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 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.

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.

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.