Is God a Trinity (Prelim 1973)

8/2/2019 Is God a Trinity (Prelim 1973)

1/46

Is God a 11TRINITY?

An Ambassador College Publication


2/46

Is God aTRINITY?

by George L. Johnson

Ambassador College PressPasadena, California


3/46

This booklet i s not to be sold.It is a free educational service inthe public interest, published by

Ambassador College.

@ 1973 Ambassador CollegeAll Rights ReservedPrinted in U.S.A.


4/46

Is God a Trinity or a family?W a s J e s u s C h r i s t G o d , orm erely a m an? W as Jesus theborn son of God, or only anadop ted son? Is the Holy Spir i ta person or the creative powerof the Godhead? These ques-t ions about the nature of G odare answered in this booklet.


5/46

CHAPTER ONE

IstheTrinity i d ?HE belief that God is one substance, yet three per-

sons, is one of the central doctrines of the ChristianT eligion. The concept of the Trinity is believed bymost professing Christians, whether Catholic or Protes-tant.A Gallup Poll taken in 1966 found that 97%of theAmerican public believed in God. Of that number, 83%believed that God is a Trinity.

Yet for all this belief in the Trinity, it is a doctrinethat is not clearly understood by most Christian laymen.In fact, most have neither the desire nor the incentive tounderstand what their church teaches. Few laymen areaware of any problems with the doctrine of the Trinity.They simply take it for granted- eaving the mysteriousdoctrinal aspects to theologians.

And if the layman were to investigate further, hewould be confronted with discouraging statements similarto the following: The mind of man cannot fully under-stand the mystery of the Trinity. He who would try tounderstand the mystery fully will lose his mind. But hewho would deny the Trinity will lose his soul (HaroldLindsell and Charles J. Woodbridge, A Handbook ofChristian Truth, pp. 51-52).

Such a statement means that the concept of the Tri-nity should be accepted or else. But, merely to accept it asdoctrine without proving it would be totally contrary to


6/46

8 Is God a Trinity?

Scripture. God inspired Paul to write: Prove all things;hold fast that which is good (I Thes. 5:21).

Peter further admonished Christians: . ..Be readyalways to give an answer to every man that asketh you areason of the hope that is in you.. . (I Peter 3:15).

Therefore the Christian is duty bound to provewhether or not God is a Trinity.

Clear Explanation DifficultIf you were to confine yourself to reading the articles

on the Trinity in popular religious literature for laymen,you would conclude that the Trinity is everywhere andclearly taught in the Bible. However, if you were to beginto read what the more technical Bible encyclopedias, dic-tionaries and books say on the subject, you would come toan entirely different conclusion. And the more you stud-ied, the more you would find that the Trinity is built on avery shaky foundation indeed.

The problems inherent in clearly explaining the Tri-nity are expressed in nearly every technical article or bookon the subject.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia begins: It is diffi-cult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear,objective, and straightforward account of the revelation,doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of themystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, RomanCatholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteadysilhouette (Vol. XIV, . 295). (Emphasis ours throughout

But why should the central doctrine of the Christianfaith be so difficult to understand? Why should such animportant doctrine present an unsteady silhouette? Isntthere a clear biblical revelation of the doctrine of theTrinity? Didnt Christ and the apostles plainly teach it?Surely the Bible would be filled with teachings aboutsuch an important subject as the Trinity. But, unfortu-nately the word Trinity never appears in the Bible.

The term Trinityis not a Biblical term, and we arenot using Biblical language when we define what is

I

II booklet.)


7/46

Is the Trinity Biblical? 9

expressed by it as the doctrine (The International Stan-dard Bible Encyclopedia, article Trinity, p. 3012).Not only is the word Trinity never found in theBible, there is no substantive proof such a doctrine is evenindicated.

In a recent book on the Trinity, Catholic theologianKarl Rahner recognizes that theologians in the past havebeen . . .embarrassed by the simple fact that in realitythe Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of theimminent Trinity (even Johns prologue is no such doc-trine) (The Trinity, p. 22) . (Authors emphasis.)

Other theologians also recognize the fact that the firstchapter of Johns Gospel- he prologue- learly showsthe pre-existence and divinity of Christ and does not teachthe doctrine of the Trinity. After discussing Johns pro-logue, Dr. William Newton Clarke writes: There is noTrinity in this; but there is a distinction in the Godhead, aduality in God. This distinction or duality is used as basisfor the idea of an only-begotten Son, and as key to thepossibility of an incarnation (Outline of Christian Theol-ogy, P. 167).The first chapter of Johns Gospel clearly shows thepre-existence of Christ. It also illustrates the duality ofGod. And as Dr. Clarke points out, the key to the possi-bility of the incarnation- he fact that God could becomeman.The Apostle John makes plain the unmistakable factthat Jesus Christ is God (John 1:l-4). Yet we find noTrinity discussed in this chapter.

More Biblical Proof for the Trinity?Probably the most notorious scripture used in times

past as proof of a Trinity is I John 5:7. However, manytheologians recognize that this scripture was added to theNew Testament manuscripts probably as late as theeighth century A.D.

Notice what Jamieson, Fausset and Brown wrote intheir commentary: The only Greek MSS. [manuscripts],in any form which support the words, in heaven, theFather, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are


8/46

10 Is God a Trinity?

one. And there are three tha t bear witness in earth. ..arethe Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from themodern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from theComplutensian Polyglot; a MS. [manuscript] at Naples,with the words added in the margin by a recent hand;Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek ofwhich is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin.All old versions omit the words.

The conclusions arrived at in their commentary, writ-ten over 100 years ago, are still valid today. More con-servatively oriented The New Bible Commentary(Revised) agrees, though quietly with Jamieson, Faussetand Brown. . . .The words are clearly a gloss and arerightly excluded by RSV [Revised Standard Version] evenfrom its margin (p. 1269).

The editors of Peakes Commentary on the Bible waxmore eloquent in their belief that the words are not part ofthe original text. The famous interpolation after threewitnesses is not printed even in RSV, and rightly. It citesthe heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and theHoly Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitariancontroversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it.Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it enteredthe Vulgate and finally the NT [New Testament] ofErasmus (p. 1038).

Scholars clearly recognize that I John 5:7 is not partof the New Testament text. Yet i t is still included by somefundamentalists as biblical proof for the Trinity doctrine.

Even the majority of the more recent New Testamenttranslations do not contain the above words. They are notfound in Moffatt, Phillips, the Revised Standard Version,Williams, or The Living Bible (a paraphrase).

It is clear, then, that these words are not part of theinspired canon, but rather were added by a recent hand.The two verses in I John should read: For there are threethat bear record, the Spirit, and the water and the blood:and these three agree in one.

Three things bear record. But what do they bearrecord to? A Trinity? We shall see.


9/46

Is the Tlinity Biblical? 11

Bear Record to What?The Spirit, the water and the blood bear record of thefact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is living His life

over again in us. John clarifies it in verses 11-12:And this is the record, that God hath given to us

eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Sonhath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath notlife.

But how do these three elements - he Spirit, thewater, and the blood - pecifically bear witness to thisbasic biblical truth?The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that weare the children of God (Rom. 8:16). (We will see moreabout the part the Spirit plays in Chapter Three.)

Water is representative of baptism, which bears wit-ness of the burial of the old self and the beginning of a newlife (Rom. 6:l-6).The blood represents Christs death by crucifixion,which pays the penalty for our sins, reconciling us to God(Rom. 5 9 , 10).

Now understand why Christ commanded the apostlesto baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the HolySpirit (Matt. 28:19). First of all, Jesus did not commandthe apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Sonand the Spirit as an indication that God is a Trinity. Nosuch relationship is indicated in the Bible.

Why, then, were they to baptize using these threenames? The answer is clear.

They were to baptize in the name of the Fatherbecause it is the goodness of God that brings us to repen-tance (Rom. 2:4), and because the Father is the One ofwhom the whole family in heaven and earth is named(Eph. 3:15). In the name of the Son because He is the onewho died for our sins, and in the name of the Spiritbecause God sends His Spirit, making us His begottenSons (Rom. 8:16).

Many theologians have misunderstood the part thatthe Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit play in each(Continued on page 15)


10/46

The central doctr ine of most Protestant andCatholic churches for m an y centuries has been tha tof th e Tr in i ty . This doc tr ine is so impo r tant that th eCatholic Encyclopedia states : ' T h s [ the Trin ty] ,th e C hurch teaches, is th e revelat ion regardingGod's na ture w h ic h Jesus Christ, th e Son of God,came up on earth to de liver to the wor ld : and w hichshe [ the Catholic Church] proposes to m an as thefoundation of the whole dogmatic system."Both Cathol ic and Protestant theologians quoteTheop hi lus of A nt ioc h (circa 180 A.D.) as the firstperson to w r i te ab out th is mo st imp or tant doctr ine.But isn ' t it strange tha t such a m ajor doctr ine wasavo ided in re l ig ious wr i t ings for near ly two cen-tur ies? That is almo st as lo ng as the U nit ed Stateshas been a n at ion.Furthermore, Theophi lus' al lusion to the t radi-t ional T r in i ty- the Father, the Son and the Holy


11/46

Ghost" - s qui te nebulous at best . Not ice whatTheophilus w rote in com me nt ing about the four thday of creat ion in the f irst chapter of Genesis:"A n d as th e sun remains ever full , never be co m ingless, so does Go d always abide perfect, be ing fu l lof al l power, and und erstanding, a nd wisdom, an dimmorta l i ty , and a l l good. But the moon wanesmonth ly , and in a m anner dies, be ing a typ e ofman; then it is born again, and is crescent, for apattern of the future resurrect ion. In l ike manneralso the three days which were before the lumi-naries, are types of the trinity, of God, and HisW ord , and H is w isdom" (Ante-Nicene Fathers,' Theoph us t o Au to Iy cus ' ) .

Here is th e f irst s tatement b y a theologian tha t issupposed to teach the d oct r ine of the Tr in i ty . Bu tdoes his statem ent really teach th is?Read it- imp ly. He does no t say tha t God is aTr in i ty of persons, or that the Ho ly Spi r it is a par tof tha t Tr in i ty . He just refers to God, His W o rd an dHis wisdom .

Theologians have t r ied to imagine into th isunusual stateme nt "their Tr in i ty" - nd ye t eventhe edi tors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers state in afootnote that the word t rans la ted "wisdom" inEnglish is the Greek wo rd sophia w hich Theophiluselsewhere used in reference to the Son, not theHo ly Sp iri t. (Continued on next page)


12/46

Theophi lus could not possib ly have got ten theidea o f a Tr in i ty f rom the Bib le - f he real ly didhave a Tr in i ty of persons in mind, which appearsunl ike ly f rom the preceding s ta tement - s theBib le nowhere even a lludes to Go d be ing a Tr in i ty .From the t im e of Theophilus, it was several hu n-dred years before th is doctr ine became a part ofthe Cathol ic do gma. It was in the last twenty-f iveyears of the FOURTH century that "what might beca lled the d ef in i tive t r in i tar ian dogm a 'one God inthree persons' becam e thoro ug hly assimilated intoChr is tian l ife and thou gh t" (N e w Catholic Encyclo-pedia, ' H 1 y T rin i y ' ) .From th is it is evident that th is "centra l doc-t r ine" of Cathol ic ism an d Protestantism was no t apart of the " fa i th which was once del iveredun to the saints" (Jud e 3) dur ing or pr ior to thet i m e o f J u d e , b u t w a s a d d e d by l a t e rtheologians.The doctr ine of the Tr in i ty was not wh at JesusChrist "came up on the earth to deliver to thewor ld ." He came to preach the good new s of Hissoon -coming K ingdom , t o es tab l ish H i s t r ueChurch, to give His l i fe as a sacri f ice for al l whorepent, an d t o g ive God 's Ho ly Spi r i t to those wh oare baptized- he Sp ir i t that e m pow ers bel ieversto be ONE w ith the Father and the Son.


13/46


(Continued from page 11)persons salvation. The doctrine of the Trinity is the resultof that misunderstanding.

The Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. It has no basisin biblical fact. Then how did this doctrine come to bebelieved by the Church?

I

i History of the TrinityThe ancient idea of monotheism was shattered by the

sudden appearance of Jesus Christ on the earth. Here wassomeone who claimed He was the Son of God. But howcould He be? The Jewish people believed for centuries thatthere was only one God. If the claims of this Jesus wereaccepted, then in their minds their belief would be nodifferent from that of the polytheistic pagans aroundthem. If He were the Son of God, their whole system ofmonotheism would disintegrate.

When Jesus plainly told certain Jews of His day thatHe was the Son of God, some were ready to stone Him forblasphemy (John 10:33).

To get around the problem of a plurality in the God-head, the Jewish community simply rejected Jesus. And tothis day, Orthodox Jews will not accept Jesus Messiah-ship. However, the more liberal Jews will at least admitthat He was a great man - maybe even a prophet.

But the new Christian religion was still faced withthe problem. How would proponents explain that therewas only one God, not two?

The determining impulse to the formulation of thedoctrine of the Trinity in the church was the churchsprofound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, onwhich as on a pivot the whole Christian concept of Godfrom the first origin of Christianity turned (InternationalStandard Biblical Encyclopedia, article Trinity, p.3021).

But the Deity of Christ does not mean that a doctrineof the Trinity is necessary, as we shall see in Chapter Two.

Roots in Greek PhilosophyMany of the early church fathers were thoroughly

educated in Greek philosophy, from which they borrowed

e

*


14/46


15/46


such non-biblical concepts as dualism and the immortalityof the soul. However, most theologians, for obvious rea-sons, are generally careful to point out that they did notborrow the idea of the Trinity from the Triads of Greekphilosophy or those of the ancient Egyptians and Babylo-nians.

But some are not so careful to make such a dis-tinction. Although the notion of a Triad or Trinity ischaracteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no meanspeculiar to it. In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with thetrinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and theEgyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis,and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father,Mother and Son in medieval Christian pictures. Nor is itonly in historical religions that we find God viewed as aTrinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view ofthe Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested byPlato . . (Hastings Bible Dictionary, Vol. 12, p. 458).Of course, the fact that someone else had a Trinitydoes not in itself mean that the Christians borrowed it.McClintock and Strong make the connection a littleclearer.

Toward the end of the 1st century, and during the2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism andpaganism to Christianity. These brought with them intothe Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas andphraseology (article Trinity, Vol. 10, p. 553).

In his book, A History of Christian Thought, ArthurCushman McGiffert points out that the main argumentagainst those who believed that there was only one Godand that Christ was either an adopted or a created beingwas that their idea did not agree with Platonic philosophy.Such teachings were offensive to theologians, particularlyto those who felt the influence of the Platonic philosophy(ibid., p. 240).

In the latter half of the third century, Paul of Samo-sata tried to revive the adoptionist idea that Jesus was amere man until the Spirit of God came upon Him atbaptism making him the Anointed One, or Christ. In hisbeliefs about the person of Jesus Christ, he rejected the

I


16/46


Platonic realism which underlay most of the Christologicalspeculation of the day (ibid,, p. 243).

A t the end of his chapter on the Trinity, McGiffertconcludes: . . It has been the boast of orthodox theolo-gians that in the doctrine of the Trinity both religion andphilosophy come to highest expression (Vol. I, p. 247).

The influence of Platonic philosophy on the Trinitydoctrine can hardly be denied.

However, trinitarian ideas go much further back thanPlato. Though it is usual t o speak of the Semitic tribes asmonotheistic; yet it is an undoubted fact tha t more or lessall over the world the deities are in triads. This rule appliesto eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south.Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, thetriad of three persons is one.. . . The definition of Ath-anasius [a fourth-century Christian] who lived in Egypt,applied to the trinities of all heathen religions (EgyptianBelief and Modern Thought, by James Bonwick, F.R.G.S.,p. 396).It was Athanasius formulation for the Trinity whichwas adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council ofNicaea in A.D. 325. Athanasius was an Egyptian fromAlexandria and his philosophy was also deeply rooted inPlatonism.

The Alexandrian catechetical school, which reveredClement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theolo-gians of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the alle-gorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Its thoughtwas influenced by Plato: its strong point was theologicalspeculation. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians hadbeen included among its members. . . (Ecumenical Coun-cils of the Catholic Church, by Hubert Jedin, p. 29).

In order to explain the relationship of Christ to Godthe Father, the church fathers felt that it was necessary touse the philosophy of the day. They obviously thoughtthat their religion would be more palatable if they made itsound like the pagan philosophy that was extant at thetime. These men were versed in philosophy, and tha t phi-losophy colored their understanding of the Bible.It was the doctrine of the Trinity - olored by the


17/46


philosophy of the time- hat was accepted by the Churchin the early part of the fourth century - ver threehundred years after Christs death.

Even theologians recognize that the Trinity is a cre-ation of the fourth century, not the first!

There is recognition on the part of exegetist andBiblical theologians, including a constantly growing num-ber of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak ofTrinitarianism in the New Testament without seriousqualification.There is also the closely parallel recognition- hat when one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism,one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say,the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then thatwhat might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma oneGod in three persons became thoroughly assimilated intoChristian life and thought (New Catholic Encyclopedia,article Trinity, Vol. 14, p. 295).

The Council of NicaeaIt was at the Council of Nicaea in AD. 325 that two

members of the Alexandrian congregation, Arius, a priest,who believed that Christ was not a God, but a createdbeing; and Athanasius, a deacon who believed that theFather, Son and Spirit are the same being living in athreefold form (or in three relationships, as a man may beat the same time a father, a son and a brother), presentedtheir cases.

The Council of Nicaea was not called by the churchleaders, as one might suppose. It was called by theEmperor Constantine. And he had a far-from-spiritualreason for wanting to solve the dispute that had arisen.

In 325 the Emperor Constantine called an eccle-siastical council to meet at Nicaea in Bithynia. In thehope of securing for his throne the support of the growingbody of Christians he had shown them considerable favorand it was to his interest to have the church vigorous andunited. The Arian controversy was threatening its unityand menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to putan end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps bythe Spanish bishop Hosius who was influential a t court,


18/46


that if a synod were to meet representing the wholechurch both east and west, it might be possible to restoreharmony. Constantine himself of course neither knew orcared anything about the matter in dispute but he waseager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosiusadvice appealed to him as sound ( AHistory of ChristianThought, Vol. I , p. 258).

The decision as to which of the two men the churchwas to follow was a more or less arbitrary one. Con-stantine really didnt care which choice was made- ll hewanted was a united church. (Anus was banished, butlater recalled by Constantine, examined and found to bewithout heresy.)

The majority of those present a t the council were notready to take either side in the controversy. A clearlydefined standpoint with regard to this problem - herelationship of Christ to God - was held only by theattenuated group of Arians and a far from numerous sec-tion of delegates, who adhered with unshaken convictionto the Alexandrian [Athanasius] view. The bulk of themembers occupied a position between these two extremes.They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined toaccept those of his opponents.. . the voting was no crite-rion of the inward conviction of the council (Encyclo-paedia Britannica, 11th ed., article Nicaea, Council of,)p. 641).

The council rejected Arius views, and rightly so, butthey had nothing with which to replace it. Thus the ideasof Athanasius - lso a minority view - revailed. Therejection of Arianism was not blanket acceptance of Ath -anasius. Yet, the church in all the ensuing centuries hasbeen stuck, so to speak, with the job of upholding -right or wrong - he decision made a t Nicaea.

After the council the Trinity became official dogma inthe church, but the controversy did not end. In the nextfew years more Christians were killed by other Christiansover that doctrine than were killed by all the paganemperors of Rome. Yet, for all the fighting and killing,neither of the two parties had a biblical leg to stand on.

4


19/46

CHAPTER 7 W O

Who Was Jesus?HE Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.But we are still faced with the question: Who wasT esus Christ? Was He a man that lived such a

perfect life that God decided to call Him His Son atbaptism? Or was He God who became a man and died forall men?In the past in most theological circles, a rejection of the doc-trine of the Trinity included a rejection of the divinity ofChrist. But before this booklet becomes classed as an Arianheresy, let me quote from Catholic theologian Karl Rahner:. . .We must be willing to admit that should the doctrine ofthe Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part ofreligious literature could well remain virtually un-changed.. .. he Christian idea of the incarnation wouldnot have to change at all if there were no Trinity.It is not surprising then, that Christian piety prac-tically remembers from the doctrine of the incarnationonly that God has become man, without deriving fromthis truth any clear message about the Trinity (TheTrinity, pp. 10-12).A rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity does notconstitute a rejection of the incarnation - he divinity ofChrist. In fact, what he says indicates that, for all prac-tical purposes, the doctrine is meaningless.

Jesus Was the ProblemTo this day Christianity is still confused about who

and what Jesus Christ really was. There is a majority who


20/46


believe in a mysterious Trinity and a vociferous minoritywho believe that Christ was a created being. Neither hasthe truth.But why all the confusion?

Who Jesus was is clearly indicated in the pages of theBible. It has been there for centuries. While Christianswere busily excommunicating and killing each other overthe question of who Jesus was, the answer has been in thepages of the Bible, and that explanation is not in harmonywith what is taught by most churches today. Christ is notthe second person in a Trinity, and He was not created byGod - H e is the Creator God!

In the Beginning. . .To find out who Jesus was, lets go back to the begin-

ning. Beginnings are mentioned in the Bible in a t least twoseparate places- n the first chapter of Genesis and in thefirst chapter of Johns Gospel.The Apostle John began his Gospel by describing whoand what Jesus was before He came to this earth as thesaviour of mankind.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word waswith God, and the Word was God. The same was in thebeginning with God. All things were made by him; andwithout him was not anything made that was made.. .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (andwe beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of theFather,) full of grace and truth (verses 1-3, 14).

If we read no further in the New Testament than this,we would be able to know beyond a shadow of a doubtthat Jesus Christ was God and that He is the One whocreated man in Genesis 2:7. Because John clearly statesthat the Word - he One who became Christ - reatedall things. Had Christians clearly understood these versesthere would have never been an Arian controversy or adoctrine of the Trinity.

But the Apostle John is not the only New Testamentwriter who wrote about the pre-existence of Christ. Noticewhat Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Moreover, brethren,I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our


21/46

Who Was Jesus? 23

fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through thesea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and inthe sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did alldrink of the same spiritual drink: for they drank of thatspiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock wasChrist (I Cor. 109-4).

Paul clearly tells us that Jesus Christ was the God ofthe Old Testament - he One who spoke to Moses and ledthe Israelites out of Egypt. This clearly shows us that theOne who became the Son was the God of the Old Testa-ment, not God the Father.

Yet the doctrine of the Trinity hinges on the assump-tion that God manifested Himself as the Father in the OldTestament and Christ in the New Testament.

Duality of God Throughoutthe Bible

The plurality of God is not merely a plural of maj-esty as some would have us believe.Six hundred years before Christ, the Prophet Danielrecorded for us a vision. I saw in the night visions, and,behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds ofheaven, and came to the Ancient of days. . . (Dan. 7:13).The Son of man he described can be none other than theOne who later became Jesus Christ. Daniel then saw Himgiven rulership and a Kingdom that will never bedestroyed (verse 14). The Son of man mentioned herecould hardly be a mere physical human being!

The Ancient of Days, in this instance, is the divineBeing who is called the Father in the New Testament.

Jesus Christ referred to the same occurrence as men-tioned in this vision in His parable of the nobleman (Him-self) who went to a far country (heaven) to receive akingdom, and to return (Luke 19:12).

The duality of the God family was also referred to inPsalm 110 by David.

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my righthand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool (verse1).

Two different Lords are mentioned here. One is Godthe Father and the other is the One who became Jesus


22/46

M a ny anc ien t peop les have p reserved amo ng the i r m ythsan accoun t o f the crea t ion o f th e wor ld . D is to r ted thou gh suchstor ies m ay be, they do c onta in cer ta in basic e lements com-m o n to o ther, mo re re liab le anc ien t documents . The PopolVuh, the sacred boo k o f the anc ien t Qu ich6 M aya o f Guate -mala, for instance, contains a creat ion story very simi lar tot h a t f o u n d in the Bible. It opens wi th a vista of empt inessvery m uc h l ike tha t o f Genesis 1 :2:"The surface o f th e ear th had no t appeared. Therewas on l y t he ca lm sea a nd the g reat expanseof the sky.There was n o th ing . . . . There was on ly imm ob i l i t y andsilence in the darkness, in th e night" (Popol Vuh, Nor-man: Un ivers i ty o f Oklahoma Press, 1950, p. 81).In th is expanse of water and ch aot ic g loom, then, creat ionbegan.But un l ike th e conventiona l concept o f a Creator do ing a l lthe work , the Ma ya accoun t speaks o f two beings. Tepeua nd Gucumatz, the "Creator" an d the "Maker, " kn ow n asth e "Fore-fathers," co m bin ed the ir ef fortsfor the task :"Tepeu an d Gucumatz cam e toge ther in the dark-ness . . . a n d t a lke d t o g e t h e r . . . discussing and del ib-erating; the y agreed, they un i ted the i r words an d the i rthough ts . . . . Then t ' i e y p lanne d the crea tion , and the

grow th o f th e trees and th e th ickets , and the b i r th o fl ife and the crea tion of m a n .

\j"


23/46

The story proceeds then w i t h "Let there be l ight ," th eappearance of dry land, p lants, animals and man, m uc h as inGenesis.Not ice that the Mayas speak of two creating beingsinstead of one.They have actua l ly re ta ined a deta i l not com mo nly under-stood outs ide the or ig ina l Hebrew context of the Genesisrecord. For the Bible, too, shows there were two dist inctpersonal i t ies involved in creation, not one as commonlyassumed.W h e n G e n e s i s 1 : l o p e n s with: " I n t h e b e g i n n i n gG od . . .," the He brew wo rd for "God" used here is Elohim.I t is in th e plural fo rm wh ich can des igna te more than one.Note that Genesis 1 :26 was correct ly t ransla ted f rom theorig inal Hebrew : "A nd God said, Let us m a k e m a n in ourimage. "Mo st p rofessing Chr istians wo uld f ind it al ien to conceiveof more than one be ing as the creator. Yet Elohim canexpress plural i ty. The word in Genesis One means "God,"but in a fam i ly re la tionship. The N ew Testament speaks of"God th e Father" and "God the Son," the One w ho becameJesus. They are two dist inct beings, but both are God. Bothof the m have been togethe r s ince etern ity . "In the beg inn ingwas the Wo rd [ the Son], and the W or d was with God [ theFather], an d the W or d was God" (John 1 1). Together theyplanne d the creation, and Go d the Son carr ied it ou t (John1 :3; Col. 1:16) . Notice Ephesians 3:9: ". . . God [ theFather], w h o created all thin gs b y Jesus Christ."Thus the Bib le reveals that there were actua l ly two sp i r i tbeings - w o d ist inct personal it ies w h o uni ted the i r e f for tsin the crea t ion - xact ly as the Maya account so surpri-sing ly relates.

\Ij

I


24/46


Christ. Paul quoted this passage to the Jewish Christians- pplying it directly to Jesus Christ: But to which ofthe angels said he a t any time, Sit on my right hand, untilI make thine enemies thy footstool? (Heb. 1:13.)

Was the Son also God? Verse 8 answers, But untothe Son he saith, Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever. . .Therecan be no doubt that God the Father and Jesus the Sonare mentioned as two separate beings in the Old Testament.

Who Was Melchizedek?Now notice Hebrews 5:6-7:So also Christ glorified not himself to be made high

priest; but he [glorified him] th at said unto him, Thou artmy Son, today have I begotten thee. As he saith also inanother place, Thou art a priest forever after the order ofMelchizedek.

So Christ holds the office of Melchizedek. Who wasMelchizedek? He was one of the Persons composing God.In Genesis 14:18 he is called the king of Salem and thepriest of the Most High God. Notice why he could nothave been merely a human being.

The Apostle Paul described Him further in HebrewsTo whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first

being by interpretation King of righteousness, and afterthat also King of Salem, which is King of peace; withoutfather, without mother, without descent, having neitherbeginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto theSon of God; abideth a priest continually.

Paul could not have been describing a human being,or even an angel in these verses, for he is describing aBeing that eternally existed, as only God has eternallyexisted.Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God . Whois the Most High God? Why of course, the Father! JesusChrist said: My Father is greater than I (John 14:28).And also Melchizedek still lives (and if you will readHebrews 7:8 carefully, you will see that Paul repeats thissupremely important fact) and is still that High Priest.But Christ also is High Priest (see Heb. 7:26; 8:l). There

7~2-3:

I


25/46

Who Was Jesus? 27

cannot be two High Priests both holding the same office,so Melchizedek and Jesus Christ must be one and thesame.So we see that even in the first book of the Bible thethis truth could not be known until Jesus came to reveal itin the New Testament. Jesus said, . . No man knows whothe Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but theSon, and he to whom the Son will reveal him (Luke10:22).

Jesus Came to Reveal theFather

A clear distinction is made in the New Testamentbetween Christ and the Father. The God that Moses sawand heard was not God the Father, again proving thatChrist was the God of the Old Testament. No man hasseen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is inthe bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (John1:18).Christ came to earth to, among other things, revealthe Father and to show a family relationship that exists inthe Godhead. But,more about that later.

Unless Jesus had revealed the Father to us, there is noway for us to know Him. All things are delivered unto meof my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but theFather; neither knoweth any man the Father, save theSon, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him(Matt. 11:27).

The Meaning of the Word YHVHIn the Hebrew of the original inspired text, there are

two different names that are commonly used to refer toGod. The word first used for God in Genesis is Elohim.

The second word - which we will explain here - sYHVH (commonly, though erroneously, pronouncedJehovah). This word YHVH is generally translatedLORD in capital letters) in the King James Version ofthe Bible. The first place it is used is in Genesis 2:7. It wasthe LORDGod - YHVH - ho formed man out of thedust of the ground. It was the LORDGod that dealt

I plurality of God is shown, although clear understanding of

I

r


26/46


directly with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Andas we saw in John, chapter 1, it was the Word - esusChrist - who created all things.Therefore, it was the LORDGod of the Old Testamentwho became the Jesus Christ of the New. This fact isillustrated interestingly enough by the grammatical deri-vation of the word YHVH.

The word YHVH is explained by Rabbinic sources asencompassing three Hebrew words: HYH meaning was,HVH meaning is (literally the present tense- he wordis is not used in Hebrew) and YHYH meaning willcontinue to be.

Putting them all together, YHVH actually means theWas-Is-Will Continue to Be Being. Even Hebrew lin-guistic scholars agree that YHVH must be derived fromsome form of the verb to be (was, is, will be).

By His very name, then, God quite literally encom-passes all aspects of time - ast, present and future. Thisis in complete accord with Malachi 3:6: For I am YHVH,I change not; Hebrews 13:8: Jesus Christ the same yes-terday [was], and today [is], and forever [will continue tobe]; and Revelation 1:8: I am Alpha and Omega, thebeginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, andwhich was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Here we can see that even etymologically, JesusChrist and YHVH can be equated. Yet this is only a smallpart of the picture because the clear statements of boththe Old and New Testaments give overwhelming proofthat the God of the Old Testament is the One who becameJesus Christ. (For further information on this vital part ofour subject, write immediately for the free article Whoand What Was Jesus Before His Human Birth?)

People Stumbled at ChristIn Isaiah chapter eight, verses 13 and 14, we find avery interesting prophecy concerning the Lord of Hosts.Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself; and let him be

your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for asanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock ofoffence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for asnare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.


27/46

Who Was Jesus? 29

Most editions of the King James Version of the Biblenote that these verses refer to the one who later becameJesus Christ. But even more accurate proof is found in theNew Testament.

I In his first epistle, the Apostle Peter writes:Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture,

and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but untothem which be disobedient, the stone which the buildersdisallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and astone of stumbling and a rock of offence, even to themwhich stumble a t the word, being disobedient: whereuntoalso they were appointed (I Pet. 2:6-8).

The very same prophecy is alluded to in Luke 2:34.There can be no denying the fact that Jesus Christ was theGod of the Old Testament, the Stone over which manypeople stumbled.The religious leaders of the time simply could notunderstand how Jesus could have been God. Yet the OldTestament which they had copied for centuries is filledwith prophecies about Him. Truly they were blinded,and most remain so to this day, as the Apostle Paulexplained in the ninth through the eleventh chapters ofhis epistle to the Romans.

While Jesus Christ, the God of the Old Testament,was on earth as a human being, there was only one God-Being - he Father - eft in heaven. And we find thatJesus prayed to His Father in heaven:

And now, 0 Father, glorify thou me with thine ownself with the glory which I had with thee before the worldwas (John 175).

The Jews and the Arians found it hard to believe thatGod could become man, Yet, the New Testament explainsthat it did indeed happen. One of the members of theGodhead became a man that we might have the opportu-nity to become God.

The Apostle Paul explained this concept in his epistleto the Philippians. The Amplified Bible makes the passage

I Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious:


28/46


a little clearer. In chapter 2 5 8 , he encourages the Philip-pians:

Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble]mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. Let him be yourexample in humility.. .Who, although being essentiallyone with God and in the form of God [possessing thefullness of the attributes which make God God], did notthink this equality with God was a thing to be eagerlygrasped or retained; but stripped Himself [of all privilegesand rightful dignity] so as to assume the guise of a servant(slave), n that He became like men and was born a humanbeing. And after He had appeared in human form Heabased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried Hisobedience to the extreme of death, and even the death of[the] cross! Jesus Christ was God. But He voluntarilygave up His position as God, became a physical humanbeing and came to this earth to die for us that we might besaved.

The true impact and importance of the oft-repeatedscripture: For God so loved the world, that he gave hisonly begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shouldnot perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16), becomesabundantly clear.


29/46

CHAPTER THREE

the Holy Spirita Person?E HAVE seen that Jesus Christ is, was and always

will be God. However, you can search the BibleW from Genesis to Revelation and you will find nosuch Bible teaching with regard to the Holy Spirit. TheBible does not teach that the Holy Spirit is a third mem-ber of the God family or of a Trinity.

This is not a prejudiced anti-trinitarian opinion. It is afact that is recognized even by Trinitarian theologians!

Discussing the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinityin the Bible, Dr. W. N. Clarke, writes: The New Testa-ment begins the work, but does not finish it; for it containsno similar teaching [like John 1:l-18concerning the divi-nity of Christ] with regard to the Holy Spirit. The uniquenature and mission of Christ are traced to a ground in thebeing of God; but similar ground for the divineness of theSpirit is nowhere shown. Thought in the New Testament isnever directed to that end. Thus the Scriptures take thefirst step toward a doctrine of essential Trinity, or three-ness in the being of one God, but they do not take thatsecond step by which alone the doctrine could be com-pleted (An Outline o f Christian Theology, p. 168).(Authors emphasis.)

Theologians have to recognize that there is no biblicalproof for the divinity or personality of the Spirit. And thatin order to arrive at a doctrine of the Trinity, they have togo outside of the Bible.


30/46


Karl Barth, one of the most noted theologians of the20th century, admits th at the church has gone beyond theBible to arrive at its doctrine of the Trinity.The Bible lacks the express declaration that theFather, Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence andtherefore in an equal sense God Himself. And the otherexpress declaration is also lacking that God is God thusand only thus, i.e., as the Father, the Son and the HolySpirit. These two express declarations which go beyondthe witness of the Bible are the twofold content of thechurch doctrine of the Trinity (Doctrine of the Word ofGod, p. 437).

Since, as theologians recognize, the Bible is not thesource of the Trinity doctrine, how can they square it withthe Bible teaching that inspired Scripture should be thesource of doctrine? (I1 Tim. 3:16).

The answer is, they cant. They must freely admit thepainful facts.

The Spirit of God inthe Bible

The personality of Jesus Christ is thoroughly provablefrom the Bible, but there is no such proof for a personalityof the Holy Spirit.

The OT [Old Testament] clearly does not envisageGods spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophi-cal sense, nor in the Semitic sense. Gods spirit is simplyGods Power. If it is sometimes represented as being dis-tinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh actsexteriorly (Isa. 48:16; 63:ll; 32:15). So say the authors ofthe New Catholic Encyclopedia. But let them continue:

Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to Godsspirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isa. 63:lO; Wis.1:3-7). When such expressions are used, they are merefigures of speech that are explained by the fact that theriiah was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts andfeeling (Gen. 41:8). Neither is there found in the OT or inrabbinical literature the notion that Gods spirit is anintermediary being between God and the world. Thisactivity is proper to the angels, although to them is


31/46

Is the Holy Spirit a Person? 33

ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed tothe spirit of God (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII,p. 574).In the Old Testament, Gods Spirit is pictured as Hispower. The power by which the One who became JesusChrist, as Executive for the Father, created the entirety ofthe universe. These theologians also recognize that whenthe Spirit is spoken of as a person or in a personal way, theBible writer is merely personifying the Spirit, as he wouldwisdom or any other attribute.

Now what about the New Testament? They say:Although the N T [New Testament] concepts of the

Spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT,in the N T there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit ofGod is a person.

But this would seem true only if you are armed with apreconceived notion that God is a Trinity. We will seethere are only a few scriptures that can even remotely beconstrued as presenting the Spirit as a person, and in eachcase only as the result of a grammatical misunder-standing.

But again lets let the New Catholic Encyclopediacontinue.

Themajority of NT texts reveal Gods spirit as some-thing, not someone; this is especially seen in the paral-lelism between the spirit and the power of God.Though theologians would like for the Bible to saythat the Spirit is a person, they must admit that themajority of the scriptures connected with it show tha t it isnot someone, but something. Even the personification ofthe Spirit is no proof of its personality.

When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to Godsspirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts8:29; 16:7; Rom. 8:9), one is not justified in concludingimmediately that in these passages Gods spirit isregarded as a Person; the same expressions are used inregard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas(see Rom. 6:6; 7:17). Thus the context of the phrase blas-phemy against the spirit (Mt. 12:31; cf. Mt. 12:28; Lk.11:20) shows that reference is being made to the power of


32/46

rRII.. .Y 5 . - . I " U L "I yl"tGaDlIly b l l I I J L 1 c I l I I L ytoday believes that God is limited to a "trinity" com osedof three persons - od the Father, God the Son fiesusChrist) and God the Holy Spirit. Shown here are two ofmany symbols used to represent the .Trinity.Ambassador CaNege Art


33/46

Is the Holy Spirit a Person? 35

God (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 575).After such admissions, it is almost inconceivable that

any theologian could still teach tha t the Spirit is a person- et some do.A Lesson in Greek Grammar

The one place that most theologians feel describes theSpirit as a person is resolved by a lesson in the Greeklanguage. In the Greek language, like the Romance lan-guages (Italian, Spanish, French, and others), every nounhas what is called gender; that is, it is either masculine,feminine or neuter. The gender of a word has nothing to dowith whether it is really masculine or feminine - t ismore of a grammatical tool.

The verses most Trinitarian theologians will fall backon for their proof that the Spirit is a person are in the14th, 15th and 16th chapters of Johns Gospel. Here Jesusis recorded as referring to the Spirit as the Comforter.The pronoun he is used in connection with the wordcomforter- arakletos - owever, the reason for theuse of the personal pronoun he is for grammatical, nottheological, or spiritual reasons. ( c p A c h (2: O

All pronouns in Greek must agree in gender with theword they refer to, therefore the pronoun he is usedwhen referring to the Greek word parakletos. Only Johnrefers to the Spirit as the parakletos - Comforter. Theother New Testament writers use the wordpneuma whichmeans breath or spirit. This is the Greek equivalent ofrfiah, the Hebrew word for spirit used in the Old Testa-ment. Pneuma is a grammatically neuter word and isalways represented by the pronoun it.

However, the translators of the King James Version,being swayed by the doctrine of the Trinity, have gener-ally mistranslated the pronouns referring to pneuma asmasculine. One instance where they did not mistranslateis found in Romans 8:16. The Spirit itself beareth witnesswith our spirit, that we are the children of God.

Johns use of theparakletos is no proof the Spirit is aperson. For if the simple gender of a noun were the basisfor the personality of the Spirit, then the Spirit changedgender from the Old to the New Testament, the Hebrew


34/46

Is the Ho ly Sp i r i t a person, jus t l ike God theFather and Jesus Christ , as the doctr ine of theTr in i ty teaches?Let 's examine th e plain, c lear tes t im on y of Scrip-ture to see wh at God's Ho ly Sp i r it IS .First, it is th e pow er of God. "Not by might, norby pow er [of humans] , but by my spirit, saith theLord of hosts" (Zech. 4:6). "I am fu l l o f power b ythe Spi r i t of the Lord, and judgment , and ofm i g h t . . , " declared the prophet Micah (Micah3:8).Second, it i s the Spi r i t o f w isdom and under-s tanding, the Spi r i t of counsel and might, theSpir i t of knowledge and of the fear (deep rever-ence and respect - ot craven fear) of the Lord(Isa. 11:2).Third, it is a gift . After bapt ism, you are toreceive "the gift of th e Ho ly Sp ir i t" (Acts 2:38).tis poured ou t . "An d it shall co m e to pass in th e lastdays, saith God, I will pou r ou t of m y Sp i ri t uponall f lesh" (Acts 2:l ). I ' . . . On the Genti les alsowas poured out the g i f t of the Ho ly Sp ir i t" (Acts10:45).


35/46

Fourth, to be effective the Holy Sp i r i t mus t bestirred u p . "Wherefore I pu t thee in remembrancethat thou stir up th e gi f t of God," Paul rem inde dthe y ou ng evangelis t T imo thy (I1 T im . 1 : 7 ) .Five, the S pir i t of G od can b e quenched (I Thes.5 :19).Six, it is the begetting power of God (Matt .1 :18; Rom. 8:9).Seven, it is God's guarantee to us that He wi l lful f i l l His prom ise to us (Eph. 1:14).Eight, i t sheds the love of God abroad in ourhearts (Rom. 5:5).Nine, it mus t be renewed (T itus 3:5 -6 ).Not ice tha t in all of these scriptures there is notone characteristic even im pl yin g a "person."Does a person do any of these things? Is aperson "poured," "quenched," "renew ed"? Doesa person l ive IN someone else or l ive IN people'shearts?

For fur ther ev idence prov ing that th e Ho ly Spir i tis not a person, see Matthew 1:20. Here w e readthat Christ was conceived by the Holy Spir i t . YetChrist calls God His Father, not the Holy Spir i t(John 1 4 :1 6 ) . I f the Holy Spi r i t were a person, itw ou ld b e Chr is t 's Father- roof posit ive tha t theHoly Spir i t is not a person b ut the pow er God theFather uses- u c h as a m a n uses electr ic i ty.Consider fur ther. I f the Holy Spir i t were a per-son, Jesus Chr is t prayed to the wrong indiv idual .Th roug ho ut the fo ur Gospels, w e f ind Chr is t speak-ing to God- ot the Holy Sp i r it- s H is Father.


36/46


word for spirit in the Old Testament being in the femi-nine gender in a majority of cases and in a masculine senseless often.

The fact that the word spirit is feminine in theHebrew did lead some to believe that the Spirit was afeminine being of the Godhead. They believed in a Trinityof the Father, the Mother and the Son. Interestinglyenough, their belief was condemned by the Trinitarianswho used the same kind of ploy to prove that the Spiritwas a masculine being!

The Holy Spirit - odsBegettal PowerWhat is the Spirit? As we saw earlier, theologians

admit t hat the Spirit of God is the power of God. Theywould have no reason to believe otherwise unless they hada preconceived idea of a Trinity.

The Spirit, or Holy Spirit, as it is called in the NewTestament, was the power by which Jesus Christ wasbegotten. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, beforethey came together, she was found with child of the HolyGhost [Spirit] (Matt. 1 :18.1.

When Joseph was about to put Mary away becauseshe was pregnant, the angel of the Lord appeared untohim in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear notto take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is con-ceived in her is of the Holy Ghost [Spirit] (Matt. 1:20).of the Holy Spirit. He was literally born with Gods Spiritin His mind. He became the Son of God and died for usthat we might have the same opportunity to become God.

The Apostle Paul plainly taught this vital scripturaltruth th at we just read in Romans 8:16. The Spirit itselfbeareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children ofGod. Paul did not mean this in some sentimental sort ofway, as he goes on to show in the next verse. And ifchildren, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs withChrist.. ..

Paul goes on to point out that Jesus Christ is the heir

Jesus was begotten in the womb of Mary by the ~ ~ w e rLk 1235)


37/46

TrinityThe Apost le Paul wo uld prob ably be considered ablasphemer by many Tr in i tar ians today, because inhis greet ings to the churches he neglected to men-t ion the Holy Spi r i t . In his introduct ion to theRomans, he represents himself as an apostle of Godthe Father and Jesus Chris t , but nothing is saidabou t any th i rd person.He also neglects to m ent ion th e Ho ly Spi r it in thegreetings of the rest of his letters. His standard

greeting is: Grace be unto you, a nd peace, fromGod our Father, and f ro m the Lord Jesus Chris t(I Cor. 1 :3). The same greeting is repeated in IICorinthians 1 :3, Galatians 1:3, Ephesians 1 :2, Phi l-ippians 1 :2, Colossians 1 :2, I Thessalonians 1 :1,II Thessalonians 1 :2, I Timothy 1 :2, Ti tus 1:4, andPhi lemon 1 :3.All of these greetings are without variat ion - heHoly Spiri t is consistently left out (a great oversight- ndeed blasphemy, pro vide d the Trini ty doctr ineis correct).Only in II Cor in th ians 13:14 is the Holy Spir i tment ioned wi th God and Jesus and there on ly inconnect ion wi th communion or fe l lowship. The HolySpir i t is not the th i rd member of the Godhead.


38/46


of all things in Hebrews 1:2. We then have the opportu-nity, if we have Gods Spirit in our minds, to inherit allthings with Jesus Christ.The Spirit of God unites with our minds, and we arebegotten (or conceived) again - his time spiritually -not as we originally were, physically. We become a newperson.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord JesusChrist, which according to his abundant mercy hathbegotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection ofJesus Christ from the dead (I Pet. 1:3).And verse 23 says,Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but ofincorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth andabideth forever.

The Holy Spirit impregnates us with Gods nature.That spiritual begettal imbues us with the nature andmind of God. Throughout our Christian lives we continueto grow and develop in the understanding and mind of Goduntil we are finally born into the God family and madeimmortal a t the return of Jesus Christ to this earth (I Cor.

How can we obtain this Spirit? The answer was givenby the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost mentioned inActs chapter two. When Peter was asked a t the end of hissermon what to do, he answered: Repent, and be baptizedevery one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for theremission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the HolyGhost [Spirit] (Acts 2:38).

Here again we can see why the Father, the Son, andthe Holy Spirit are mentioned in the baptismal formulain Matthew 28:19. God the Father is the One who bringsus to repentance; Jesus Christ - God the Son- s the onewho died that we can have our past sins forgiven; and theHoly Spirit is the power by which God the Father begetsus. (For further information about the Holy Spirit, writefor our free reprint article How You Can Be ImbuedWith the Power of God.)

How plain the truth of the Bible is. The Holy Spirit isthe power of God. It is not a person. It is the power bywhich we are begotten that we might become sons of God.

15~49-52).


39/46

CHAPTER FOUR

God I s a FamilyARLY theologians were driven by the need to explainthe appearance of Jesus Christ. Some found theirE xplanation by fabricating the Trinity doctrine.

But since God is not a Trinity and since Jesus Christ isGod, what is the relationship in the Godhead? Is God one,or are there two separate Gods and is Christianity, there-fore, polytheistic?

In Chapter Two we found that the Bible teaches thatJesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, and that Hebecame flesh and came to this earth to die for mankind. He iscalled the Son of God and He calls God His Father. By nowthe relationship should be coming clear- od isa family.

We found in Chapter Three that we also can becomebegotten sons of God by the impregnation of Gods Spirit- gain a family relationship.When we understand that God is a family- ha t Godis reproducing after His kind - we are no longer con-fronted with the problems inherent in the Trinity doc-trine, nor are we faced with the problem of worshipingmany gods.

There is only one God family, yet there are presentlytwo members, and in the future there will be many more.Jesus was called the firstborn of many brethren (Rom.8:29).

Look at yourself. Whether married or single, you arepart of a family. You have parents and maybe even chil-dren or grandchildren of your own. Yet, you are still onefamily.


40/46


It was God who created man and put him on theearth. He created marriage and the family relationship asa type of His divine family. (For further information onthis vitally important subject, write for the free booklettitled W hy Marriage!)

Gods Name Is PluralThe Hebrew word for God used in Genesis 1:l and

26 is Elohim. Elohim is plural in form. Though this wordtaken by itself does not prove that there are two beings inthe Godhead, it does allow for the plurality that is clearlyindicated in other parts of the Bible.

By what we can understand from the rest of the Bible,this word Elohim can act like our English words family, g r ~ ~ p , ~ church, or crowd. These words are oftenregarded as singular and take a singular verb form, butthey all contain more than one member.

The Apostle Paul exemplifies this for us in I Corinthi-ans 12:20. Speaking about the Church he says: But noware they many members, yet but one body.

God is a family. There presently are two members inthat God family, God the Father - he Head of thefamily, the Lawgiver - nd Jesus Christ the Son - heSpokesman, the Creator. But the word Elohim is not justdual. There is a dual number in Hebrew, but this wouldhave to be Elohaim. The God family, however, is destinedto be truly plural - o have many members. And this iswhat the word Elohim describes and allows for.

Belief in a Trinity clouds the real purpose that Godhas in store for mankind. If we are taught that God is aclosed Trinity of three persons, we lose sight of the factthat Gods real purpose is to create many more membersof the God family.Look at the creation account in Genesis 1: God cre-ated fish after the fish kind, birds after the bird kind, andanimals after the animal kind. But in verse 26 God mademan - ot after any of the animal kinds, but after theGod kind - n Gods image and Gods likeness. And God[Hebrew, Elohim] said, Let us make man in our image,


41/46

God Is a Family 43

after our likeness: and let them have dominion over thefish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over thecattle, and over all the earth, and over every creepingthing that creepeth upon the earth.

God created man in His own image. Man is greaterthan the rest of the creation, because God gave him mindpower. He has dominion over all the creatures. Man is notan animal. He was created in the image of God - fter theGod kind.

Taught in the New TestamentThe Apostle John understood Gods plans for man-

kind. Notice what he wrote in I John 3:l:Behold, what manner of love the Father [here is the

family relationship - ot a closed trinity] hath bestowedupon us, that we should be called the sons of God: there-fore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.Beloved, now are we [already] the [begotten] sons of God,and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we knowthat when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for weshall see him as he is.

Jesus Christ, the One who was the God of the OldTestament, the Creator God, became flesh, died and wasresurrected as a part of Gods plan to make man God.Jesus Christ is not to be the only son of God. He is theonly born Son now, but as John wrote, when he shallappear, we shall be like him. We are begotten sons now,and will be born sons of God a t the resurrection.

It is clearly Gods plan to bring many sons into Hisfamily. For it became him [God the Father], for whomare all things, and by whom are all things, in bringingmany sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salva-tion [Jesus Christ] perfect through sufferings (Heb. 2:lO).The pages of the Bible are filled with this - Godsgreat purpose for man. And yet the majority of thisworlds Christians are blinded to this central biblicaltruth. Why? Because Satan has deceived the whole world(Rev. 12:9).God is not a closed Trinity, He is a family-family in which you can become a member.


42/46


Why the Deception?Why has Satan palmed off the doctrine of the Trinityon the world? Because he doesnt want you to rule in his

place! Satan was originally created to carry out Gods ruleon earth. But, he refused to serve the Creator and evenfomented a rebellion to dislodge God from His position asRuler over the whole universe (Ezek. 28:ll-19; Isa. 14:12-14). A third of the angels united with Lucifer in thatrebellion and were cast back down to this earth with him(Rev. 12:3-4)- aving forever disqualified themselves andSatan from ruling in the government of God. However,Satan and his demonic cohorts remain in office untilChrist actually returns.

Yet being disqualified, they do not want anyone elseever to take their place. For that reason, during nearly6000 years of man, they have tried to hide from all theworld the breathtaking truth of God. If they can make youbelieve in the Trinity, you will be deceived into thinkingthat the Godhead consists of only three persons. Youwould then never in your wildest dreams ever imagine thatyou were created to be born into the God family - oactually have a part in ruling this earth!

Satan wants you to think that God is a limited Trin-ity - ot a growing family or Kingdom into which wemay, through the grace of God, enter.There you have it. That is the truth about the Trin-ity. Gods family isnt closed to mankind as Satan wouldhave you believe.Its wide open to you, your family and all mankind.You can be made in the exact likeness of God at Christsreturn! 0


43/46

ADDlTl ONAL READINGAmbassador College publishes many colorful, informa-

tive booklets on a wide range of biblical topics. Four arelisted below:

a --Why Were You 6orn?

Was humanity created and put here on earth by anintelligent and Almighty Creator for a definite purpose?And if so, what is that purpose - nd why is humanity sototally unaware of it?Just What b o You..hean- orn Again?

Dont be too sure you know. Many professing Chris-tians sincerely believe they have been born again - utdo not understand what Jesus meant by those words.

What Is a Real Christian?Is everyone who professes Christ a true Christian? Oris Christianity a definite way of life that produces a star-

tling change in the new convert? .* ~I - * , ...I._.(iWhere Is. Gods True Church Today?Does Jesus Christ have many different church

denominations doing His Work? Is Christ divided? How,when, and where did this religious babylon of multipledenominations get started? And how does one recognizethe true Church?

Write for your free copies of these booklets. World-wide mailing addresses are a t the end of this booklet.


44/46

ELIEVE it or not, th e B ib le was wr i t ten for our day,th is age - his gen erat ion! The Bib le is th e mostB p-to-date book yo u can read tod ay .I n the pages o f th is "Book that nobod y knows" arerevealed the causes of all of today's i l ls - he socialproblems, the economic problems, an d even the threato f nuc lear ann ih i la tion hang ing over m ank ind today.The Bible shows where world events are leading,and wha t the fi na l ou tcome will be.Bu t ironically, this "Book of al l books" is th e L E A S TUNDERSTOODof al l books!W h y ?Simp ly because w he n most peop le t ry t o read theBible, they can't understand i t . Consequently, they as-sum e i t 's ou t of da te an d i rrelevant in our mod ern age.But yo u can understand i t .Here 's howl

For more than a decade and a half, AmbassadorCollege has been h elp ing thousands t o becom e "Bib l i-cal l iterates" thro ug h th e Am bassador Col lege Corre-spondence Course. This unique course of Biblical


45/46

understanding has led over 200,000 students in nearlyevery country on earth to a greater kno wled ge and un-derstanding of the Bible.This course has been designed to guide youthrough a systemat ic s tudy of your own B ib le - h eBible is the o nly textbook.A di f ferent major subject of v i tal interest in th i sfantast ic push-button age is thoroughly gone in toand m ade clear w i th each 16-page, mo nthly lesson.There are no assignments or tests to send in. Youreview and evaluate your own progress at home. Andthere is no tu i t ion cost to you whatsoever.This course is absolutely f ree! Ju st wr i te to t h e fo l -lowing address and ask to be enrol led. You' l l be gladyou d id . AMBASSADOR COLLEGE

CORRESPONDENCE COURSEPasadena, California 9 1 12 3

the m ai l ing addresses on the next page.I f you l ive outside the United States, please see


46/46

M A I L I N G A D DR E SS E S W O R L D W I D E :I N T H E U N I T E D S TA TE S I N N E W Z E A LA N DA N D P A C I F I C I S L E S

Aurk land 1 . Ne w ZealandA M B A S S A D O ROLLEGE R E S S B o x 2709P 0 Box 111Pasadena, Cal i fornia 9 1 1 2 3I N C A N A D AP 0 Box 44. Sta AVancouver 1 B CORI N F R E N C H L A N G U A G EBoi te Posta le 1 2 1Montreal P Q H 3 C 1 C 5I N B R I T AI NP 0 Box 111St Albans. HertsEnqlandIN F R A N C E , S W I T Z E R L A N DA N D B E L G IU MLe MON OE V E N I RCase Postale 1 09 1 rue de la Serve tte1 2 1 1 G en eva 7SwitzerlandI N G E R M A N YPos t fach 1324(4) Dusseldorf 1West GermanyI N H O L LA N D & B E L G I U MPostbus 4 9 6Arnhem. Neder landI N A U S T R A LI AG P 0 Box 345S yd ne y. N S W 2 0 0 1Austral ia

I N T H E P H I L IP P I N E SP 0 B o x 1 1 1 1Mak at i Rizal D -7 0 8I N S O U T H E A S T A S I AP 0 Box 111Farrer Singap ore 1 1I N A F RI CAAl l Afr ican nat ions exceptthose in Southern Africashou ld wr i te to theBrit ish addressIN S O U T H A F R I C A ,M A U R I T IU S A N D M A L A W IP 0 B o x 1 0 6 0Johannesbur g 2000I N R H O D E S IAB o x U A 3 0Union AvenueSal isbu ryI N J E R U SA L E MP 0 B o x 1 9 1 1 1JerusalemI N C E NT RA L A M E R I C AP 0 Box 5 - 595Mexico 5 D FI N T H E C A R IB B E A N &S O U T H A M E R I C Ac / o Spanish DeptBox 1 1 1Pasadena Cal iforn ia 9 1 1 2 3

THIS BOOKLET I S NOT TO BE SOLD. It is p r o v i d e d a s ap u b l i c se r vi ce i n t h e p u b l i c in t e r e st b y A m b a s s a d o r C o l l e ge- a d e p o s s i b le b y t h e c o n t r i b u t io n s o f th o s e w h o , v o l u n -t a rt ly h a v e b e c o m e c o - w o r k e r s in s u p p o r t o f t h is w o r l d w i d ew o r k A m b a s s a d o r C o l l eg e , a s a s e p a ra t e c o r p o r a t i o n , i sa s so c ia te d w i t h t h e W o r l d w i d e C h u rc h o f G o d , a n d a p o r -

Is God a Trinity (Prelim 1973)

Documents

Transcript of Is God a Trinity (Prelim 1973)