The Church of Jesus Christ

From, Rethinking Mormonism:

Question: “Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?”

Hinckley: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.“
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/gbh-god.htm

Question: “Don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?”

Hinckley: “I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else.“
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

Church apologists explain Hinckley’s public statements:

“The real question should be, is President Snow’s couplet an accurate reflection of LDS doctrine? Everything Latter-day Saints teach about God is in agreement with the rest of the Christian world, with the exception of His nature. Joseph Smith said God is in the same form as we are, because we were created in His image as the Bible plainly and clearly tells us… But again, we do not emphasize Heavenly Father’s past, but the possibility of our future.
- The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR)

From this Mormon apologist rhetoric, you’d think that fundamental Mormon doctrine does not include God once being a man.

What has the Mormon Church consistently taught as doctrine from 1844 to 2005?

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know…that he was once a man like us. Here, then, is eternal life–to know that only wise and true God, and you have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. .. God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ.“
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345, also quoted heavily by the church, see Gospel Principles, Chapter 47.

“The idea that the Lord our God is not a personage of tabernacle is entirely a mistaken notion. He was once a man. Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had not a Father; and I do not know that he would if be had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the other. If he had a Father, he was made in his likeness. And if he is our Father we are made after his image and likeness. He once possessed a body, as we now do; and our bodies are as much to us, as his body to him. Every iota of this organization is necessary to secure for us an exaltation with the Gods.“
- Prophet Brigham Young, True Character of God, Salt Lake Tabernacle, February 23, 1862, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p.286

“What, is it possible that the Father of Heights, the Father of our spirits, could reduce himself and come forth like a man? Yes, he was once a man like you and I are and was once on an earth like this, passed through the ordeal you and I pass through. He had his father and his mother and he has been exalted through his faithfulness, and he is become Lord of all. He is the God pertaining to this earth. He is our Father. He begot our spirits in the spirit world. They have come forth and our earthly parents have organized tabernacles for our spirits and here we are today. That is the way we came.
- Prophet Brigham Young, 14 July 1861, Recorded in “The Essential Brigham Young”, p.138

“On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

“Many religions teach that human beings are children of God, but often their conception of Him precludes any kind of bond resembling a parent-child relationship. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught of a much simpler and more sensible relationship: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit … was to make himself visible … , you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.””
- “Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female,” Ensign, Jan. 2005, 48

“The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.“
- Official LDS Lesson Manual, 1997, page 34, “The Teachings of Brigham Young”

“God the Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, are glorified, exalted, resurrected, beings, and from the moment of the appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith, we have known their true nature.”
- Offical LDS publication, Ensign, June 1998, Apostle Russell Ballard, “Building Bridges of Understanding”

“That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises.”
- Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, Sunday, September 18, 1898.

“We all know that like begets like and that for the offspring to grow to the stature of his parent is a process infinitely repeated in nature. We can therefore understand that for a son of God to grow to the likeness of his Father in heaven is in harmony with natural law. We see this law demonstrated every few years in our own experience. Sons born to mortal fathers grow up to be like their fathers in the flesh. This is the way it will be with spirit sons of God. They will grow up to be like their Father in heaven. Joseph taught this obvious truth. As a matter of fact, he taught that through this process God himself attained perfection. From President Snow’s understanding of the teachings of the Prophet on this doctrinal point, he coined the familiar couplet: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” This teaching is peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.“
- Elder Marion G. Romney, General Conference, October 1964

“We often say, and you have heard the expression as it has already been referred to in this conference, that “as man now is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become.” The only way man may become as God now is, is through fulfilling the laws of celestial marriage and the laws of the gospel, as I have just read to you the word of the Lord from the D&C. Can we afford to overlook such opportunities for exaltation? Temple marriage is not just another form of church wedding; it is a divine covenant with the Lord that if we are faithful to the end, we may become as God now is.”
- Elder Eldred G. Smith (Patriarch to the Church), General Conference, October 1948

“Mormonism be it true or false, holds out to men the greatest inducements that the human mind can grasp. And so it does… It teaches men that they can become divine, that man is God in embryo, that God was once man in mortality, and that the only difference between Gods, angels and men is a difference in education and development. Is such a religion to be sneered at? It teaches that the worlds on high, the stars that glitter in the blue vault of heaven, are kingdoms of God, that they were once earths like this, that they have been redeemed and glorified by the same laws, the same principles that are applied to this planet, and by which it will ascend to a perfected and glorified state. It teaches that these worlds are peopled with human beings, God’s sons and daughters, and that every husband and father, may become an Adam, and every wife and mother an Eve, to some future planet.”
- Orson F. Whitney, Divine Evidences of Truthfulness, Y.M.M.I.A. Annual Conference, June 9th, 1895.

“So the Prophet Joseph Smith, in this age, has added to this truth by the assertion that “As man is God once was, and that as He is man may became,” because He is our Father, and like begets like, and inherent within us are the attributes of divinity that shall lead us into perfection, which Christ intended His Saints to attain unto.”
- Elder Joseph E. Robinson, General Conference, April 1912

“God our Heavenly Father is still progressing. While He knows all that is, all that has been, and possibly all things that He designs for the future and what will be in the future, yet He is constantly adding to His dominion, constantly increasing His power, constantly developing in His resources and in His glorious aspirations. This, at least, is our understanding of the condition of our Father in heaven. The thought has been expressed and accepted as a truth, that as we are now, God has been, and as God is now we may be; and if we admit this to be a truth-and I have no disposition to dispute it-then I repeat that even God our Heavenly Father has not reached the ultimatum of His greatness, His power, or His capacity, but that He is continually increasing and expanding in power, in dominion, in glory and in greatness, if I may be permitted to use such terms as these which some people who know no better would call blasphemous, in connection with the Supreme Being, the Father of us all.
- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Sustaining Each Other in the Gospel, Sunday, February 16, 1896.

“We are His children in Very deed, having been born of Him in the spirit, and we have inherited the very attributes which he possesses. They are in us, and they make us God’s embryo, We believe that as we are now God once was, and by the practice of virtue and righteousness, by obedience unto law and authority, He has become what He is, and as He is, man may become, on the same principle.”
- Elder Goege F. Richards, General Conference, April 1913

“The doctrine of the relationship between God and men, as made plain through the word of revelation, is today as it was of old, though in the light of later scripture we are enabled to read the meaning more clearly. It is provided that we, the sons and daughters of God, may advance until we become like unto our Eternal Father and our Eternal Mother, in that we may become perfect in our spheres as they are in theirs. That grand truth, taught by the Prophet Joseph and ridiculed for the time, has now gripped the minds of the thinkers and philosophers of the age… It was crystallized into what we may call an aphorism, by President Lorenzo Snow: ‘As man is God once was; as God is man may be’.”
- Elder James E. Talmage, General Conference, April 1915

“I don’t understand that the Mormon doctrine, announced by President Lorenzo Snow, and so often quoted by us: “As man is God once was, and as God is man may become” means that all men are going to become what God is, not by any manner of means. It is possible they may become; yes, when men keep and obey the fulness of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I understand, my brethren and sisters, this great scheme of our Father contemplates that the privilege of gaining celestial glory has been extended to nearly all of his children. There are a very few in the world who are barred from all the privileges. Evidently according to the revelations of the Lord, those races and divisions existing among us now, existed before we came into this world, and some had failed to carry out the will of God and to conform to his plans in their former life to prove themselves worthy to receive the highest of privileges, namely, salvation in the celestial kingdom of our God.”
- Elder Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference, October 1917

“Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey.”
- Elder Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104

“It is a Mormon truism that is current among us and we all accept it, that as man is God once was and as God is man may become. That does not signify that man will become God. I am sorry to say, and yet it is a truth, that not many men will become what God is, simply because they will not pay the price, because they are not willing to live up to the requirements; and still all men may, if they will, become what God is, but only those who are heirs of the celestial glory shall ever be possible candidates, to become what God is.”
- Elder Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference, April 1921

“We believe that God is a personal being. By a personal being, we mean that he is a man–an exalted man. Approximately one hundred years ago, soon after Lorenzo Snow became a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ, he formulated a remarkable couplet which has since that time become famous. He said: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” (Lorenzo Snow, The Millennial Star 54:404.) Time and time again during the period of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith, various evidences were given to him sustaining, amplifying, and explaining the personality of God. If time would permit, many excellent quotations could be cited from the D&C which would help to describe the personality of our Eternal Father.”
- Elder Milton R. Hunter, General Conference, October 1948

“We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop.”
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, April 1977

What We Believe About God:

1. God is Our Heavenly Father
   “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Hebrews 12:9)
   • Before we were born on earth we lived with him as spirits.
   • He is the father of our spirits and we are his children.
   • Our bodies were created in his image.
2. God is a Member of the Godhead
   (See D&C 130:22-23)
   • There are three separate beings that make up the Godhead: God (our Heavenly Father), Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost
   • The members of the Godhead are ONE in purpose
3. God Has a Body of Flesh and Bones
   “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (D&C 130:22)
   • He has an eternal, perfect, physical body of flesh and bones.
   • He does not have blood like mankind.
4. God is Perfect and He Loves Us
   “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)
   • He is a perfect being and we have been commanded to become like him.
   • He loves everyone of us.
5. God Created All Things
   “God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 3:9)
   • Through Jesus Christ, he created all things.
   • He is the ruler of the universe and all things in it.
6. God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent
   “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.” (Psalms 147:5)
   • He is all powerful.
   • He knows all things, past, present and future.
   • Through the power of his Spirit he can be everywhere.
7. God Can Be Seen
   “But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.” (Moses 1:11)
   • A person without sin can see God.
   • To see God a person must be transfigured: changed by the Spirit to a state of glory.
8. Other Names Of God:
   • Elohim/Eloheim
   • Creator
   • Supreme Governor
   • Supreme Being
   • Father of Mankind

Bro. Lanis has brought these video’s to my attention, and they are worth discussing. I have watched them and will most likely watch them again for points of discussion. At the beginning of the first video he is continuing a discussion about Moses the Black, which I would like to have heard. It seems to me that he uses the word ‘Trinity’ while ascribing a tight formulation to it, almost an Ignatian Economy to it.

Note his textual tradition in this answer (Compare the KJV/NKJV and the NASB/NIV)

Here is the website for Father Zakaria. And another website.

I am interesting in finding out what branch of Orthodoxy he ascribs to.

Last night during service, our pastor was preaching and came to this section of Scripture. It glued itself to conscience.

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.
(Act 17:29 NKJV)

γενος ουν υπαρχοντες του θεου ουκ οφειλομεν νομιζειν χρυσω η αργυρω η λιθω χαραγματι τεχνης και ενθυμησεως ανθρωπου το θειον ειναι ομοιον

For those who are familiar with this blog, you will know that I have stated my opposition to theology being developed/formulated in a Council, so when I lighted upon this verse, I begin to wonder what the Apostle Paul would have said about the church councils that met to formulate doctrine (vs. administrations of the Church), especially the doctrine of the Godhead.

Robertson had this to say,

Graven by art and device of man (charagmati technēs kai enthumēseōs anthrōpou). Apposition with preceding and so charagmati in associative instrumental case. Literally, graven work or sculpture from charassō, to engrave, old word, but here alone in N.T. outside of Revelation (the mark of the beast). Graven work of art (technēs) or external craft, and of thought or device (enthumēseōs) or internal conception of man.

Whereas the NET translators have this,

Or “thought.” BDAG 336 s.v. ἐνθύμησις has “thought, reflection, idea” as the category of meaning here, but in terms of creativity (as in the context) the imaginative faculty is in view.

Easily said is that Paul is speaking purely about monuments, statues, icons, or anything else that iconoclastic people choose to call those things that other men bow to; however we must look past that and understand that every created work of the hand, either from stone or by the pen, first has the foundation in the mind of man. Hence, I believe that is acceptable to say that a creed or other theological formulation produced by men can be considered devised by man and thus falls under Paul’s prohibition.

Can we rightly argue with the Apostle Paul that some 200 to 300 years, Councils were allowed to formulate doctrine and Tradition by the device of man who used non-canonical words and allusions along with philosophy to determine the Godhead? Can we not say that from the Alexandrian School - Panteanus, Clement, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus - we gained philosophers instead of theologians? We gained scholars instead of soldiers?

The idea that one should be allowed to formulate doctrine from centuries of progression is beyond my reach at the moment. Yes, I understand their reasoning and their insistence on Tradition, but I do not see their foundation. Creeds and Council formulations are from the device of man, and those, like those Athenian monuments, dead.

The idea of the Trinity contains in itself the contradiction of polytheism and monotheism,  of imagination and reason, of fiction and reality. Imagination gives the Trinity, reason the Unity of the persons.  According to reason, the things distinguished are only distinctions;according to imagination, the distinctions  are things distinguished, which therefore do away with the unity of the divine being. (Ludwig Feuerbach, George Eliot, The Essence of Christianity 1843)

Ignatius usually gets a  bludgeoning from various people and groups that I deal with personally, but in the end I hold that he was a solid ‘modalist’ although that word would have been foreign to him. He invented the word ‘apostolic’ which is horribly misused by Rome and oneness people. He also was among the first (if not they first) to use the term ‘catholic‘ in describing the Church, but this is not the big C Catholic that we know of today, but instead the universal Church, both Jew and Gentile, Living and Dead.

His famous quote,

Where the bishop is, there let the people gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.

Expresses the unity of the Church, not a name or collective center such as Rome. After all, Alexandria would occupy the seat of papal authority long before Rome would. I have included a portion of Ignatius’ works, and a word of caution. One has to be cautious in discarding all of history because they are used and interpreted by the Trinitarians.

The Epistles of Ignatius (c35-110)

I have chosen to include several passages from different Epistles composed by this Bishop of Antioch, but I do so with caution. We know assuredly that this man lived and wrote extensively. We know fully that he was a Bishop of Antioch and that he was martyred for the Faith around 107 by the Romans. History, however, has given us several representations of his works. Along with most scholars, I have used only the shorter versions in which to extract doctrine. Many scholars will speak to the fact that it is plain one or the other of these versions (Shorter and Longer) exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius, but that theory is not without its faults. I will hold to that theory, but with the rider that interpolations[1] are known to have occurred.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

Introduction

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus[2], to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ, our God[3]: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.

Chapter I

Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God[4], ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you.

Chap. XVIII

Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. “Where is the wise man? where the disputer?” Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ[5], was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

Chapter XIX

Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

Chapter XV

The Ephesians from Smyrna (whence I also write to you), who are here for the glory of God, as ye also are, who have in all things refreshed me, salute you, along with Polycarp, the bishop of the Smyrnæans. The rest of the Churches, in honour of Jesus Christ, also salute you. Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ[6].

Epistle to the Trallians

Chapter VII

Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with ⁷⁶⁶ Literally, “unseparated from.” Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but ⁷⁶⁷ This clause is inserted from the ancient Latin version. he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, ⁷⁶⁸ The text has “deacon.” such a man is not pure in his conscience.

Epistle to the Romans

Introduction

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, ⁸¹⁹ Or, “most holy.” and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Chapter III

For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is in ⁸⁴⁰ Or, “in.” the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing ⁸⁴¹ Literally, “work.” of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.

Epistle to the Church at Smyrna

Chapter I

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom

Chapter X

Ye have done well in receiving Philo and Pheus Agathopus as servants of Christ our God[7] who have followed me for the sake of GOd, and who give thanks to the Lord in your behalf, because ye have in every way refreshed them. None of these things shall be lost to you.

Some time ago, I engaged in a discussion concerning Modalism and Trinitarianism. These following articles/posts are a result of that discussion that is on again, off again. I hear tell that it might start again, so in part because of that (and in part because I wanted to collect it all on one page, and in part because I recently discovered how to tag) I am posting this.

Pt 1 Pt 2 Pt 3 Pt 4 Pt 5 Pt 6 Pt 7 Pt 8 Pt 9 Pt 10 Pt 11 Pt 12 Genesis 1.26

Various writings,

Tertullian on the Generation of the Son, Stone-Campbellite Thoughts, William Penn, Athenagoras, The Apology of Aristides, From Eusebius

I have continued working on this, modifing it, polishing it, and getting it to a point for publication. Below is the introduction. Once completed, I will add the entire file to the blog for download and heavy criticism by my Trinitarian friends, if I have any left… Please bare in mind, that it is not completed.

Unus Deus

Author’s Note

I have attempted to create an apology for common use by The Church of Jesus Christ in an effort to avoid the use of materials published under any other banner but of the name of the Lord. It is my earnest desire to see The Church of Jesus Christ stand on her own when it comes to defending the historical Faith once for all delivered by the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

I have attempted to use the King James Version of the bible (1769 Oxford), but have found myself needing other versions as well. The most common of these is the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New English Translation (NET). For the Septuagint I used the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). I have found it necessary at times to diverge from the traditional KJV and use others because they may prove the point more thoroughly. Do not be dismayed at this. Doctrine is established in the Original Languages by the original words, not by a mere translation made by human hand. To rely upon only one translation when studying doctrine is to severely limit ourselves and find ourselves in the same pit as Tertullian and other who preferred Latin, and thus changing concepts, to the Greek.

With that said, I used the same Greek text (Byzantine Textual Tradition) for the New Testament that the KJV does as well as the Hebrew Text of the Masoretic Tradition. For the Septuagint, LXX, I used the critical text established for the NETS. I understand that for the lay person, koine Greek is as useful as ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and just as foreign, if not more so; however, I have attempted to include enough language tools in the same passage so that the point that I am attempting to make from the Greek is clearly seen and just as understood as if it were in English.

I have attempted, as well, to include in the footnotes the proper documentation as well as other helpful information. Some sections are amalgamated from various sources and therefore it is difficult to site every source, but efforts have been made to do so where required. The one thing that I do not want to be questioned on – not because of some imaginary ivory tower but because a falsehood will quickly dispel even truthful arguments – is scholarship.

It is my prayer not that this becomes the standard apologetic defense for The Church, but that it leads others into many works of defense of the great and Historical Doctrine. It is also my hope that this is the first of many works in developing a full and well versed Systematic Theology for The Church of Jesus Christ.

Introduction and History

And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the LORD to day. Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him? And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so…. And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good. And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak. So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king. And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD? And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil? And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. 1^st Kings 22:1-19 KJV (selected)

This passage illustrates a most important principle: not always is the majority opinion true. Though many may support a theory and that theory may be supported by Tradition, that theory is not necessarily right. In Church History there have been many Micaiahs. They have, for the most part, constituted the minority, but that doesn’t make them heretics.

The Church of Jesus Christ has suffered many setbacks in her history and it has seemed from time to time that Hell has almost prevailed and through persecutions, torments and laws against us she has withstood all, but the worst of those hindrances have been when men went outside of the Word of God and tried to bring in false doctrine. Throughout the Bible, we find great evil occurs when scriptures are either wrestled with, or used impart, to create something new. The Church needs nothing outside of the Bible to substantiate creeds or dogmas. The Holy Scripture, the very God-breathed Word, is all we need. The great injustice of the Second Century and subsequent centuries was that the Church leaders went outside of the Bible for their authority, essentially leaving the Church itself behind. They invoked the decisions of Church Councils, saying they had just as much authority as the Bible and even today, these Councils are considered the only way to approach Scripture. With these Councils and Synods, men met to determine the current view of ‘Apostolic Doctrine’, thus damning heresies started began to creep in. The greatest of these is the Trinitarian Doctrine. This scripturally unsafe doctrine is found only in creeds established by men with almost total disregard for Scripture. Its thoughts were borrowed from paganism. As we know, when one foundation is removed, man is liable to remove other supports, such as baptism, holiness, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

When man looks to man, his end is confusion. The Trinitarian doctrine was formulated by men and thus we see the present denominational world in a steady state of confusion concerning doctrines, traditions, and conversions. The people are rarely firmly rooted in their tradition, but confused as to doctrinal boundaries. The entire denominational world is crumbling into a pool of waste.

Since the final formulation of the Trinitarian dogma in 381[1] the Catholic Church has persecuted and condemned any who would question it[2]. It matters not that their dogma came from man and was recognized as something foreign to Scripture, Rome pretends to be the representatives of God. The Vatican claimed authority to condemn people for simply rejecting their human dogma, and in making the denial of the Trinitarian dogma a capital offense, they revealed their hearts and their master. The New Testament never gives license to kill. Neither does it sanction torture. The Early Church knew nothing but persecution, but sometime after the Third Century the tables turned and the Catholic Church began persecution in the name of the Lord, forcing true believers underground while declaring them heretics. They issued polemics against them, and removed them from Church office. They literally attempted to write them out of the history books.

And those who wrote the books, as well as those who write the books now, either label us falsely or attempt to fallaciously portray our doctrine.

It is difficult to escape terms that we have placed erroneously on ourselves or have had placed on us. I fully recognize that the term ‘oneness’[3] cannot be found in the Bible, in any language in any honest translation. I will accept the term ‘Modalist’, only so far as it is recognized that this too is a man made concept, and one imposed on us by ancient Trinitarians. Granted, ‘oneness’ seems to be a much more Biblical term than ‘Trinity’[4], but if I am going to criticize the Trinitarians based on the fact that ‘trinity is not found in the Bible’[5], then we should be honest and recognize that neither is ‘oneness’. I prefer ‘people of the one God’, or’ monotheists’, or even Unitarians (however that term has taken on a negative con notation due to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unitarian-Universalists, but Trinitarians will claim that as well (although I believe for a majority of them, this is made in error). Unless absolutely necessary, I will try to avoid placing Modalism in opposition to Trinitarianism. Although they are opposed one to another, to define doctrine in opposition to another doctrine does justice to neither, and creates a reality that the other doctrine has merit as well at the situation that develops whereby we use the terms of the opposing doctrine and assign them our own definitions.

For our attempt to build a systematic theology of the One God, I would like to begin by recognizing areas of agreement and disagreements between the Trinitarians and Oneness believers. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that our differences are not merely over semantics, but over concepts. For example, a concept that is foreign to the Modalist view of God is the theory of the ‘unified’ Godhead[6]. For most Modalists the term ‘unified’ still carries within itself the idea that a separation or distinction exists. Here, we must cast doubt on the notion that distinction does not mean separation. According to Webster’s Dictionary[7], distinct means (1)’separate in place; not conjunct; not united by growth or otherwise;’, and (2) ‘so separated as not to be confounded with any other thing; not liable to be misunderstood; not confused; well-defined; clear; as, we have a distinct or indistinct view of a prospect.’ To the lay person, a distinction in the Godhead more than alludes to a separation but calls for an outright separation. We have to remember that in the bible, the διαστολή, which means ‘distinction’, is only applied to musical notes and to the believers, and never to God (1^st Co 14.7). In the former, there is a distinction among the musical notes; in the latter, there is no difference, distinction, or separation in the believers (Jews or Greeks).

Both Oneness and Trinitarian theologians agree that the Bible teaches the existence of only ‘one’ God; both agree that the New Testament sees a difference between the Father and the Son; both views maintain that the Scripture speaks of Father and the Son as God. The question remains: to what level is there a distinction, if any, which exists in the Godhead? I believe that there is no distinction, or separation, in person; however, there remains a difference in manifestations, or spheres of operation, and that difference is temporary, caused by nature and condition.

Oneness and Trinitarian theology both attempt to answer certain questions concerning God, but we do so from different starting points, and end up with two different conclusions. I start with the clear and historically recognized teaching of the Old Testament and the Jews that God is one, and like the Apostles I seek to know Christ and interpret His gospel in light of His words while understanding the different New Testament manifestations between Father and Son in light of the foundation the Law and the Prophets. Trinitarians start with the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ and attempt to justify the OT assertions that God is one in light of these, often relying upon one another’s interpretations. The result is that Oneness theologians usually understand the temporary differences as arising in the incarnation, while Trinitarians understand the differences as absolute eternal distinctions of divine persons in the Godhead both prior to, and after the incarnation. Further, while some Modalists see the Spirit as being the divine power, Trinitarians see the Spirit as being a third person co-equal with the Father and the Son. Throughout the New Testament, Christ and His apostles interpret the current events in light of the Old Testament; however we see no fundamental change in the understanding of what was being interpreted[8]. We must not deviate from that example.

Many assume that the oneness doctrine is new, existing only shortly after the Azusa Street Revival in 1916, but in reality, Modalism goes back to the patristic Church, and past them, even to the Apostles themselves (as it would be natural to do so). To the victor go the spoils, so for Praxeas, Sabellius, and Noetus, we have nothing but the interpretation of their doctrines, perhaps even mischaracterizations, and the guile bestowed upon them by their opponents.

Praxeas explained that while Christ was the Father incarnate, Jesus died only in His humanity as the Son. Sabellius attempted to answer the charge of Patripassianism in a similar way[9]. Noetus, according to his opponent Hippolytus, said, “When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another’s.” Hippolytus[10] comments on Noetus saying, “For in this manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times. But that He is one who has appeared amongst us, both having submitted to generation from a virgin, and as a man having held converse among men. And, on account of the birth that had taken place, He confessed Himself to those beholding Him a Son, no doubt; yet He made no secret to those who could comprehend Him of His being a Father. That this person suffered by being fastened to the tree, and that He commended His spirit unto Himself, having died to appearance, and not being (in reality) dead. And He raised Himself up the third day, after having been interred in a sepulcher, and wounded with a spear, and perforated with nails. “ Noetus, although presumably a disciple of Praxeas, is derided by Hippolytus[11] as being a disciple of Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher some 600 years before Christ (although Justin Martyr calls this long dead philosopher a Christian), who promoted an idea akin to pantheism. Nothing of the writings of Noetus, Praxeas or Sabelliusremains, only the words of their detractors.

The same Hippolytus who said, “The one God, the first and only, both Creator and Lord of all things, had nothing co-eternal. . . . No, he was one, to himself alone. And when he so willed, he created those things which before had no existence other than in his willing to make them and inasmuch as he had knowledge of what would be, for he also has foreknowledge”[12], is the one that the Trinitarians who promote co-eternal pre-existence promote as a great defender of the Faith. Hippolytus’ attacks were not limited to Modalists, but also to Quartodecimans[13] and Montanists[14]. (Polycarp, saying that he received his doctrine from the Apostle John, was a Quartodeciman and Tertullian became a Montanist.[15])

Tertullian, the founder of Latin theology, is widely quoted as saying, “the simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers[16], are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God….They are constantly throwing out against us[17] that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God.” In his discussion of the Trinity, Tertullian acknowledged that the majority of believers did not accept the Trinity. Calling them simple, Tertullian failed to follow Paul’s directive of ‘not going beyond what is written’ and found himself ‘puffed up’[18]. Tertullian goes on further to say that it was Praxeas that brought Modalism to Asia. What must be noted as well, are the many times this Latin father spoke of the Father and the Son as two separate beings.

Praxeas, Sabellius, and Noetus seemed to preach what some hold today as Modalism, although they might not recognize the term. They preached that the Father incarnated His Word as Himself from Himself, or God speaking Himself. They preached that it was the Son that died, or rather the human nature, while also preaching subordination of the Son to the Father, and a temporary, albeit only by nature and condition, distinction.

Contrary to what Tertullian assumed, Oneness theology does not believe that the Son is the Father, but rather that the Father is in the Son and that when you see the Son you see the Father. As Commodian, and ancient Christian Latin poet, said, “The Father went into the Son, one God everywhere.” Sabellius explained that the Logos was not the Son but was clothed by the Son, referring to the Son as the temporary human nature. Although Modalism holds to the passability of God (in opposition to one of the philosophical errors that gave rise to the Trinity, that of the impassibility of God); however, we fully recognize that the Father cannot die in any physical sense but can be affected by or that he participates in the suffering of the Son (the flesh). During the schism created by Hippolytus[19], Bishop Zephyrinus of Rome said, “I know only one God, Jesus Christ, and apart from Him no other who was born or could suffer… It was not the Father who died but the Son.[20]” (There are minor variations in the quote, but the sense is still the same.)

We have a historical tradition of a firm doctrine of what the world calls Modalism which conflicts with Trinitarianism which simply has a history of development. We also have seen that the greatest Trinitarian theologians, those giving the most to the development of said doctrine, have been found to themselves to be separated against the Church. Be it Hippolytus or Tertullian, both men were members of sects that were later declared heretical by Rome, yet their theology is retained.

Trinitarians point to the ‘one in substance’ argument, but that is a human notion that is troubling on more than one front. What substance? Would not the feeble human analogy of triplets being of one substance yet distinct be accurate? If you have a set of identical triplets, they are literally of the same substance, and distinct. Applying this picture to the Trinitarians view, they would have us believe that the triplets are one person. Yet, distinction clearly means separation. Do we see a separation at all in the Godhead? We know that Father was assigned a person in scripture, but neither the Son nor Spirit was. If the substance is the Father’s as is the Person, and if the Son and Spirit have neither Substance nor Person, then Son and Spirit must originate from the Father.

What follows is a move to answering Trinitarian arguments on Genesis 1.26. This is not complete and should not be taken as thus, but I thought that I would put it out there simply because I could use the quick wit that will be provided by others to sharpen and shape, or discard, this argument.

Genesis 1.26 - Let us create man

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26 KJV

Trinitarians usually point to this verse and say that God is speaking to the pre-existent Son. Some oneness believers will point to this verse justify it by saying that God was speaking to the future Incarnation. Others will say that the ‘us’ is the will and counsel of God, or related to His Majesty.

A major problem remains in that we have to make our interpretation fit within logic, reason, and the strict monotheism of the OT as well as God’s plan of salvation.

Several questions we have to ask ourselves are: Did God know humanity was going to fall before He created them? Is strict Calvinism and the issue of God’s sovereignty the answer here? Is even moderate Calvinism an answer to a verse that as long plagued Modalism?

To create the body of the Son for a sacrifice for a sin that has not happened yet and then to clothe the Son in the flesh of sin which is putting on the flesh of the servant where the servant came first would create a paradox. I speak here to the Modalists: If God looked through history and saw 1.) man would fall and 2.) made man according to His Son, what does that say to Modalism? What does that say to Arminianism^[1]? Nothing in the Bible lends itself to this interpretation. Nothing in the Bible states that we are created in the image of the Son but that He came and dwelt in our flesh.

The verse of Genesis 1:26 (as translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, The Living Torah, page 5) states: God said, “Let us make man with our image and likeness; let him dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock animals, and all the earth - and every land animal that walks the earth”.

Rabbi Kaplan in a footnote there, explains, “Let us… God was speaking to all the forces of creation that He had brought into existence (cf. Targum Jonathan; Ramban). Now that all the ingredients of creation had essentially been completed, all would participate in the creation of man, the crown of creation. Others interpret “we” in the majestic sense, and translate the verse, “I will make man in My image” (Emunoth veDeyoth 2:9; Ibn Ezra)

Let us examine the creation of Man for ourselves,

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:20-21 KJV

We see on the fifth day God commanded the waters to bring forth those creatures that swim and those that fly and yet, we read in the same account that God did it Himself. Further, it goes on to say that the water brought those creatures forth.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25 KJV

On the same Day of Creation, God commanded the earth (land) to bring forth those creatures that inhabit the land. Again, we read that God, although he commanded the earth (land) to do something, He did it himself.

We read on the next Day,

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:26-31 KJV

Taking into the account of the living creatures that God made on the fifth Day, we see here the same pattern develop. God is speaking to someone or something. Using conjecture and the context of the passage, we have to understand that the Rabbi’s are right. God is not speaking to the angels or to a non-pre-existent pre-existent Son, but to those things of life that He has created before. For the water and air creatures, God told the water to bring them forth, and with the water, God brought them forth. For the land creatures, God commanded the earth itself to bring them forth. God brings them forth.

With Humanity, God is speaking to all things that He has created (again, He spoke to the Water and to the Earth to bring forth non-human life) to bring forth Man. We were formed out of the dust of the earth, and yet we are seventy percent water. We have flesh and in our base instincts we are little better than the animals. Our body and it’s functions are mimicked everywhere throughout the animal kingdom, no matter the genus or species. Yet, when God breathed into us, we became alive like nothing else on this planet or in all of the cosmos.

One the issues that will be quickly raised is that of the omnipotence of God. First, one has to understand that Time and Eternity are two different realities. Time has a progression. It has a past, present and future. Eternity does not. In eternity, existence is. Eternity is defined by the lack of time progression. The omnipotence of God comes into effect when Time was created by the Fall of Adam. Before then, everything existed. When God told Moses that He was the ‘I Am’, it is because God is from eternity and in eternity, God never was, never will be, but is. We have to remember that God existed before the creation of the World, but the mystery that is the Redemption only existed before the beginning of time.

Did you miss the weekly news?

This is the book that I want, just saying…. I a currently waiting on my Contra Marcellum book and biting my nails doing so.

Here.

Andrea says,

1. Chuck Smith  - About a year ago, on his radio program “To Every Man an Answer,” I heard Chuck Smith state that he has personally known believers who have walked away from the faith.  He says that we must abide in Christ, or else we may just get left behind when the rapture occurs.

Truth: No true believer will ever cease being a Christian.  Once saved, always saved.  And, if a believer is sinning when the rapture comes, he will most certainly be raptured all the same.

The Bible says,

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
(Heb 6:4-8 KJVA)

Looks like Andrea lost that one. Granted, when someone is wrong on their very first try, it usually behooves one to cease from discussion, but I am rather an unbehoovable.

Andrew says,

2. Oneness Pentacostalism - Denies the trinity and claims that speaking in tongues is required for salvation.

Truth: God is a trinity, and speaking in tongues is just one of the spiritual gifts that God might give a new Christian.

I believe that I have covered a tiny bit of what the bible says about the One God, starting here

Besides, the God says that He alone is the only God.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
(Isa 43:10 KJVA)

I encourage Andrea to take a look at the other blog posts in the Unus Deus series.

She then says,

3. Praying to the saints or to Mary - Many Catholics think this is ok.  It’s not.

Truth: Christians are to pray only to God, whom we have access to through the blood of Jesus Christ.  Praying to anyone else is wrong.

Which is correct, except that Jesus Christ is God. No, we don’t pray to saints or Mary, only to God, our Lord Jesus Christ

I wonder where Andrea gets that ‘once saved, always saved’ garbage? Is certainly is not in the Bible.

William Penn - A SANDY FOUNDATION SHAKEN (The trinity of distinct and separate Persons, in the Unity of Essence, refuted from Scripture.)

William Penn’s first public debate was with Thomas Vincent, a London Presbyterian minister, who had reflected on the biblical doctrines of the Quakers. The discussion which turned to the doctrine of the Trinity, ended uselessly, and Penn at once published The Sandy Foundation Shaken, a tract for which William Penn was placed in the Tower of London and given a life sentence. He remained imprisoned for nearly nine months. In Innocency with her Open Face, he asserts his full belief in the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and justification through faith, though insisting on the necessity of good works. He also published the most important of his books, No Cross, No Crown, which contained an able defense of the Quaker doctrines and practices, and a scathing attack on the loose, unchristian lives of clergy that failed to teach the doctrine of the holy apostles. William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, born in London, England, 14 October, 1644; died in Ruscombe, Berkshire, 30 July, 1718.

“And he said, Lord God, there is no god like unto thee, to whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal, saith the Holy One?[1]—I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me. Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. I will also praise thee, O my God; unto thee will I sing—O Holy One of Israel, Jehovah shall be One—and his name One.” Which, with a cloud of other testimonies that might be urged, evidently demonstrate, that in the days of the first covenant, and prophets, but One was the Holy God, and God but that Holy One.—Again, “And Jesus said unto him, why callest thou me good? there is none good but One, and that is God. And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee (father) the Only true God. Seeing it is One God that shall justify. There be gods many,—but unto us there is but One God, the Father, of whom are all things. One God and Father, who is above all. For there is One God. To the Only-wise God be glory now and ever.”[3] From all which I shall lay down this one assertion, that the testimonies of scripture, both under the law, and since the gospel dispensation, declare One to be God, and God to be One, on which I shall raise this argument:

If God, as the scriptures testify, hath never been declared or believed, but as the Holy One; then will it follow, that God is not an Holy Three, nor doth subsist in Three distinct and separate Holy Ones: but the before-cited scriptures undeniably prove that One is God, and God only is that Holy One; therefore he cannot be divided into, or subsist in an Holy Three, or three distinct and separate Holy Ones.—Neither can this receive the least prejudice from that frequent but impertinent distinction, that He is One in substance, but Three in persons or subsistences; since God was not declared or believed incompletely, or without his subsistence; nor did He require homage from his creatures as an incomplete or abstracted Being, but as God the Holy One, for so He should be manifested and worshipped without that which was absolutely necessary to himself: So that either the testimonies of the aforementioned scriptures are to be believed concerning God, that he is entirely and completely, not abstractly and distinctly, the Holy One; or else their authority to be denied by these Trinitarians: and on the contrary, if they pretend to credit those holy testimonies, they must necessarily conclude their kind of trinity a fiction.

Refuted From Right Reason

1. If there be three distinct and separate persons, then three distinct and separate substances, because every person is inseparable from its own substance; and as there is no person that is not a substance in common acceptation among men, so do the scriptures plentifully agree herein; and since the Father is God, the son is God, and the spirit is God, (which their opinion necessitates them to confess) then unless the Father, son, and spirit, are three distinct nothings, they must be three distinct substances, and consequently three distinct gods.

2. It is farther proved, if it be considered, that either the divine persons are finite or infinite. If the first, then something finite is inseparable to the infinite substance, whereby something finite is in God; if the last, then three distinct infinites, three omnipotents, three eternals, and so three gods.

3. If each person be God, and that God subsists in three persons, then in each person are three persons or gods, and from three they will increase to nine, and so ad infinitum.

4. But if they shall deny the three persons or subsistences to be infinite, (for so there would unavoidably be three gods) it will follow that they must be finite, and so the absurdity is not abated from what it was; for that of one substance having three subsistences is not greater than that an infinite being should have three finite modes of subsisting. But though that mode which is finite cannot answer to a substance that is infinite; yet to try if we can make their principle to consist, let us conceive that three persons, which may be finite separately, make up an infinite conjunctly; however this will follow, that they are no more incommunicable or separate, nor properly subsistences, but a subsistence; for the infinite substance cannot find a bottom or subsistence in any one or two, therefore, jointly. And here I am also willing to overlook finiteness in the Father, Son, and Spirit, which this doctrine must suppose.

5. Again, if these three distinct persons are one, with some one thing, as they say they are with the God-head, then are not they incommunicable among themselves; but so much the contrary, as to be one in the place of another: for if that the only God is the Father, and Christ be that only God, then is Christ the Father. So if that one God be the son, and the spirit that one God, then is the spirit the son, and so round. Nor is it possible to stop, or that it should be otherwise, since if the divine nature be inseparable from the three persons, or communicated to each, and each person have the whole divine nature, then is the son in the Father, and the spirit in the son, unless that the Godhead be as incommunicable to the persons, as they are reported to be amongst themselves; or that the three persons have distinctly allotted them such a proportion of the divine nature, as is not communicable to each other: which is alike absurd. Much more might be said to manifest the gross contradiction of this Trinitarian doctrine, as vulgarly received; but I must be brief.

Information and Caution

Before I shall conclude this head, it is requisite I should inform thee, reader, concerning its original. Thou mayst assure thyself, it is not from the Scriptures, nor reason, since so expressly repugnant; although all broachers of their own inventions strongly endeavour to reconcile them with that holy record. Know then, my friend, it was born above three hundred years after the ancient gospel was declared; and that through the nice distinctions and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria, who being as hotly opposed by Arius, their zeal so reciprocally blew the fire of contention, animosity, and persecution, till at last they sacrificed each other to their mutual revenge.

Thus it was conceived in ignorance, brought forth and maintained by cruelty; for though he that was strongest imposed his opinion, persecuting the contrary, yet the scale turning on the Trinitarian side, it has there continued through all the Romish generations; and notwithstanding it hath obtained the name of Athanasian from Athanasius, (a stiff man, witness his carriage towards Constantine the emperor) because supposed to have been most concerned in the framing that creed in which this doctrine is asserted; yet have I never seen one copy void of a suspicion, rather to have been the results of Popish school-men; which I could render more perspicuous, did not brevity necessitate me to an omission.

Be therefore cautioned, reader, not to embrace the determination of prejudiced councils for evangelical doctrine; which the Scriptures bear no certain testimony to, neither was believed by the primitive saints, or thus stated by and I have read of in the first, second, or third centuries; particularly Ireneus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, with many others who appear wholly foreign to the matter in controversy. But seeing that private spirits, and those none of the most ingenious, have been the parents and guardians of this so generally received doctrine; let the time past suffice, and be admonished to apply thy mind unto that light and grace which brings salvation; that by obedience thereunto, those mists tradition hath cast before thy eyes may be expelled, and thou receive a certain knowledge of that God, whom to know is life eternal, not to be divided, but One pure, entire and eternal Being; who in the fulness of time sent forth his Son, as the true light which enlighteneth every man; that whosoever followed him (the light) might be translated from the dark notions and vain conversations of men to this holy light, in which only sound judgment and eternal life are obtainable: who so many hundred years since, in person, testified the virtue of it, and has communicated unto all such a proportion as may enable them to follow his example.