Some Religious Thoughts

Some ReligiousThoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the wisdom of John, “person” as used in the Trinity Doctrine, “kind” meaning “species,” and the Catholic Church as a cult.

More Wisdom of John

I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do not recall, and who died in 2012. He was a lay clergyman. He made two observations about people who claimed that God told them to do something. First, if any of these individuals ever heard God speak to them, they would likely be overwhelmed and drop dead from the shock and awe. Second, if God really was telling these people to do the things that they claimed He told them to do, then God must be suffering from schizophrenia (informal, figurative usage). He tells one person to do X and another person to do anti-X. That is, He tells one person to do one thing and another person to do the opposite. More than one clergyman has said, “One should be skeptical of people who claim that God told them to do something.” Many clergymen note that God ceased giving revelations in the first century AD; therefore, anyone who claims that God revealed something to him should be viewed with suspicion. (For more on the wisdom of John, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

Person

Trinitarians use the word “person” in a technical sense instead of its common, everyday sense. To them, the Godhead is three “persons” yet one “person.” That is, they used “person” to mean one entity (or God) and three entities. To say that the three persons are manifestations of one person is Modalism. To say that the three persons are independent is tritheism.

Common sense and logic dictate that three persons (such as Peter, Paul, and Mary) are three distinct individuals or entities; they are not one person or entity. However, adherents of the Trinity Doctrine call common sense and logic heretics because three persons are one person.

When a Trinitarian explains the Trinity Doctrine, he must tread carefully between Scylla and Charybdis to keep from crashing on the rock of Modalism and being swept away by the whirlpool of tritheism.

Kind

Some “creationists” claim that the term “kind” in the Bible  corresponds to what modern taxonomists refer to as “family.” It does not mean species. 

These creationists advocate the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. They deny the immutability of a species, i.e., “according to its kind” or “after its kind” — like begets like.

However, the Bible uses the term “kind” to refer to what modern taxonomists define  as “species.” According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 4327, “kind” means “species.”

Is the Catholic Church a Cult?

In “Revival of Early Christian Heresies: A Comparative Study of Early Christian Heresies and Mormonism,” Christian Jeo N. Talaguit gives two attributes of a cult: (1) "[a] cult . . . harbors an authoritative leader or governing body that can demand obedience from its followers due to its claims as divinely ordained” and (2) “[a cult advocates] the continuous revelation from God and mankind.”

The Pope is the authoritative leader who can demand obedience from his followers. Also, through the Pope and ecumenical councils, God continues to reveal doctrines that are not taught in the New Testament. Thus, God revealed the doctrines of the infallibility of the Pope, Mariology, and purgatory, among others. Since Protestants reject these Catholic doctrines, they are obviously heretics.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Commentary on Hebrews 1:8

Commentary on Hebrews 1:8

Thomas Allen

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever;

Hebrews 1:8 is another verse that Trinitarians use to prove the Trinity Doctrine. This verse calls Jesus God. Therefore, it proves that Jesus, who is the Son of God, which Trinitarians interpret as God the Son, is the second person of the Triune God. Adam Clarke writes, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. If this be said of the Son of God, i.e., Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ must be God; and indeed the design of the apostle is to prove this.” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, 1967, p. 1249.)

Like Unitarians, Trinitarians note that the author of Hebrews contrasts Jesus, the Son of God, with the angels. However, according to the Trinitarians, Jesus rules as God and, therefore, is God.

According to Trinitarians, the exalted Jesus is superior to the angels, and they minister to him — with which Unitarians agree. Moreover, he is a sovereign sitting on a throne, and the angels worship him because he is their creator and God. Although angels may change according to God’s will, Christ is the unchangeable, ever-reigning King because he is God. Thus, in this verse, God declares His Son to be God.

Hebrews 1:8 supports Modalism as much as, if not better than, it supports Trinitarianism. After all, it refers to Jesus as God and not as the second person of a Triune God. Hence, it refers to a different manifestation of God and not to a different person of God.

Both Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that Hebrews 1:8 describes Jesus, the Son of God. However, they disagree about the meaning of “God” in reference to Jesus. For Trinitarians, “God” means the Supreme God. For Unitarians, “God” means that Jesus is the perfect agent of God, i.e., Jesus is the Messiah.

Also, both Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that the author is using Psalm 45:6 (“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.”) to describe Jesus. However, according to Unitarians, the writer of Hebrews is not suggesting that Jesus is God. He is contrasting the Son with the angels and asserting that the Son is superior to the angels — with which Trinitarians agree. Therefore, the Son can be addressed as God. Moreover, he can be called God because he is God’s agent, just as judges in the Old Testament were called god because they were God’s agents. Only Jesus is the perfect agent, the Messiah. In Hebrews 1:8, “God” means a divine hero who reflects divine majesty. Further, in Psalm 45:6, “God” refers to the king of Israel. Thus, the author of Hebrews is applying the title given to a king of Israel to Jesus as the Messiah. This verse is part of the author’s proof that Jesus is the Messiah, who is a man. He is not arguing that Jesus is the preexisting God-man, the second person of the Triune God. Because of his perfect obedience, Jesus qualifies to be the righteous ruler of the world.

Also, the Bible does not always use the term “god” to mean the Supreme God. For example, Moses is called god in Exodus 7:1.

Moreover, since chapter one of Hebrews proves that Jesus, the Son of God, is superior to the angels, he cannot be God (or God the Son). Proving that God is superior to angels is unnecessary. Further, Jesus cannot be an archangel because archangels are angels, and Jesus is their superior.

Additionally, some Bibles provide an alternative translation. Instead of reading “. . . your throne, O God, . . .,” they read, “ . . . God is your throne . . .”. The alternative translation undermines the Trinitarian interpretation of this verse.

Further proof that Hebrews 1:8 does not support the Trinity Doctrine is Hebrews 1:9 (“Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”). This verse declares that Jesus has a God. If the exalted Jesus is God, how can he have a God? The Supreme God has no God. If Jesus is God, this verse is nonsensical. Thus, “God” in verse 8 is used in an inferior sense as a title designating Jesus as a king who is a superior being and does not mean the Supreme Being.

When Hebrews 1:8 is read in context, it refers to the post-resurrected Jesus and his exaltation to God’s right hand. God has given him the privilege to rule along with his Father, God Himself. Because he is God’s perfect agent, Jesus can be called God in the sense that human representatives of God were called god in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, Jesus still has a God, the one true God, his Father, to whom he is accountable.

Even some Trinitarians agree with the Unitarians. They do not view this text as proof of the Trinity. It stresses the exalted function of God’s Messiah as the ruler of men. (Most of the Trinitarian commentators that I consulted do not give any weight to Hebrew 1:8 as supporting the Trinity Doctrine.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Thomas Allen

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (King James Version)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (Revised Standard Version)

For Trinitarians, the phrase “in the form of God” proves the preexistent equality of the Father and Jesus. It refers to Jesus’ nature before his birth. This verse along with the adjacent verses (Philippians 2: 3–11) proves inconvertibly that Jesus disrobed himself of his divinity and dressed himself in the form of a human. That is, Jesus visibly represented the essence of God the Father. Also, Trinitarians use these verses to support the Incarnation.

In his nature, Jesus is God; therefore, being fully God, Jesus did not need to grasp for equality. Thus, although he was “in the form of God,” i.e., of the same substance or essence, and, therefore, had the right to be equal to God, Jesus sought to conceal this fact by not appearing to be equal to God. Moreover, since Jesus was not inferior to God the Father, Jesus could claim the right to be treated as His equal, yet he chose to humble himself and become a man. Although Jesus was equal to God, he decided not to assert his equality — “thought it not robbery” or “a thing to be grasped.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary translates Philippians 2:6 as follows: “Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of Cod, he did not consider his status of divine equality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagmos [plunder, robbery] passively).” Other biased Trinitarian translations are given in the appendix.

Unitarians contend that Philippians 2:6 does not prove the preexistent equality of Jesus and the Father. This verse is part of a passage where Paul compares the attitude and achievements of Adam to those of Jesus. Adam succumbed to his pride and sought, in a sense, to be equal to God. Contrariwise, although Jesus was the perfect expression of God’s character, he humbled himself and, unlike Adam, considered equality with God as something not to be sought or grasped. Instead, Jesus waited for God to exalt him.

This verse is part of a passage where Paul is teaching the virtue of humility by following Jesus’ example of humility. Paul is urging the Philippians to act with humility toward each other. Instead of teaching the Trinity Doctrine, this passage urges believers to be humble.

Unitarians and Trinitarians disagree about the idea that “form” conveys. While Trinitarians contend that it conveys the notion of “essential nature or essence,” i.e. the essence of God, Unitarians contend that it refers to outward appearance because the word translated as “form” was commonly used in the sense of outward appearance during and before the time that Paul wrote. Whereas Trinitarians claim that it refers to an internal quality, Unitarians claim that it refers to an external quality. Jesus was “in the form of God” in the sense that he perfectly expressed the character of the Father. It does not suggest that Jesus was of the same substance or essence as God and, therefore, possesses God’s nature.

Further, Trinitarians assert that the phrase “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” proves that in the Godhead, Jesus is equal to the Father. Namely, because Jesus was preexistent God, he could claim equality of the Godhead. On the other hand, Unitarians claim that phrase means the opposite of the Trinitarian claim. Instead of claiming Jesus’ equality with God, it means that Jesus rejected pursuing equality with God. Jesus refusing to seek equality with God is consistent with Paul urging believers to copy Jesus’ humility.

Moreover, the phrase does not mean that Jesus maintained equality with God as Trinitarians contend. It means that he did not try to become equal with God. Furthermore, if Jesus were God, to say that he “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” is absurd; being God, he already had equality with God.

If the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11 is correct, then it refutes the origin of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Unitarians maintain that Matthew and Luke are correct and the Trinitarians are wrong. Moreover, Unitarians reject the notion that Paul is teaching the Trinity Doctrine in this and the following verses because he clearly rejects the Trinity Doctrine elsewhere. Paul taught that only the Father was God and that Jesus was a man (emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Ephesians 4:5-6: 5 “One Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (In his exalted state, Jesus is still a man.)

Appendix

Some modern translations show an obvious Trinitarian bias in their translation of the phrase “being in the form of God”:

Christian Standard Bible: “who, existing in the form of God,”

Contemporary English Version: “Christ was truly God.”

Easy English Bible: “Christ had the same nature as God.”

Evangelical Heritage Version: “Though he was by nature God,”

Good News Translation: “He always had the nature of God,”

Living Bible: “who, though he was God,”

New International Reader's Version: “In his very nature he was God.”

New International Version: “Who, being in very nature God,”

New Life Version: “Though he was God,”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Commentary on John 10:30

Commentary on John 10:30

Thomas Allen

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

[Note: most translations since 1900 use “the” instead of “my.” Contrary to the assertions of some Trinitarians, whatever word is used makes no difference.]

John 10:30 is one of the strongest proof texts of Trinitarianism. According to many Trinitarians, this verse proves that Jesus is of the same substance or essence as the Father. Namely, Jesus is claiming to be one with his Father in substance or essence and by that, his deity. He is claiming that he is one of the persons of the Triune God. Thus, these Trinitarians understand this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are equal and are persons of the same God.

Some Trinitarians claim that the “are” in this verse proves the plurality of persons, i.e., God consists of multiple persons. For Trinitarians, God consists of three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Further, the “one” in this verse proves the unity of God, i.e., the three persons are one God. Consequently, Wesley claims, “Therefore, if He [Jesus] was not God, He must have been the vilest of men.” Thus, if Jesus is not God, he is guilty of blasphemy. 

If this verse proves that Jesus and the Father are both God, it supports modalism just as easily as it supports orthodox Trinitarianism.  It implies that Jesus and the Father are the same God, but are different manifestations, modes, or aspects of God. That is, a modalist understands this verse to mean that Jesus and the Father are the same person but are different manifestations of that person.

Unitarians understand Jesus to mean that he and his Father are united in will and purpose; they are of one mind and purpose. Their conclusion is supported by John 17:11: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (Emphasis added.) Jesus prays that as he and his Father are one, his followers may be one, i.e., united in purpose. He was not praying that his followers would become one being or substance.

Not only do Unitarians have this understanding, but so do some Trinitarians, such as Erasmus and Calvin. Calvin argues that Jesus is speaking of his agreement with the Father; he is not speaking of the unity of substance. Likewise, in The Layman’s Biblical Commentary, volume 6, Floyd Filson writes about this verse, “Jesus and the Father are one in purpose and in love for the sheep.”

Some Trinitarians take both sides. If the verse is connected to the text that precedes it, it means oneness of purpose. However, if it is connected to the text that follows it, it means oneness of essence, and, therefore, affirms Jesus’ deity.

When this verse is read in context, it is in the context of the good shepherd (Jesus) caring for his sheep (his followers). Jesus is talking about the unity of purpose. He is not talking about the unity of substance or essence. 

A good Christian claims, “I and the Father are one.” However, he is not claiming that he is equal to the Father, of the same substance as the Father, or God. He is claiming that he is in union and agreement with God. This is what Jesus means in John 10:30. What separates him from his followers is that being the Son of God, he is in perfect union and agreement whereas they are not.

Unity can exist without equality. Unity of purpose and enterprise are examples. Another example is the soldiers of an army; an army has a unity of goals and objectives but is hierarchal in structure (no equality).

Thus, John 10:30 refers to the perfect unity of action and purpose between God the Father and Jesus the Messiah. It does not refer to both Jesus and the Father being of the same essence or substance or to the intrinsic deity of Jesus.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More religious articles.

Loofs on the Trinity Doctrine

Loofs on the Trinity Doctrine

Thomas Allen

In What Is the Truth about Jesus Christ? Problems of Christology Discussed in Six Haskell Lectures at Oberlin, Ohio (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), pages 171-176, Friedrich Loofs identifies three major difficulties or contradictions of the orthodox Trinity Doctrine and its Christology. Dr. Loofs is a professor of church history at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. His discussion of the difficulties of the orthodox Trinity Doctrine and its Christology follows.

[1] The first one Augustine already experienced as a disturbing element, and the scholastic theology of the Middle Ages tried in vain to get rid of it. If, as Augustine thinks and this has been the orthodox opinion since the distinction of persons in the Trinity is limited to their internal relation to each other within the triune God, how was it possible that only the second person was incarnated? And, on the other hand, if the incarnation of the second person only is certain, how can the oneness of the triune God, i.e., how can Christian monotheism be retained? This unsolvable dilemma, perhaps, may be escaped and the incarnation of the Son only be retained, without endangering monotheism, by emphasizing that the Father and the Holy Ghost were not separated from the incarnated Son.

[2] But then the second difficulty I was going to mention becomes all the greater. Even as it is in itself, the idea of the incarnation, the idea that a divine person became the subject of a human life, restricted with regard to time and space, involves the greatest difficulties. For we cannot imagine the Godhead as being constricted by the limitations of human existence. Then only two alternatives remain. We must either assume that the “Son of God,” when he became man, did not cease, separate from his humanity, to pervade the world in divine majesty. Or, with Luther, we must venture the bold thought that, in virtue of the union of the two natures, the human nature from the first moments of its beginning has been partaking of the divine omnipotence and omnipresence.

This latter view, viz., the Lutheran doctrine of the “ubiquity of Christ’s” leads us to absurdities. If we wish to avoid these really unbearable absurdities we are referred to the former view. But does it not destroy the idea of incarnation? Could we still say of the divine person who was also outside the historical Jesus, pervading the world in divine majesty, that he was in reality incarnated? Is not the idea of the incarnation in this manner really changed into the idea of a divine inspiration, an inspiration such as the prophets experienced without any change in God's position to the world? But then it would be impossible still to say that the second person of the holy Trinity was the acting subject in the historical Jesus. This difficulty evidently becomes greater still if the Father and the Holy Ghost were not separated from the incarnated Son. For in that case it is still more impossible to retain the idea of a real incarnation of the Son. Perhaps these arguments are too difficult to be made intelligible with a few short words. But I may not spend more time on them. I must be satisfied with having just mentioned them. This mention of them was necessary. For here lie the greatest difficulties of the orthodox Christology, which cannot be surmounted by any tricks of reasoning.

[3] More easily understood is the difficulty which I am going to mention in the third and last place. The divine Trinity can, if need be, perhaps be thought of as the one God, the triune God, before the incarnation of the second person. But how is it after the incarnation? It is orthodox doctrine that the incarnated Son of God retained his human form, i.e. the human nature he had assumed, even after his ascension. Can, then, the distinction between the incarnated Son, on the one hand, and the Father and the Holy Ghost, on the other, be conceived of as being confined to the internal relations in which each person stands to the other within the one Godhead? And if this is not the case, the oneness of the Trinity is dissolved after the incarnation; the Trinity has become something different after the incarnation from what it was before. If neither is the case, then the humanity of Christ stands beside the Trinity. And then, also during the earthly life of Jesus, it could not have stood in a real personal union with the second person of the Trinity. Then the idea of the incarnation here again changes into that of an inspiration. Our dogmatics, I think, does not frankly face these difficulties. This, however, does not overcome them. These difficulties alone are sufficient to wreck the orthodox Christology. Augustine, the creator of the Occidental doctrine of the Trinity, when pressed by others, asked himself whether the exalted Christ could see God with his bodily eyes, and he answered the question in the negative. This proves that the difficulties we have discussed broke up the dogma of the Trinity and the closely related Christology even for Augustine himself. And the cause of this was not only that Augustine and the whole church orthodoxy as far as the eighteenth century pictured Christ’s body of glory too much like an earthly body when speaking of the bodily eyes of the exalted Christ; the difficulties, on the contrary, unavoidably remain so long as the humanity of the exalted Christ is conceived as something different from his Godhead. 

More religious articles.

Commentary on John 20:28

Commentary on John 20:28

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The texts of the verses cited in this article are given in the appendix that follows.]

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (John 20:28)

Trinitarians consider John 20:28 as one of their strongest proofs of the Trinity Doctrine, which is Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Triune God. This verse refers to Jesus as God. (According to the Trinity Doctrine, God exists as three distinct coequal, coeternal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Yet these three persons are one person.)

To the extent that this verse declares Jesus to be the Supreme God, it supports modalism more than it supports the Trinity Doctrine. According to the modalist doctrine of God, God is one person who reveals himself in three modes or manifestations: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Most modalists believe that God revealed Himself as Jehovah in the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament.

Consequently, Thomas' calling Jesus God supports modalism. To support the orthodox Trinity Doctrine, Thomas would have had to call Jesus God the Son.

In John 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God.” According to Trinitarians, if Jesus were not the Supreme God, God the Son, he would have corrected Thomas for calling him God. For Thomas to call Jesus God if Jesus was not God would have been blasphemy. Since Jesus did not correct Thomas, Jesus agreed that Thomas was correct; he was the Supreme God.

This Trinitarian explanation is based on Thomas, who had earlier doubted the resurrection of Jesus, suddenly understanding what no other apostle or early Christians including Paul understood. Upon the sight of Jesus, Thomas understood the Trinity Doctrine that Jesus was God the Son, the second person of the Triune God. However, this knowledge was lost with Thomas’ death and was not again discovered until the fourth century.

According to Trinitarians, Thomas recognizes and confesses that Jesus is God, that is, Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, God the Son. Nevertheless, according to some Trinitarians, if Thomas’ exclamation is to be considered a confession of faith, it goes far beyond what the early apostles taught.

Based on this verse, some Trinitarians claim that to be saved, a person has to declare that Jesus is his Lord and his God. (Does he also have to recognize the Father and the Holy Spirit being God?) Thus, to be saved, one must believe that Jesus is the divine Savior, i.e., God present with His people giving them eternal life. (If true, almost no one was saved before the fourth century because almost no one believed that Jesus was God in the Trinitarian sense.)

A Unitarian response to the arguments of the Trinitarians is that Thomas did not use the word “God” in the narrow sense of referring to the Supreme God, Almighty God. Instead, he used it in a broader sense. In biblical times and in the Bible, “god” is used in reference to angels, prophets, rulers, and judges. In Acts 12:22, a ruler, Herod, is called “god.” In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul calls the Devil “god.” Judges are called “god” in Exodus 21:5-6 and 22:8-9. Moses is called “god” in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1. Even Jesus refers to humans as “god” in John 10:35-36. Thus, beings other than the Supreme God can be called “God.”

Consequently, Thomas called Jesus God because Jesus represented the Father, who is the Supreme God, and had divine authority. Thomas recognized that Jesus was the Messiah, who according to Old Testament prophecies would be a man. (Likewise, Paul calls the Messiah a man [1 Timothy 2:5].) Also, Jesus knew what Thomas meant; Jesus knew that Thomas did not mean that he was the Supreme God.

Another explanation is that Thomas addressed his remark to both Jesus and Almighty God. Thus, the “Lord” is Jesus, and “God” is the Father, who is Almighty God. However, this is a weaker explanation.

Whatever Thomas meant by his comment, he did not mean that Jesus was God the Son, the second person of the Triune God.

Appendix. Cited Bible Verses

These verses are from the American Standard Version.

Exodus 4:16: And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him as God.

Exodus 7:1: And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Exodus 21:6 then his master shall bring him unto God [the judges], and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God [the judges]; he whom God [the judges] shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor.

John 35-36: 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Acts 12:22: And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man.

2 Corinthians 4:4: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

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

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Commentary on John 8:58

Commentary on John 8:58

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The texts of the verses cited in this article are given in the appendix that follows.]

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58, KJV)

According to Trinitarians, Jesus declares himself to be Almighty God, God the Son, the second Person of the Triune God, when he says “I am.” (Some translations have “Am” or “AM” to indicate deity. However, since the original autograph did not distinguish between lowercase and uppercase letters, then writing “Am” or “AM” results from the translators’ Trinitarian bias.)

Trinitarians interpret Jesus speaking chronologically. That is, he is saying that he existed as a conscious being, i.e., he existed as God the Son, before Abraham was born. In this interpretation, the Jews also agree; they understood Jesus to be saying that he existed physically before Abraham. However, the Jews did not understand Jesus describing himself as the eternal second person of the Triune God. While the Jews understood Jesus literally (he lived on earth before Abraham did), Trinitarians understand Jesus claiming his eternal existence (since Jesus is eternal, he came before Abraham). Yet, most Trinitarians hold that Jesus does not mean continuity of consciousness from his preexisting state through his birth to the time that he was speaking to the Jews.

Moreover, according to Trinitarians, Jesus is referring to Exodus 3:14 where God says “I Am That I Am” in reply to Moses asking God what His name is. Thus, by saying “I am,” Jesus is declaring himself to be Jehovah (Yahweh). Further, the Jews understood Jesus as saying he is the one who answered Moses’ question, i.e., that he is the great I Am. (The Jews are a highly unreliable source since they despise Jesus and fail to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.) 

When Jesus says “I am,” he is declaring himself to be the self-existing creator of Abraham and, therefore, is both greater than Abraham and precedes Abraham chronologically. Further, many Trinitarians claim that Jesus did meet physically with Abraham several times. (When the Bible mentions God or Jehovah being in the physical presence of Abraham, according to these Trinitarians, it is referring to Jesus before his incarnation. Yet, according to John [1 John 4:12], no one has seen God, but these Trinitarians claim that Abraham saw God. Moreover, being omnipresent God cannot move. Yet, God moved visibly in Abraham’s presence.) Thus, Jesus before his incarnation is the I Am who met with Moses.

If Jesus is declaring himself to be Almighty God in John 8:58 with reference to Exodus 3:14, then his declaration fits modalism much better than it fits orthodox Trinitarianism, the Trinity Doctrine. Although some Trinitarians identify Jesus as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, other Trinitarians identify Jehovah as God the Father. Thus, Jesus is identifying himself as the same person as God the Father. That is, God manifests Himself as Jehovah in the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament. (According to the modalist doctrine of God, God is one person who reveals himself in three modes or manifestations: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Most modalists believe that God revealed Himself as Jehovah in the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament.)

Unitarians respond that Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 is to be understood figuratively and not literally. He does not mean that he literally existed as a conscious being before Abraham was born or even before his conception. (This response excludes the Arian type of Unitarians, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who maintain that Jesus existed consciously before Abraham was born; nevertheless, Jesus is not eternal and is subordinate to God.)

Also, because of Jesus’ special, unique relationship with God, he is superior to Abraham. Therefore, he ranks above Abraham, i.e., comes before Abraham. Additionally, in the sense that Abraham saw the Messiah’s coming before his actual arrival, Jesus preexisted in Abraham’s mind.

Moreover, if Jesus is declaring in John 8:28 that he is an eternal and divine person who existed consciously before he was born, then he is contradicting Matthew (Matthew 1:18) and Luke (Luke 1:35) because according to them, Jesus did not consciously exist until his conception. What John is portraying is that Jesus is the Messiah in a present reality and not a future one.

Additionally, because a person says “I am,” that does not mean that he is God. For example, a man whom Jesus healed said “I am” in John 9:9 (KJV). (Most translations translate this phrase to read “I am he,” “I am the man,” or “I am the one.”) Yet, he is not claiming to be God. If these other translations translated the “I am” phrase consistently, they would have translated John 8:58 to read “I am he” or “I am the one.” Then, it would be clear that Jesus is speaking of himself as the Messiah and not God Almighty.

Also, in John 8:24 and 28, Jesus uses the same “I am” phrase that he uses in John 8:58. Yet, the translators translate the phrase as “I am he” in these two verses. If the translators were consistent, they would have translated John 8:58 “I am he.”

Furthermore, contrary to the Trinitarian claim, the Jews may not have understood that Jesus was identifying himself as God when he said “I am.” They thought of God by his common Old Testament name of Jehovah and not as I Am — especially since Jesus used a significantly different phrase than that in Exodus 3:14. (Both the Trinitarians and Unitarians seem to know what the Jews were thinking when Jesus said: “I am.”) A better translation of Exodus 3:14 is “I will be what I will be” In his translation, Moffatt uses this phrase. However, some Trinitarians assert that regardless of the translation of Exodus 3:14, Jesus is declaring his deity and that he is the eternal living God. Consequently, he is adopting Jehovah’s name “I am.” (These Trinitarians seem to believe that Jesus is not Jehovah, who would be God the Father, in contrast with other Trinitarians who assert that Jesus and Jehovah refer to the same person, God the Son.)

No matter how one interprets John 8:58, Jesus did not mean that he was the God of the Old Testament or the New Testament or that he was God the Son, the second person of the Triune God. In John 17:3, Jesus declares that the Father is the only true God and identifies himself as being distinct from God.

Trinitarians interpret John 8:58 literally: Being eternally begotten, Jesus existed personally and consciously as God the Son before Abraham was born. Even some Unitarians interpret this verse literally except instead of Jesus being God the Son, he is the firstborn of creation. Other Unitarians interpret this verse to mean that Jesus existed in God’s plan as the coming Messiah before Abraham was born and even before Jesus came into being, which was after Abraham was born.

Appendix.

These verses are from the King James Version.

Exodus 3:14: And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

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

Luke 1:35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

John 8:24: I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:29: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 9:9: Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 4:12: No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious 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. 

Is Jesus Impeccable?

 Is Jesus Impeccable?

Thomas Allen

In “Why Is Christ’s Impeccability Essential?” (Grace in Focus Magazine, January/February 2023, pages 36-38), Anneka Muller argues that Jesus not only did not sin, but he also was incapable of sinning. The foundation of her argument is the Trinity Doctrine: Jesus is God the Son. Since God cannot sin, Jesus, who is God, cannot sin. Moreover, his impeccability is essential for the assurance of salvation.

Muller briefly discusses Hebrews 4:15 (“For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”) People who believe that Jesus could sin, but did not, cite this verse to support their claim that Jesus was capable of sinning. She refutes this claim by arguing that whether or not Jesus “was capable of sinning has no effect on His ability to be tempted and to sympathize with us in our temptation” (p. 38).

True, the ability of Jesus to be tempted is independent of whether he could sin (is peccable) or could not sin (impeccable). However, Hebrews 4:15 goes beyond this. It says that Jesus was tempted as we are tempted. If sinning were impossible for him, he could not have been tempted as we are because we can sin. He had to be able to sin if he were tempted as we are.

According to the Christology of the Trinity Doctrine, Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man. As stated by Muller, the Deity part of Jesus makes him impeccable. Thus, if Jesus’ Deity affected his experience of temptation and prevented him from sinning, he could not be tempted as we are. Based on James 1:13 (“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man:”), God cannot be tempted. (Muller uses this verse as proof that Jesus cannot sin because he is God.) Consequently, being God, Jesus could not be tempted and, therefore, could not have given in to temptation and sin. Accordingly, his temptations were not a genuine test of character. Being God, not only could Jesus not be tempted as we are, but he also could not have been tempted at all because God cannot be tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 argues against the Christology of the Trinity Doctrine and the deity of Christ. If Jesus were God, he could not have been tempted and could not have sinned. However, this verse claims that he was tempted in every way that we are, which means that he could have succumbed to temptation and sin. Only if Jesus were not God and could have succumbed to temptation and sin, could he have been tempted as we are. (Unitarians use this verse as a proof text against Trinitarians [Jesus is God the Son] and Modalists [Jesus is God]. If Jesus were God as the Trinitarians and Modalists claim, he could not be tempted as we are because God cannot be tempted. Since he was tempted as we are, he is, therefore, not God.)

Furthermore, Muller asserts that because Jesus was God and could not succumb to temptation and sin, the temptations that he endured were far worse than the temptations that we can endure because we can succumb to temptation and sin. In effect, what she is saying is that for a person to resist temptation and not sin is worse than succumbing to temptation and sinning. Nevertheless, for someone who is impeccable, temptation is meaningless.

If Muller’s premise that Jesus is God is true, then her conclusion that Jesus is impeccable is true. However, if her premise is false, then her conclusion is false; Jesus is peccable.

Is Jesus impeccable? If one believes in the man-derived Trinity Doctrine and its Christology of the dual nature of Christ, the answer is “yes.” However, if one believes in the God-inspired Hebrew 4:15 as it is written, the answer is “no.”

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Difficult Verses

Difficult Verses

Thomas Allen

In “The Bible Is Reliable, Part 2,” Grace (in) Focus, November/December 2022, page 20, Dix Winston identifies some difficult sayings of Jesus. Two are (emphases are added):

(1) John 14:28: “Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I.”

(2) Luke 18:19: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God.”

Two other verses that he does not mention that would be difficult from his perspective are:

(1) 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.”

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

(These two verses are the key verses that convinced Isaac Newton that Trinitarianism errs and Unitarianism is correct.)

Mr. Winston believes that the Bible is without error and should be understood literally. Therefore, the Bible correctly states what Jesus says.

Further, Mr. Winston is a Trinitarian. Yet, because of his faith in the Trinity Doctrine, he finds these verses difficult to understand. For him, Jesus obviously does not literally mean what he says. Thus, Jesus does not really mean that the Father is greater than he is or that he is not good because only God is good. Moreover, Paul does not really mean that only the Father is God. Being God, Jesus cannot mean what he clearly says in these verses. Not meaning what he clearly says, Jesus consequently deceives those who heard him and the readers of the Bible today. (Unless he wants to risk being a heretic, Mr. Winston cannot use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument because the Council of Chalcedon [where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills] declared that whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human.)

Like all Trinitarians, Mr. Winston does not believe in Occam’s razor: With competing explanations, a simple explanation is generally preferred to a complex explanation. While the Trinitarian explanation of these verses is complex, the Unitarian explanation is simple.

Unlike Trinitarians, Unitarians do follow Occam’s razor. They believe that Jesus literally means what he says in these verses. Thus, Jesus really does mean that the Father is greater than he is and that only God the Father is good.

Unlike Trinitarians, who believe that Jesus does not mean what he says and that these verses need to be explained away, Unitarians accept what Jesus says and have no need to explain them away. While the Trinitarian explanation of these verses is complex, the Unitarian explanation is simple.

Thus, Trinitarians let their doctrine decide how they interpret these verses. On the other hand, Unitarians let these verses guide them in establishing the Unitarian Doctrine.

Because these verses conflict with the Trinity Doctrine, Trinitarians find them difficult to understand. However, because these verses support the Unitarian Doctrine, Unitarians do not find them difficult.

Appendix

The following are other verses that Mr. Winston does not mention that are hard sayings of Jesus for Trinitarians. Trinitarians cannot use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument to explain away these verses without risking heresy. These verses are from the King James translation with emphases added.

– Matthew 4:10: Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

– Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

– Mark 12:29: And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

– Mark 13:32: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

– Mark 14:36: And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. 

– John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

– John 5:19: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

– John 7:16: Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

– John 8:28: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

– John 8:40: But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

– John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

– John 20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

If Jesus were a co-equal God with the Father as the Trinity Doctrine proclaims, he would not have to depend on the Father as he says he does in some of the above verses.  Further, if he were God, his will would be the same as the Father’s, and he could not forsake himself. Moreover, he would be omniscient. Also, he would not declare God his Father as the only true God.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Two Natures of Jesus

Two Natures of Jesus

Thomas Allen

An essential component of the Trinity doctrine is the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus, also called the doctrine of the hypostatic union. According to this doctrine, two natures, divine and human, are indissolubly united in Jesus Christ, yet they remain distinct. One nature is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and incapable of suffering. The other nature is weak, has imperfect knowledge, and is liable to sorrow, pain, and death. Thus, the former is infinite eternal God, and the latter is finite mortal man.

In 451 A.D., the Council of Chalcedon formulated the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus:

One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, the divine nature and human nature are united without confusion or commixture. Consequently, Jesus never ceases to be both fully God and fully man.

A true believer in the Trinity doctrine of the two natures of Jesus has to believe simultaneously in the following contradictions about Jesus:

– He is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.

– He is omnipotent and can do all things yet feeble and limited in what he can do.

– He is omnipresent and, therefore, cannot move yet moves from one place to another.

– He is omniscient (knows all things and is completely void of all ignorance ) yet has imperfect knowledge and is ignorant of many things.

– His mind is uncreated and infinite yet his mind is created and finite.

– He is independent yet dependent.

– He is immutable yet mutable.

– He is exempt from pain, sorrow, and death yet suffers pain, sorrow, and death.

– He is immortal yet mortal.

– He is eternal with no beginning yet has a beginning.

– He is self-existent yet derived.

– He is equal to God the Father yet is inferior to God the Father.

– He does not need to pray because in the fulness of the Godhead he needs nothing yet prays because he has needs.

– He did not die on the cross yet died on the cross.

– He cannot be contained by the heavens yet was enclosed in a woman’s womb.

– He is light yet enclosed in the darkness of a womb.

– He is Almighty God yet an infant’s body housed him.

– He is Almighty God yet a suckling babe dressed in diapers.

– He is without limitation yet had to learn to eat, walk, and speak.

– He was incarnated yet conceived.

All these and more conflicting attributes are contained in the person of Jesus.

Orthodoxy demands that a person believe in all these contradictions. Some contend that if a person does not believe these contradictions about Jesus, he cannot be saved.

Besides a lack of Scriptural support, a major flaw in the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus is that it presents Jesus as a deceiver. When Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing. . . .” (John 5:30), Trinitarians claim that Jesus said this in his human nature. However, in his divine nature, he can do everything that God can do. When Jesus said, “. . . my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) Trinitarians maintain that he said this in his human nature. In his divine nature, he is as great as the Father. However, if Jesus is God, then he has deceived his audience with these two statements because he told them things that are not true. (According to the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon [where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills] whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. Most Christians accept the decrees of these two councils. Thus, anyone who claims that Jesus ever spoke in his human nature is a heretic.)

These explanations are like a man claiming that he cannot write because he cannot write with his left hand, but he can write with his right hand. Another example is a man with a good eye and a glass eye who witnesses a crime. On the witness stand, he asserts that he did not see the crime although earlier in his police statement he had admitted seeing it. On the witness stand, he is referring to his glass eye (human nature), which did not see the crime, although his good eye (divine nature) did see the crime. 

Appendix. Atonement 

Trinitarians argue that sin is an infinite evil and, therefore, deserves an infinite punishment. Consequently, the atonement must be infinite, and no finite being can make an infinite atonement. Since Jesus is both God and man, his sacrifice on the cross qualifies as an infinite atonement. However, like the Valentinians, Trinitarians maintain that Jesus died as a man and not as God (God cannot die). Only his human nature bled and died. Thus, only the human nature of Jesus, the mere man, was offered and sacrificed. The divine nature of Jesus, God, was not offered and sacrificed. Consequently, the infinite atonement completely vanishes. The atoning sacrifice to the infinite God is a mere man, for only Jesus as a man endured and died on the cross. Therefore, concerning the atonement, the Trinitarian doctrine of the two natures of Jesus offers no advantage over the Unitarian doctrine that Jesus is solely human. (When dying on the cross, “. . . Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” – Mark 15:34. Thus, the God part of him had departed leaving only the human part to die.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Theology Driving Understanding of the Bible

Theology Driving Understanding of the Bible

Thomas Allen

A person can understand the Bible in terms of his theology or can derive his theology from the Bible. Most fundamentalist and evangelical Christians argue that the Bible should be understood in its most literal sense. One exception is when a figure of speech, such as a metaphor or simile, is obviously being used; for example, the description of Jesus as a lamb in heaven in Revelation should not be understood literally. 

However, these Christians are not consistent in their literalist interpretation. When a literal reading contradicts their theology, they abandon literalism. Thus, they let their preconceived theology drive their understanding of the Bible. The following four examples illustrate this point.

Chapter 4 of Genesis describes Cain leaving his homeland and going to the land of Nod where he finds a wife and raises a family. Literalist fundamentalists and evangelists understand this chapter in light of their theology: the unity of man, all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. These Christians argue that Cain married his sister, whom he apparently carried with him in his exile. However, nowhere does the Bible make this claim or even suggests it. A strictly literal reading of Genesis leads to believing that Cain discovered other people in Nod and married one of them. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that Adam and Eve had any children between Abel and Seth. Moreover, the events of Cain’s arriving in Nod, marrying, and beginning his family seem to have occurred before Seth’s birth. Consequently, Cain could not have married his sister. A strictly literal reading of the Bible leads to the conclusion that people inhabited Nod before Cain’s arrival, and these people were not descendants of Adam. Other events about Cain also support this conclusion, such as his fear of other people killing him, which led to God placing a mark on Cain to warn others not to kill him. 

Instead of understanding Genesis 12:3 literally, fundamentalists and evangelists spiritualize the verse while condemning people who spiritualize Biblical passages.  (Genesis 12:3 reads, “and I will bless them that bless thee [Abraham], and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”) They have to spiritualize this verse because a literal reading conflicts with their premillennialist theology. A literal reading of this verse shows that the promise of blessing and cursing applies to those who bless and curse Abraham. It does not apply to those who bless or curse the country of Israel. Fundamentalists and evangelists spiritualize this verse and claim that it applies not only to Abraham but also to Israel today.

Like most Christian Zionists, literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals argue that today’s Israel is entitled to all the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. This claim is based on Genesis 15:18, which reads, “In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” (Some identify the river of Egypt with the Nile while others identify it with the stream that is now called the Wady el-‘Arish, whose mouth is near Arish.) According to these Christian Zionists, ancient Israel never fulfilled this promise. Therefore, the promise has not yet been fulfilled; it lies in the future. However, Joshua disagrees with these Christian Zionists. According to Joshua 21:43-45, “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. . . . There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” Thus, the promise made in Genesis 15:18 occurred in the time of Joshua. Consequently, literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals like most Christian Zionists ignore Joshua for the sake of their premillennialist theology.

Like almost all Christians, these literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals are Trinitarians. They understand the New Testament in the light of the Trinitarian creeds developed in the early centuries of Christianity and elaborated on since then although they disagree on what the Trinity really is. Thus, they let their theology drive their understanding of the Bible.  However, if they read the New Testament literally with an open, unbiased mind, they probably would not arrive at the orthodox Trinity dogma. Most likely, they would arrive at a doctrine similar to what the Arians espoused, which was similar to the subordination doctrine (the Son had a beginning and was subordinate to the Father) that was orthodoxy in the second and third centuries. Or, perhaps, they would arrive at an adoption doctrine (God the Father adopted Jesus the man to be His Son). These two require much less mental gymnastics than does the Trinity doctrine to explain away contradicting passages.

Many Christians start with their preconceived theology and proceed to understand the Bible in light of their preconceived theology. Only a few let the Bible determine their theology. Nevertheless, nearly all Christians of the former group will claim that they derived their theology from the Bible.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Socinus’ Unitarian Views

Socinus’ Unitarian Views

Thomas Allen

In History of the Dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ (revised edition of 1876, translated 1878), Albert Reville, a minister of the French Reformed Church, gives a brief description of Faustus Socinus’ Unitarian views. Socinus (1539-1604) was the most famous Unitarian of the sixteenth century. His system of theology is known as Socinianism.

Socinus’ first argument against the Trinity of orthodoxy is that it is a mass of contradictions. It claims that the Deity consists of three persons “distinguished from each other by individual and exclusive properties” (p. 191): “the Father by the absoluteness of his being, the Son by the qualification of having been begotten, the Holy Spirit by that of being proceeded” (p. 191). Yet, it claims “to remain faithful to Monotheism” (p. 191). To justify the contradiction of its Trinity, orthodoxy takes “refuge in the idea of the mystery transcending human reason” (p. 191). However, “its Trinity does not transcend reason, it subverts and disowns it. . . . None of those who have endeavoured to reconcile it, however subtitle they might be, have been able to avoid either the Tritheism which denies the unity or the Modalism which denies the persons” (pp. 191-192).

Socinus’ second argument against the Trinity is that it “cannot stand against the idea of the Divine perfection” (p. 192). God can have no imperfection. So, is the property that “makes each person distinct from the other two a perfection or an imperfection” (p. 192)? If it is a perfection, then it is lacking in two out of the three persons.

Likewise, this perfection is lacking in the special relation of the Father and the Son. Orthodoxy claims that “the Son is a Divine person eternally begotten by the Father of his own substance” (p. 192). However, “God the Father possesses in Himself all perfection immutably” (p. 192). Therefore, “if He begets another God exactly similar to Himself[,] He is no longer absolutely perfect, for the existence of two absolute perfections side by side implies a contradiction” (p. 192).

Further, orthodoxy claims, “that the Son, God infinite and perfect like the Father, became man, uniting in his single person the perfect divine nature with the human nature complete” (p. 192). Thus, Christ has a “double consciousness, knowing itself to be at once infinite and finite, perfect and imperfect, insusceptible to pain and yet suffering, incapable of sin and yet tempted, knowing all things and yet ignorant of many things, praying to itself and hearing its own prayers” (pp. 192-193).

“Before the incarnation there were three Gods having the Divine nature in common” (p. 193). After the incarnation, human nature became inherent in the Deity. Thus, according to the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, “the Creator of the universe was born in the condition of the human embryo” (p. 193), and, therefore, he cried like a baby, ate, drank, slept, and died by human hands. As a consequence of his two natures, did “the man in Jesus alone passed through these vicissitudes while God remained exempt from them” (p. 193)? If so, then Nestorius, whom the Church condemned as a heretic, was correct. Optionally, “the Man-God has borne or felt in his single personal consciousness all these imperfections, . . . or the consciousness of Jesus was double; what one consciousness thought and felt was neither thought or felt by the other” (p. 193).

Moreover, according to the Socinians, the Arian Christ “is no more truly man than is the orthodoxy Christ” (pp. 193-194 fn).

Also, according to orthodoxy, “the absolute deity of Jesus is necessary for the accomplishment of his work as Redeemer, since the infinitely outrage justice of God called for an infinite satisfaction” (p. 194). However, the redemption involved some “inextricable difficulty.” “Who suffered in Jesus, the God and the man at the same time? If so, God has made satisfaction to himself, which is absurd; and we have a God suffering and dying who is no longer God. Or if only the man suffered, what becomes of the infinite expiation which was supposed to be necessary” (p. 194).

Nevertheless, the above reasoning about the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were secondary to Socinus. Arguments from the Bible were his primary method. He asked his “opponents where the New Testament had taught the doctrine of the Trinity; in what passage Jesus had said that he was the second Divine person, and that he possessed two natures; and how they could explain, without doing violence either to their common sense or their own system, the numerous declamations in which he absolutely subordinated himself to his Heavenly Father” (p. 195). Likewise, where did his apostles make such claims?

Like Calvin, Socinus saw the unity between Jesus and God as a purely moral unity and not as any degree or identity of substance.

According to Socinus’ Christology, Jesus is a man, which is his first principle. Nevertheless, he accepts the miraculous birth of Jesus, which he maintained did not alter his true humanity. Afterward, God miraculously carried Jesus locally to heaven and revealed to him the heavenly mysteries so that he could speak them to men from personal knowledge. Then, Jesus descended from heaven and discharged his commission. After his death, he again ascended into heaven, and God deified him as a reward for his virtue. Henceforth, he lives as the dispenser of divine grace. Unlike Calvin, who opposed praying to Jesus, Socinus accepted praying to Jesus.

In the name of protecting free will, Socinus limited the omnipotence and omniscience of God.

For Socinus, the Holy Spirit was “the mechanical, external gift of certain particular graces to such men as God judged to be worthy of them” (p. 199). Consequently, Socinianism “comprehended nothing of the idea of an indwelling presence of the Divine Spirit in creation and the human soul” (p. 199).

Reville concludes “that the Socinians doctrine, apart from its criticism of orthodoxy is somewhat poor and common place, too nearly resembling the vulgar rationalism of another period, and unsuited to our modern modes of thought from a certain rigid quality it has, a something mechanical and capricious, which replaces the difficulties of orthodoxy only with affirmations quite as embarrassing” (p. 196). Socinianism used “a method of biblical exegesis intended to reconcile reason with faith in the written revelations. It assumed the necessity of submitting to Scripture, but the real meaning of each passage is what reason determined” (pp. 196-197). Socinianism “was in its dogmatic views as supernaturalistic as orthodoxy — perhaps even more so” (p. 199).

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Calvin’s Views of Jesus and the Trinity

Calvin’s Views of Jesus and the Trinity

Thomas Allen

In History of the Dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ (revised edition of 1876, translated 1878), Albert Reville, a minister of the French Reformed Church, gives a brief description of Calvin’s views on the Trinity and Jesus. Although Calvin claimed to support the orthodox Trinitarian and Incarnation doctrines of the Catholic Church, his Christology and explanation of the Trinity approached the unitarianism of the modalists or Sabellians.

Calvin maintained “that the finite cannot contain the infinite” (p. 179). This axiom, he used against the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, which holds that the bread is the actual body of Christ and the wine is his actual blood.

If this axiom is applied to the person of Jesus, it results in a contradiction: “‘the whole plenitude of the Deity dwelt in the human nature of Christ,’ and at the same time, ‘the whole Deity was without him’” (pp. 179-180). Thus, “the Son, or the Word[,] was not circumscribed or enclosed in the man Jesus” (p. 180). While intimately united with Jesus, the Word never ceased to fill the infinite.  Consequently, “the Word was united to the man Jesus, so far as human nature, without false to itself, was capable of embodying the divine perfection” (p. 180). Reville concludes, “If in the place of the Word, we put here the Holy Spirit, which after all only differs from the Word in name, we are on the verge of the most decided Unitarianism” (p. 180).

The divine attributes of which human nature is capable are not omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. They are moral attributes like holiness, justice, and goodness. Thus, the perfection of Jesus is “moral perfection, holiness, not absolute perfection” (p. 180). Calvin seriously accepted “all those details of the evangelical history in which the truly human nature of Jesus is positively indicated” (p. 180). Reville asks, “Did Calvin himself see that his exegesis . . . disposed of almost all scriptural proofs generally brought forward in support of the Trinity? On thing is certain, that his Commentaries reduced them to nothing” (p. 181). Accordingly, Calvin claimed that the formula of baptism (baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit — Matthew 28:19) did “not relate to the Trinity of the Divine Persons, but to the triple relation in which God stands towards man in the new economy” (p. 182).

Moreover, Calvin modified “the strict notion of personality as applied to the three terms of the trinity. The three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) became simply divine attributes or modes. Thus, his doctrine of the Trinity is essentially Sabellianism (which was considered heresy by the fourth century). “In effect, the personality of Jesus, which in the old orthodoxy was a divine personality, becomes once more the human personality of primitive Unitarianism” (p. 182). Consequently, Mary is no longer the Mother of God. Faith becomes one of Jesus’ virtues. Worship should not be paid to Christ because he “possesses only a part of the Divine perfections” (p. 183). Although Jesus is the Mediator, “he cannot be the object of that worship which can be properly addressed only to the absolute Being” (p. 183).

For Calvin, the Holy Spirit “is no longer a person in the true sense of the world; . . . it is God in action in the world and the soul” (p. 183).

Nevertheless, Calvin and his followers claimed to follow the Catholic orthodoxy of the Trinity and defended it against its opponents. However, Calvin had changed the fundamental idea of the Trinity.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3

Thomas Allen

    36. How could the preexisting God the Son become a man without any diminishment of his deity? How could God the Son live a fully human life while continuing to exercise his divine function?
    37. How can Christ be both finite (human) and infinite (Deity) simultaneously? How can one be both God and the Son of God simultaneously?
    38. Do today’s Trinitarians follow the early Trinitarians and believe the Trinity Doctrine and its dual-nature Christology because it is impossible?
    39. Jesus states that God is spirit. If Jesus is God, how could he be flesh — unless the heretical Docetists are correct?
    40. How can the Son be God’s equal if God has appointed the Son heir? If the Son is the heir, there must have been a time when he was not the owner. If Christ were God, he would be the owner, or under the Trinity Doctrine, part owner. Therefore, he could not be an heir.
    41. If the Son were equal to the Father, why did he derive his power from the Father? Would not he, being God and equal to the Father, already have these powers and authority?
    42. The Bible states that blaspheming the Son will be forgiven, but blaspheming the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are coequal persons in one God, should not the result of blaspheming one be the same as blaspheming the other? Why are these coequal persons treated unequally?
    43. Many verses of the Bible clearly and plainly call Jesus a man. Also, the Bible declares that “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19), If God is not a man and if Jesus is a man, then how can Jesus, a man, be God, who is not a man? Likewise, if God is not “a son of man,” how can Jesus, who is called “a son of man,” be God?
    44. If Jesus Christ is God, why does he lack the attributes of God: self-existent, immortality, unchanging, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? The Trinitarian would reply that Jesus’ human nature lacks these attributes, but his divine nature does not.
    45. In developing their Christology, the Trinitarians abandoned the Scriptures in favor of the Church Fathers. The Scriptures did not support their dual-nature doctrine. However, they could find statements in some of the writings of the Church Fathers that did.
    46. Both God the Father and God the Son have thrones in heaven. However, God the Holy Spirit does not have a throne in heaven. Why not? (Anyone who claims that the Holy Spirit does have a heavenly throne, needs to provide the Scriptural support that explicitly states that the Holy Spirit has a heavenly throne.) If the Holy Spirit does not have a heavenly throne, how can he be equal to God the Father and God the Son as the Trinity Doctrine declares?
    47. According to the Trinity Doctrine, God the Holy Spirit is omniscient. Yet, Mark 13:32 declares that only God the Father knows when the end will occur. Not knowing when the end will occur, God the Holy Spirit is not omniscient. Nor is God the Son. However, Trinitarians avoid God the Son lacking omniscience in the passage by claiming that Jesus is speaking in his human nature and not in his God nature. Yet, unless Jesus had two minds, which Trinitarians deny, how could his mind both know an event and be ignorant of it simultaneously? Further, they do not have the dual-nature out for the Holy Spirit. Lacking omniscience, which is an essential characteristic of God, God the Holy Spirit is not equal to God the Father, who is omniscient. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine of three coequal Gods collapses.
    Further, Trinitarians may not even use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument to avoid God the Son’s lack of omniscience without risking heresy. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas or Twelve Chapters were accepted as orthodox at the Council of Ephesus (where Mary was formally declared the Mother of God) and the Council of Chalcedon (where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills). The fourth anathema reads: “If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the Gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.” (The Word is the God the Son.) Thus, whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. As Mark 13:32 clearly shows, Jesus, who spoke as God the Son, was not omniscient. Not being omniscient, God the Son cannot be equal to God the Father. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine falls.
    48. If the Holy Spirit is one of the three coequal Gods of the triune God, how can he be given to people? How can such a divine person be given by another divine person unless he is under the authority of the giver? Coequals cannot be under the authority of other coequals and remain equal. Moreover, if the spirit of God is the third person of the triune God, how can he be divided and distributed?
    49. If the Holy Spirit is the third person of the triune God, why does the Bible fail to command the worship of the Holy Spirit? Being a coequal person of the triune God, should not the Holy Spirit receive the same amount of worship as the Father, who is his coequal?
    50. The description of the Holy Spirit given in the Bible suggests that he not be independent or self-existent, and, therefore, should be referred to as “it” instead of “he.” Moreover, the relation of the spirit of God is to God as the spirit of man is to man. If the spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, and it is not, then the spirit of God is not another person distinct from Himself.
    51. Since the “breath of God” is synonymous with the “spirit of God,” is the breath of God a distinct person from God — one of the coequal Gods of the triune God? It is if the Trinity Doctrine is correct. Moreover, if the breath of God is a distinct person, then the breath of man has to be a distinct person from man. Likewise, the “spirit of God” is synonymous with the “hand” and the “finger.” Does this make the hand and finger coequal Gods of the Godhead? Or, are they and the spirit of God subordinate to the will of God?
    52. Every writer of the New Testament epistles identifies himself with God and the Lord Jesus Christ, yet none identifies himself with the Holy Spirit. Did they fail to understand the Trinity Doctrine and its importance, even its necessity, for salvation? Further, did they fail to believe in a triune God?
    53. The Greek word for “spirit” is neuter; therefore, the appropriate pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit should be “it” instead of “he.” (In Hebrew, the word for spirit is feminine.)
    54. Except for a few difficult verses that are often misunderstood, the Bible offers no incontrovertible proof or even indication that the Holy Spirit is a coequal, coeternal person with the Father and Son.
    55. God usually speaks through one or at most a few people. Almost never does he speak through councils and committees: for example, the 400 prophets of Ahab versus the one prophet of God. The unanimous majority of Ahab’s prophets were wrong, whereas the minority of one prophet was right. A majority in some council has adopted all the major creeds of Christendom.
    56. Trinitarians are notorious for changing the meaning of everyday words, e.g., person and begotten, when they apply to God. As most of the Bible is about God, how does one know what the words in the Bible really mean? Are they being used in the ordinary sense, or are they being used in a theological technical sense? Does a word mean what it means in its ordinary, everyday use, or does it mean something else? Only a trained, enlightened theologian knows. Therefore, only a trained and enlightened theologian can really understand the Bible. Unless such a theologian explains the Bible and its meaning to the laity, the laity forever remains ignorant even if he reads and studies the Bible daily. (Were the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was true trained theologians? If not, were they wasting their time because they were searching in ignorance?)
    57. Trinitarians maintain that biblical truths are incomprehensible mysteries. Examples of such truths being mysteries are the Trinity Doctrine and the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ. Thus, Trinitarians depend on mysticism instead of the Scriptures and reason. Yet, speculation about this mysterious, unknowable God has brought forth the Trinity Doctrine. If God is incomprehensible, then how does one know that he is a triune God?
    Moreover, honest Trinitarians admit that they worship an incomprehensible Deity. Furthermore, no attempt should be made to try to understand their God.
    58. Most Trinitarians maintain that God had to die so that man could be saved; the crucifixion of a human who possessed no divine nature is not enough for salvation. Salvation depends on God dying. Besides the human egotism involved in this assertion, it also suffers from the inability of God to die and still remain God.
    59. An underlying premise of the incarnation of God is that it is necessary for the deification of man. Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius, and other Orthodox Trinitarians declared that God had to become man so that man could become God. Was not the desire to become like God the great sin of Eve and Adam? (Additionally, one of the Mormon doctrines that cause Trinitarians to consider Mormonism a heresy is the doctrine of man becoming a god.)
    60. Under the creeds related to the Trinity adopted by the ecumenical councils, salvation ceased depending on faith in Jesus or even good works. Salvation came from believing, or at least claiming to believe, in what some council said about Jesus.
    61. The notion that only an uncreated, eternal being, i.e., God Himself, can redeem mankind comes from Gnosticism and was incorporated into orthodox Christology. Where is the scriptural support for this notion? According to the Scriptures (v. Romans 5:15), redemption came from a man, Jesus Christ.
    62. If belief in the triune God of the Trinity Doctrine is necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians claim, why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine? Further, why did Jesus never even teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Nowhere does the Bible give a systematic presentation of the Trinity. Nor does it state that God is a triune God of three coequal, coeternal persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, it does not claim that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
    63. Do Trinitarians agree with Bernard of Clairvaux that “faith in God has no merit, if human reason provides proof for it”? Is faith believing what one does not comprehend, or does faith require some kind of mental understanding?
    64. Why did Jesus teach his followers to pray only to the Father? Why did he not also teach them to pray to the Father’s coequal Gods: the Son and the Holy Spirit?
    65. Often, Trinitarians seem to stress the theoretical over the practical, a system of dogmas over the development of principles, and a series of unknown and unintelligible propositions that must be subscribed to and believed in over a revelation of truths which common minds may understand and sincere and honest hearts appreciate.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.