64.) (Now, Negroes are so thoroughly integrated that many of them desire segregation. Moreover, Negroes have more power, especially political power, than Whites except for the White oligarchs. Yet, integration and power have not liberated many of them from poor education, squalid housing, and economic strangulation. Although the welfare state has alleviated much of his economic strangulation, he still lags behind Whites educationally even as academic standards have been lowered to his level. His poor education is the result of his innate genetic lack of intelligence and intellectual capabilities. Again, King preaches the wrong solution to the Negro’s problems.)

Another flaw that King sees in ”the Black Power movement is that it talks unceasingly about not imitating the values of white society, but in advocating violence it is imitating the worst, the most brutal and the most uncivilized value of American life.” (P. 66.) Also, he condemned Negroes perpetrating violence against other Negroes.

King blames the Negro’s desperation for the rise of Black Power. If it were not for White supremacy and segregation, the Black Power movement would never have happened.

A major reason that King rejected the Black Power movement was that it competed with his Freedom Now movement and diverted resources and people from King’s movement. Moreover, in some respects, the Black Power movement accomplished more for Negroes than did King’s Freedom Now movement. Unlike King’s integration movement, which ultimately leads to the genocide of the American Negro, the Black Power separation movement seeks to preserve the American Negro.

Carmichael had a higher opinion of the common Negro than did King. While Carmichael believed that Negroes could advance independently of Whites, King believed that Negroes were dependent on Whites for their advancement. While history shows that the Jim Crow Era proved Carmichael right, the history of the Civil Rights Era has proven King right.

For King and most other Negroes, the Negro has no responsibility for his problems — either in causing them or in solving them. Whites, especially Southerners, are the cause of all the Negro’s problems. Therefore, Whites should solve the Negro’s problem by giving Negroes special privileges and benefits and all their wealth; in short, Whites need to enslave themselves to the Negro until their genocide is completed.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

King on Black Power – Part 1

King on Black Power – Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Black Power,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 23–70, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the rise of Black Power, its flaws, and his objections to it. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King begins his essay by discussing the shooting of James Meredith, which occurred in June 1966 and some events that followed. Meredith’s wounds prevented him from continuing his march in Mississippi. So, King, who represented the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Stokely Carmichael, who represented the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and Floyd  McKissich, who represented the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), continued Meredith’s march. (For more about, Carmichael, McKissich, SCLC, SNCC, and CORE, see “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement” by Thomas Allen.)

Then, King describes the events leading to the resumption of the Meredith Mississippi Freedom March. He discovered that many young Negroes in the troop had become more openly militant. Unfulfilled promises had caused this militant anti-White attitude. Although King wanted to continue his “nonviolent” way, members of CORE and SNCC want to be more militant.

King opposed being openly violent because they “had neither the resources nor the techniques to win.” (P. 27.) To trick and provoke Whites into attacking “peaceful,” unarmed protestors was King’s tactic. 

Carmichael of SNCC opposed Whites joining the march. King’s speculated that  Carmichael’s opposition came from his experience in 1964 in Mississippi when Northerners flooded into Mississippi to work with and instruct Negroes, and the parental attitude of these Northerners made Negroes feel even more inadequate. (Many Northerners, especially Yankees, still believe that Negroes are incapable of taking care of themselves and of advancing without the succor of Whites.) However, King wanted the march to be interracial, and he persuaded Carmichael and McKissich to agree with his (King’s) conditions for the march: nonviolent and interracial. (Unlike Carmichael and McKissich, King appeared to have no qualms about genociding the American Negro via breeding them out of existence with interracial mating, which is a natural result of racial integration.)

During that march, “the birth of the Black Power slogan [entered] in the civil rights movement” (pp. 29-30) although the phrase had been used earlier. However, King  “had the deep feeling that it was an unfortunate choice of words for a slogan.” (P. 30.)

A schism began to occur between the Black Power folks led by Carmichael and the Freedom Now faction led by King. King argued, “The words ‘black’ and ‘power’ together give the impression that we are talking about black domination rather than black equality.” (P. 32.) (Eventually, the Negro not only achieved equality, but the White oligarchs gave the Negro domination over all Whites but themselves. Now, Negroes have far more privileges than Whites ever had at the pinnacle of White supremacy or Jim Crow. Moreover, White oligarchs have enslaved common Whites to support a vast number of Negroes through the welfare state, affirmative action, quotas, etc.) In the end, the Black Power folks and the Freedom Now folks segregated and separated from each other. (So much for these hypocrites adhering to integration.)

Next, King explains that “it is necessary to understand that Black Power is a cry of disappointment. . . . It was born from the wounds of despair and disappointment.” (P. 33.) (Negroes may have been disappointed then, but now they have more than most ever dreamed of having as Whites cower before them.) 

King writes, “For centuries the Negro has been caught in the tentacles of white power. Many Negroes have given up faith in the white majority because ‘white power’ with total control has left them empty-handed. So in reality the call for Black Power is a reaction to the failure of white power.” (P. 32). (Now, Whites are caught in the tentacles of Black Power. Evidence is Whites debasing themselves before Black Lives Matter as though such debasement would ever earn them the respect or admiration of Negroes. Instead, it has earned them the Negro’s disgust and disrespect. Not only did this debasement earn the disgust and disrespect of all self-respecting Negroes, but it also earned the disgust and disrespect of all self-respecting Whites.)

Continuing, King comments on the number of Negro and White civil rights workers killed in Mississippi and the number of churches bombed or burned. He notes, “This is white power in its most brutal, cold-blooded and vicious form.” (P. 34.) (With numerous riots since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their vast destruction of property and many resulting deaths, Black Power has far exceeded White power in its most brutal, cold-blooded, and vicious form. When the brutal viciousness that Negro criminals perpetrate against Whites is included, Black Power makes King’s description of White power look benevolent.)

Much of the blame for the rise of Black Power, King places on the federal government. The federal government failed to become despotic enough quick enough to ram all the demands of the Negroes “down the throats” of Whites — especially Southerners. (Within a decade, the federal government had become despotic enough to force Whites to surrender unconditionally to the demands of the Negro. Over the decades, this despotism has grown until now White oligarchs are giving Negroes privileges and benefits that they never dreamed possible or even thought about.)

Not only does King condemn the South, but he also condemns the North.  “In the Northern ghettos, unemployment, housing discrimination and slum schools mock the Negro who tries to hope. . . . The gap between the wages of the Negro worker and those of the white worker has widened. Slums are worse and Negroes attend more thoroughly segregated schools today than in 1954.” (Pp. 35-36.) (For most Northerners, civil rights and special privileges and benefits for Negroes were only supposed to apply in the South. They were not supposed to apply in the North. If Northerners had known that they were going to be suffocated and devoured in the tentacles of the civil rights movement that they wished on the South, the civil rights movement would have died before it began.)

According to King, the Vietnam War was a major cause of the rise of Black Power and Negroes becoming more violent. Also, Negroes had become disappointed “with timid white moderates who feel that they can set the timetable for the Negro’s freedom.” (P. 36.) They had become disappointed “with a federal administration that seems to be more concerned about winning an ill-considered war in Vietnam than about winning the war against poverty here at home.” (P. 36.) Thus, King wanted resources wasted on the Vietnam War to be allocated to the War on Poverty. (Consequently, King-idolizing conservatives should be ardent supporters of the welfare state and should demand that resources spent on foreign wars promoting American hegemony be spent on the War on Poverty.)

Moreover, King condemns both Whites and Negro clergymen who fail to support the civil rights movement with sufficient alacrity. Their apathy was a cause of the rise of Black Power. The Negro middle class also suffered his wrath. 

About Black Power, King writes that “in its broad and positive meaning, [Black Power] is a call to black people to amass the political and economic strength to achieve their legitimate goals.”(P. 37) (White oligarchs would give the Negro enough political and economic power to achieve their goals, legitimate or otherwise.) King laments about the Negro’s lack of power. (Now, the Negro has power that probably exceeded what King imagined possible.)

Continuing, King writes, “The problem of transforming the ghetto is, therefore, a problem of power.” (P. 37.) (Negroes have gained control of the governments of many major cities. Not only have ghettos not vanished under Black Power, but they have often grown worse — even with the influx of enormous amounts of federal money.) King expresses a great deal of lust for power and associates power with love. 

Then, King writes that “the ultimate answer to the Negroes’ economic dilemma will be found in a massive federal program for all the poor.” (P. 39) (Eventually, King’s demand for massive federal expenditures on poverty came to fruition, yet poverty remains. [Too many people are getting rich from poverty for it to be eliminated.] Moreover, since King was a fervent supporter of the welfare state and the War on Poverty, all King-idolizing conservatives should also be zealous supporters of them.)

King urged Negroes to combine their resources and to develop habits of thrift and techniques of wise investment. (Unfortunately, most Negroes ignored his advice.)

“Black Power is a psychological call to manhood. For years the Negro has been taught that he is nobody, that his color is a sign of his biological depravity, that his being has been stamped with an indelible imprint of inferiority, that his whole history has been soiled with the filth of worthlessness.” (P. 39.) (For the most part, Negroes have overcome these psychological problems. White oligarchs and Negroes teach Whites that they are worthless oppressors and are not worthy of respect and are inferior to the Negro. However, as crime statistics show, the Negro has failed to overcome his biological depravity, which is in his genes.)

Summarizing his discussion of the impact of slavery on Negroes, King writes, “Here, then, was the way to produce a perfect slave. Accustom him to rigid discipline, demand from him unconditional submission, impress upon him a sense of his innate inferiority, develop in him a paralyzing fear of white men, train him to adopt the master’s code of good behavior, and instill in him a sense of complete dependence.” (P. 40.) (In many respects, Negroes have vanquished the effects of slavery. They are not subject to discipline or submission. [Whites are expected to submit to Negroes.] They no longer fear Whites, but Whites fear them. Most Negroes have abandoned the code of good behavior. However, most Negroes still have a sense of complete dependence. They depended on the welfare state and the special privileges and benefits that the oligarchs have given them.) Then, King writes, “Black Power is a psychological reaction to the psychological indoctrination that led to the creation of the perfect slave.”

King asserts that the Negro “must no longer be ashamed of being black.” (P. 42) (Although Negroes are no longer ashamed of being black, many Whites are ashamed of being White. Further, realizing the benefits and privileges that Negroes have but are denied Whites, a growing number of Whites are claiming to be Negroes.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.

Romans 9:5 and the Trinity Doctrine

Romans 9:5 and the Trinity Doctrine

Thomas Allen

Romans 9:5 is one of the strongest verses used to prove the Trinity Doctrine. A description of the Trinity Doctrine is given in the appendix. Following are six translations of this verse.

New International Version (NIV): Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

English Standard Version (ESV): To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

King James Version (KJV): Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

New American Standard Bible (NASB): whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Revised Standard Version (RSV): to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE): theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.

Of these six, the NIV and ESV are the most Trinitarian translations; they clearly declare that Christ or the Messiah is God. Although Trinitarians read the KJV and NASB as supporting the Trinity Doctrine, they can be read as not supporting it; consequently, they are not as emphatic in their support of the Trinity Doctrine as are the NIV and ESV. The RSV and NABRE definitely do not support the Trinity Doctrine; they clearly distinguish between Christ and God. Trinitarians have translated all these versions — except for the Jews who may have been involved in these translations.

As can be seen from the verses above, punctuation is important in the meaning of the verse. Paul’s original letter did contain any punctuation, nor did any of the ancient copies. Punctuation depends on the biases and predilections of copyists and translators. Whichever translation one uses depends on what one is trying to prove.

Based on his other writings, Paul, who wrote Romans, was not a Trinitarian. Paul writes (emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 8:4: As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one [not three in one or one in three].

1 Corinthians 8:6: yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,

Ephesians 4:6: One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

In spite of these four verses, among other antitrinitarian verses in Paul’s letters, Trinitarians cite verses in Paul’s letters to prove the Trinity Doctrine. If Paul were a Trinitarian, as he would have been if he provided proof text for the Trinity Doctrine, he was a highly confused Trinitarian.

Strangely, in their war with the Arians, Athanasius and his allies never cited Romans 9:5 in support of their Trinity Doctrine. If this verse supported the Trinity Doctrine, surely they would have cited it. At that time, theologians understood this verse as the RSV and NABRE translate it. Nevertheless, today’s Trinitarians consider this verse to be a key verse in proving the validity of the Trinity Doctrine.

Even if the NIV and ESV are the correct translations, this verse does not support the Trinity Doctrine. It does not distinguish the Godhead as three distinct Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since no Person of the Trinity can be God over all because that would make him God over the other two, “God over all” must mean the whole Deity. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that no distinction exists in the Godhead — God is one, one Person, one Being. Instead of supporting the Trinity Doctrine, the NIV and ESV translations support a modalist explanation of the Godhead — God reveals Himself as three manifestations or roles: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Appendix: The Trinity Doctrine

The Trinitarian Athanasian Creed declares, “Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God.” Thus, three distinct, co-equal, eternal persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are one God. Although the three are distinct and independent, they are the same. Accordingly, three are one and one is three. That is, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit form and are the one true God. God is one being or entity in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — each being fully God. Each individual person is God, and collectively, they are one God.

Trinitarians assert that the terms “father,” “son,” “person,” “relation,” “unity,” “sending,” and “begotten” are not to be understood literally when used of God. That is, when these terms are used of God, they are not to be understood to mean what they mean when applied to humans. Consequently, the writers of the Bible are deceiving the readers because when the Bible says that Jesus is God’s only begotten Son, he is not a real son, and he is not really begotten. Also, “the Son of God” means “God the Son.” However, “the son of Isaac,” who is Jacob, does not mean “Isaac the son,” who is the son of Abraham. Therefore, before reading the Bible, a person needs to be trained in what common everyday words like “father,” “son,” “begotten,” and “sent” really mean when used in the Bible, or else the Bible will lead him down the road to heresy. He will certainly not derive the Trinitarian Doctrine from merely reading and studying the Bible. (Before the fourth century, most Christians were heretics because they did not worship a Triune God. They believed that the Son had a beginning, i.e., he was not eternal, and that the Son was subordinate to the Father, i.e., was not equal to the Father. As a result, according to the Nicene Creed and later creeds, all these Christians were anathematized.)

Because the New Testament was written in common everyday Greek, one would and should expect that the writers used words in their common everyday meaning. Consequently, Unitarians understand the words in the New Testament referring to God and Jesus to have their common everyday meaning. Trinitarians do not; they give them special technical meanings. Perhaps, this explains why the Catholic Church objected to common people and even aristocrats who had been not trained on how to read the Bible reading the Bible. Untrained people would read words to mean what they commonly mean instead of the technical meanings that Trinitarians give them, and, thus, they risk becoming heretics.

To prove their doctrine, Trinitarians have to change the meaning of words. Also, Trinitarians prefer to follow the councils from the fourth century onward and the confessions formed during the Reformation and later, i.e., the speculative opinions of men, instead of solely or primarily relying on the Bible. Could it be that Trinitarians prefer following these councils instead of the Bible because the Bible does not support their doctrine? (Yes, they can cite passages that they claim support the Trinity Doctrine, but their support is only oblique. They also have to give words special technical meanings to support their doctrine. Other passages refute the Trinity Doctrine if one reads them as they are written without the lens of Trinitarianism.) Interestingly, some verses that Trinitarians use to prove the Trinity Doctrine, Unitarians use to disprove it. Examples of such verses are the salutations in Paul’s letters.

Trinitarians have far more text to explain away than do Unitarians. If one reads all the passages that seem to contradict the Trinity Doctrine literally (read them to mean what they say), he will be led into heresy. To protect oneself from heresy, one must read the Bible wearing the thick glasses of Trinitarianism.

Many Trinitarians believe that the Old Testament teaches Trinitarianism. Nevertheless, Jews are so stupid that they have failed to realize that they have been worshiping a Triune God for thousands of years. If true, why did not Jesus and the writers of the New Testament clearly, comprehensibly, completely, and unequivocally explain Trinitarianism to correct the erroneous beliefs of the Jews? Instead, they concealed Trinitarianism with vague references to it so that theologians would not discover it until the fourth century and then only after a heavy dose of Platonism. 

Intelligent people do not try to explain the Trinity Doctrine so that common people can understand it because people who try to explain it end up crashing on the rock of tritheism or being swept away by the whirlwind of modalism.

When it comes to the Trinity Doctrine, many (most) people are like Thomas Jefferson: They do not have enough sense to understand it. For them, the proposition of Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three is unintelligible.

Of the Bibles listed at Bible Gateway that I have reviewed, the following five most Trinitarian translations are the Amplified Bible, New Century Version, Christian Study Bible, Common English Bible, and New English Bible. The five least Trinitarian translations are the New Revised Standard Version, King James Version, New Matthew Bible, American Standard Version, and 21ct King James.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.