One Three Person God
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View One Three Person God as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 4,451
- Pages: 7
One Three Person God The Scriptures clearly indicate a belief in the worship of one true God alone. The belief in the existence of one God is called monotheism. Trinitarians claim they are monotheists. They insist they do not believe in three Gods/gods but in one God consisting of three persons. The doctrine of the Trinity is most simply described as "three persons in one God" or "one God in three persons," the belief in one distinct God subsisting as three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarian theologians often refer to each of these three distinct persons as a hypostasis. Each person hypostastis has the "same being" or "same substance" which is known by the technical term homoousia. Their God is three hypostases where each hypostasis has an identical ousia (being/substance). The term "Godhead" is also sometimes used to refer to this three person being. Another description they like to use is the term "Triune God" from "Tri" and "Unity." The word "Trinity" is actually derived from the word "tri" and "unity" and so Trinitarians use this word meaning "tri-unity" or "tri-oneness." The intent of this term is to denote the unity, or oneness, of divinity or substance of being between the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son and the Father is not the Holy Spirit and the Son is not the Father and is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father and not the Son. Yet, all are God and all are coeternal, co-equal, co-powerful. Trinitarians insist they are monotheistic and not henotheistic or polytheistic. They do not claim the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Gods/gods, but one God, nor do they say they believe in three Gods/gods in one God but simply one God. These three persons constitute the one God. Trinitarians will [usually] insist God is not simply one person because, to the contrary, God is not one person but three persons and then they would be bound to say God is three persons in one person which they do not wish to do. So they also sometimes like to say that God is indeed "one being" althought God is three "persons." A term they sometimes use is "tripersonal God" where God is one tripersonal being. As such, Trinitarians do not see themselves as polytheists, or more specifically, tritheists. Rather they see themselves as monotheists who believe in a multipersonal one being God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures or the writings of the ante-Nicene church Fathers. Trinitarians believe their doctrine is inferred in the Scriptures and known through their process of reason from analyzing certain statements found in the Scriptures. The following illustrates the basic structure of their reasoning. Premise 1: The Bible teaches that there is only one God. Premise 2: The Bible teaches that there are three distinct persons called God, known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Conclusion: The three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one God. It is the second premise which non-trinitarians contest. Non-trinitarians do not agree that the Bible identifies the Son as the one "God." Non-trinitarians do agree that the Holy Spirit is God because the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the one Holy God. In other words, non-Trinitarians do not agree that the Holy Spirit is a separate person distinct from God the Father. Non-trinitarians insist that God is
one person, the Father, and Jesus is the son of that one God, the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the one Holy God, the Father. Trinitarianism and Modalism The doctrine of the Trinity is often confused with a view of God known as Modalism. To many people, Modalism can appear very similar to Trinitarianism. Modalism is also known as Sabellianism and colloquially known as "Oneness Theology" and sometimes "Jesus only." In Trinitarianism, the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. However, in Modalism, the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father. In Trinitarianism, God is not one person but three persons. However,in Modalism God is one person and not three persons. God is one person and that one person is Jesus and Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Son and as such is God who manifests himself differently in these ways. In this belief system, the three distinctions of God are not personal distinctions of one being but functional distinctions one person. Hence, the distinctions of "Father," and "Son" are different functional modes of being of the same person. I ran across a website the other day where a lady wished to defend the Trinity. She used an analogy to describe her belief and explained that although she is one person, she is a wife and a mother and a daughter. She was completely unaware that she was promoting simultaneous Modalism which is considered heresy among Trinitarians. I ran across another Eastern Orthdox website which indicated that God had manifested himself in three different ways throughout history, first as Father, then as Son, and now as Holy Spirit. This is not Trinitarianism but successive Modalism, another concept considered to be heretical by Trinitarians. In Modalism, God is one person who is manifested in different modes or functional offices such as Father and Son. This confusion is common even within Trinitarianism. It is actually quite common to find trained Trinitarian theologians waist deep in Modalist waters in efforts to explain their own Trinitarian doctrine. The reason this confusion exists is that both Trinitarians and Modalists can, and do, say the one God is manifested, or expressed, in three different ways, three different distinctions. The Trinitarian modes are the modes of three distinct persons of the one God, while the Modalist mode are the modes of three distinct "functions" or modes of being of the one God. When examined closely, Modalism and Trinitarianism essentially differ in one simple aspect. The Modalist believes in one person manifesting as three distinct beings. The Trinitarian believes in one being manifesting as three distinct persons. If a person was to equate the concept of "being" and "person" there is then no real difference between the two. The Modalist Supreme identity is one person. The Trinitarian Supreme identity is one being. The Modalist Supreme identity is manfested mainly in three functional offices, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Trinitarian Supreme identity also functions as three distinctions, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity does not, on one hand, assert that three persons are united as one person, or three beings in one being. The doctrine of the Trinity does, on the other hand, assert that three persons are united as one being, or one being as three persons. The important thing to remember here is that Trinitarians vehmently reject Modalism as heresy. However, one must also be reminded that Trinitarians very often misrepresent Modalists due to either ignorance or simply an overzealousness to assault their belief system. Modalism does not have a very wide following and is mostly confined to distinct groups within pentecostalism such as the United Pentecostals (the majority of other Pentecostals, such as Assemblies of God, who broke away from them in the early years of the movement, are Trinitarians). Economic Unity: Yours and Mine The early church understood an "economic unity" existed between God, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. This is simply a way of saying the three had a unity of function between them which we must understand should not be confused with a unity of substance / being. Economic unity is about doing not being. Trinitarian historians sometimes conveniently refer to this concept as "Economic Trinitarianism," a term which is somewhat misleading to the unwary reader. In the Trinitarian psyche, this "economic trinitarianism" is a primitive form of his own more highly developed dogma. However, this economic unity is recognized by Trinitarians and nonTrinitarians alike. An Apostolic, a United Pentecostal, and other Oneness groups, or most other non-trinitarians do not have any problem recognizing there are three defined entities and a unified functional relationship exists between those three. And the non-trinitarian realizes this does not amount to Trinitarian dogma. For some reason, many Trinitarians do not quite comprehend this fact. Economic unity, or economic trintarianism, is about "function" and not "substance/being." It is a concept which does not emphasize "being" but "doing." It is a verb thing and not a noun thing. The issue with Trinitarianism is whether or not the three constitute one being known as "God." For the Trinitarian, it is a matter of "being" God inherently (ontologically), not simply doing "God" functionally (economically). It is a question of identity and nature. For the non-Trinitarian, the three have a unified purpose and function and there is no reason seen to conclude the three should be understood as a three in one being called "God." The non-Trinitarian recognizes the early Fathers saw a relationship between the three and just one of those three was actually God, and God being already identified, he sees no reason whatsoever to label all three together as "God." Jesus functioned according to God the Father in the Spirit. The same spirit in Jesus was the same one of the father, and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus taught that he and his father were one. "I and my Father are one", John 10:30. The same spirit in him was the one imparted to him from God himself, or his Holy Spirit. He then later prayed that the church would be one with him and the Father, "even as we are one", John 17:22. He was referring to functional unity in both instances. It is the Holy Spirit, or the spirit of God. That unified him with his Father in what he did and it is the Holy Spirit which unifies us in God in what we do. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Rom 8:14). After he rose from the dead, Jesus called his disciples and said, "As the Father sent me, now I also send you.... Receive the Holy Spirit." That economic unity exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, to define all three as the one God is quite another matter. And this is the distinction we must see here. Trinitarians often disingenuously make huge unwarranted leaps by trying to persuade others that the early Christians were "Trinitarians" simply because they believed in an economic unity which is simply a unity of function of one God. We must understand that an economic unity between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, does not amount to Trinitarian dogma. It is very common for Trinitarians to read passages like Matthew 28:19, (Which is questionable in the very least, and admitted by some Catholics as a later insertion by their organization.) 2 Corinthians 13:14, and 2 Peter 1:2 and suppose the writers are here referring to their "three in one God." However, all we have is God mentioned with two other entities, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The non-Trinitarian has no problems with these passages. In fact, he has less problems. All they need to do is recognize that God is the two other entities. In the end, there is only one God. The Trinitarian needs to first define the word "God" in his mind as "the Father, the first person of the Trinity," and then extraneously decide for himself to label the one already called "God" as "the Father, the first person of the Trinity," and then think of the other two as "second and third persons of the Trinity" and then label all three together as "God" by an act of His own will. These mental gymnastics are standard fare for Trinitarians and it is something the nonTrinitarian does not need to do and the Bible never does either. The nontrinitarian simply accepts what it says and sees that the one God of creation is
shown in two other entities. The early fathers viewed God in a similar manner and perceived of an economic unity. However, this does not amount to Trinitarian dogma which insists God is a ontological unity of substance, that is, God is three persons but one being. The word "Trinity" The English word "trinity" is derived from the Latin word trinitas which simply means "threefold" to indicate a group of three related things. We get our English prefix "tri" as in "tricycle," "triune," "trio," "triad," "triumvirate," and "triangle" from the same Latin prefix root "tri." Most English speakers are quite aware that "tri" simply means "three." The word "Trinity" is essentially a combination of the two words "tri" and "unity." Or to use the vernacular of today, it is three seperated but united forms. Rome had a political trinity or triumvirate, in the government of Julius Caesar, Marcus Crassus, and Pompisius Magnus. Ceasar's cause eventually won out by defeating the other two. However, the word "trinity" or "Trinity" is used in theology to refer to much more than the original word itself implied in ancient times. The word is now loaded with theological ideas to mean "the doctrine of the three in one God" or "the union of the three in one God" and at other times it actually means, "the three in one God" as the Catholic term "The Blessed Trinity" implies (not a blessed biblical doctrine, as they needed to incorporate this concept from pagans, but the union of, or, the blessed God himself). To state it clearly, the original intent of the word "trinity" was not a word used to mean "the three in one God" until that word was later adopted by Trinitarians as a label for their "three in one God." The word "trinity" existed long before the theological doctrine of the Trinity existed. It was simply a word employed to express a related threeness without any theological nuances whatsoever where three entities have a common unity with one another. For this reason, the early church fathers used the word "trinity" to refer to the three but they did not mean "three persons in one God" by the use of that term in the same way later Trinitarians came to employ that word. Trinitarians have a very bad habit of reading their theologically loaded Trinitarian concepts attached to the word "trinity" back into the words of the church fathers who used the same term without any such intent. The Greek equivalent of the Latin word "trinitas" and English word "trinity" is trias which is not found anywhere in the original Greek scriptures. This writer obviously disagrees that the concept is implicitly inferred in the Scriptures. The Trinitarians disingenuously like to make much out noise concerning the use of the word "trinity" by the early church fathers. About 180 A.D., Theophilus of Antioch spoke of the trinity (trias) of God, God's Word and God's Wisdom (Ad. Autolycus, II, 15). Tertullian also used the word "trinitas" in one of his works. Origen also uses the word. However, these men did not use the term as a theologically loaded word to refer to a three in one God as the word later came to be used and was adopted for Trinitarian theology. If we review their writings even casually it becomes quickly evident they most certainly did not believe what today's Trinitarians believe although many Trinitarians will attempt to claim they did. When the early fathers used such terms they were simply using the word to refer to the relationship between the three entities, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the same sense we use the modern word "trio" without the later connotations of theological Trinitarianism. In this sense, every non-Trinitarian agrees that we can call these three because they are indeed three and there is an economic unity of function between these three. But they are never equal, as Jesus said this in John 14:28. "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." In other words, Trinitarians are reading their own theological concept, "three person God," which was later attached to the term "trinity," anachronistically back into the word these men used to simply mean "a
related threeness." They had no such notions that God was a three person being and continued to believe and confess the Father alone as the one and only true God. Put another way, Trinitarians are suggesting that these men were promoting the idea of "the three in one God" when in fact they used the word to only describe the economic relationship between the three entities, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is, God, God's Son, and God's Spirit. In that sense, any non-Trinitarian completely agrees with the use of the word "trinity" or threeness, as the early fathers understood that word. We have all read the questionable passage of Matthew 28:19 and recognize there is a "trinity" or "trio" of related entities mentioned in that passage. But three does not necessarily mean the three are seperated beings, yet altogether one God. It is when the word is theologically loaded to mean "three persons, one God" that non-Trinitarians disagree. You will also note that it is manipulative interpretation to take Theophilus' quotation above which is referring to God, His word and His wisdom, to be a direct reference to "the three in one God." Even if one first preconceived the notion that the Holy Spirit was equivalent to "His Wisdom" in order to make it work, we still do not have in this statement a theological concept of a three in one God. All he is saying is that there are three, (1) God, (2) His Word and (3) His Wisdom. Either way, Theophilus' statement is devoid of any notion that these three things altogether are the one God and this is the real issue at hand. Indeed, "God" is mentioned as a separate entity from the other two. Trinitarians have a very annoying propensity for reading things into the text. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes Theophilus by writing, "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom." The word "God" in this sentence, as Theophilus wrote it, is a distinct entity from the other two entities. But notice how the reader is suggestively told to presume the word "God" refers to "God the Father" with the addition of bracketed words. This is how Trinitarians are trained to think. So by getting the reader to think to himself, "the Father, the first person of the Trinity" when he sees the word "God," the idea then is for the Trinitarian reader to apply the label "God" to all three entities by an act of his own will instead of simply recognizing the first one identified in Theophilius' sentence is the one God. By doing these mental gymnastics, they feel they can believe for themselves the word "God" in this sentence means "God the Father the first person of the Trinity" and they can rightly conceive all three together as "God." The scriptures never point to such reasonings. Why they feel they can justify doing this type of thing is a fascinating study in itself. The Trinitarian then thinks to himself that the one true God is not the first word in the sentence but is all three entities together. However, Theophilus mentions God distinctly from two other entities. His one God was the Father alone. Trinitarians regularly practice these kinds of mental gymnastics in their minds to convert words according to their own pleasure and read their doctrine into the Bible and the writings of the early church fathers. This practice of reading preconceived ideas into the words of others is very common among Trinitarians especially in the particular case of the word "God" appearing in place of "the Father." They do the very same thing at 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 Peter 1:2. The truth is that we can just as easily say, without any preconceptions, that Theophilus did mean "God the Father" when he said "God" because to Theophilus there is only one God and that one God is the Father and no other, and the other two entities he mentions are not God who he mentions distinctly from the other two, but two things that belong to God and are quite distinct from the person of God, His word and wisdom. It appears the first time the word was used in a theological sense similar to later defined Trinitarian dogma, was about the middle of the third century. Around 200 A.D. Tertullian made some statements that sound Trinitarian but are still a far from Trinitarian dogma. For example, he like Arius, taught there was a time
when the Son was not. Trinitarians like to ignore such facts. Both Tertullian and Origen had subordinationist perspectives on the Son with respect to God the Father. Novatian wrote a document around 255 A.D. which shows that Trinitarian concepts were beginning to emerge in the church. However, even though some of his comments may sound Trinitarian, Novatian still comprehended the one true God to be the Father alone. About 270 A.D., in the years approaching Nicea, Gregory Thaumaturgus made several statements that also sound very Trinitarian and he used the word "trinity" profusely. However, Gregory still understood the one God to be the Father alone. "The Trinity" was still the concept of a unity between the three, God, His Word, and His Spirit, but had not yet become the idea of a three in one God. The modern definition of the word "Trinity" would not be found in history until the latter half of the fourth century. Beginning at the end of the second century, various forms of Monarchianism were contesting other conceptions of God. This pressured those who disagreed by reacting to formulate a concept of God which would answer the difficult questions raised by Theodotus, Noetus, Praxeas, Paul of Samosata and Sabellius, and later by Arius and the Arian view. The whole Arian controversy erupted because Arius' colleague Alexander was describing the relationship of God and His Son in a way that sounded quite Sabellian (Modalist) to Arius. The ensuing controversy was partly confused by an incessant amibiguity in some of the terminology that was in vogue during that period of time. In fact, some of the terminology was borrowed from Platonism and/or Gnosticism. The Greeks only really believed in the Father and Logos. This is simular to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe today. What was being purposed here was a two god system in concept. Simply the father and the (Logos) son. And to counteract such teachings, the trinity was conceived. Their concept was to unify the different aspects of God into one. And they needed some idea to make God, who has many expressions, though primarily three in the New Testament, one. We can see the same problem today when Trinitarians describe God as "one being" to counter the fact that Scripture describes him in singular person terms such as "He," and "Him." In Trinitarianism, the word "being" can mean either "essential nature" answering the question "what," or it can mean "one identity," implying the question "who," that is, God described as "He," or "Him." That being the case, it would be easy to charge a Trinitarian with Sabellianism or Modalism if he responded that God was "one being" to the question concerning the Scriptural use of the singular person pronouns ascribed to Him. On the other hand, Modalists describe God clearly as one person who manifests himself in three different modes of being. These ambiguities are precisely the same types of problems that were encountered with the words hypostasis, ousia, homoousia and homoiousia in the fourth century. Being, Person, Identity As such, we come to a critical question. If indeed, the terms "one being" and "one person" are not at first intended to be synonymous concepts in Trinitarianism, what about the terms "one being" and "one identity?" Are Trinitarians really attempting to say that the one God is one identity yet three identities or one individual but three individuals? This is the real question at hand. Since Trinitarians respond to the question of the Scriptural references to God in terms of singular person pronouns by stating God is "one being," as opposed to "one person," are they not saying God is "one identity" in order to explain why he is called "He," "Him," "I" and "Me?" And if so, is not the word "person" the word we use to describe an "identity?" And if so, how does the Trinitarian escape Sabellianism or Modalism in this case? It is quite easy to say God is one being yet three persons if you implicitly define the word "being" as substance. But, if you implicitly define the term "one being" as "one identity," then you would have "one identity yet three persons." Here the word "identity" also means "individual" and it must mean this in order to respond to the question concerning why is God
described with singular personal pronouns such as "I" and "He." So in the end, we really have the Trinitarian implicitly inferring "God is one individual yet three individuals" and he finds himself knocking on the door of Modalism. And this is why the words "identity" and "individual" are pretty much vacant in the theological world of Trinitarians. And it is here at this question the Trinitarian expression "unfathomable mystery" becomes necessary and suddenly appears to guard his doctrine. 1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." The doctrine of the Trinitarian God contains many complexities and subtle nuances. It is these complexities and subtle nuances that afford the Trinitarian apologist room to maneuver to promote and defend his belief system. The doctrine sounds simple at first: "three persons in one God." But what does it mean really? Does it really mean "three individuals in one individual?" Is not the one God of creation one individual? Note that word "individual." It comes from the idea of being "indivisible." An "individual" is "undividable" because he is one. The Trinitarian claims his God is "indivisible." So are they really trying to formulate a doctrine which claims that God is one individual yet three individuals and is at once indivisible and divisible at the same time? It seems such an idea is the ulimate goal of the Trinitarian agenda but it is just too dangerous for them to say out loud.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures or the writings of the ante-Nicene church Fathers. Trinitarians believe their doctrine is inferred in the Scriptures and known through their process of reason from analyzing certain statements found in the Scriptures. The following illustrates the basic structure of their reasoning. Premise 1: The Bible teaches that there is only one God. Premise 2: The Bible teaches that there are three distinct persons called God, known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Conclusion: The three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one God. It is the second premise which non-trinitarians contest. Non-trinitarians do not agree that the Bible identifies the Son as the one "God." Non-trinitarians do agree that the Holy Spirit is God because the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the one Holy God. In other words, non-Trinitarians do not agree that the Holy Spirit is a separate person distinct from God the Father. Non-trinitarians insist that God is
one person, the Father, and Jesus is the son of that one God, the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the one Holy God, the Father. Trinitarianism and Modalism The doctrine of the Trinity is often confused with a view of God known as Modalism. To many people, Modalism can appear very similar to Trinitarianism. Modalism is also known as Sabellianism and colloquially known as "Oneness Theology" and sometimes "Jesus only." In Trinitarianism, the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. However, in Modalism, the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father. In Trinitarianism, God is not one person but three persons. However,in Modalism God is one person and not three persons. God is one person and that one person is Jesus and Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Son and as such is God who manifests himself differently in these ways. In this belief system, the three distinctions of God are not personal distinctions of one being but functional distinctions one person. Hence, the distinctions of "Father," and "Son" are different functional modes of being of the same person. I ran across a website the other day where a lady wished to defend the Trinity. She used an analogy to describe her belief and explained that although she is one person, she is a wife and a mother and a daughter. She was completely unaware that she was promoting simultaneous Modalism which is considered heresy among Trinitarians. I ran across another Eastern Orthdox website which indicated that God had manifested himself in three different ways throughout history, first as Father, then as Son, and now as Holy Spirit. This is not Trinitarianism but successive Modalism, another concept considered to be heretical by Trinitarians. In Modalism, God is one person who is manifested in different modes or functional offices such as Father and Son. This confusion is common even within Trinitarianism. It is actually quite common to find trained Trinitarian theologians waist deep in Modalist waters in efforts to explain their own Trinitarian doctrine. The reason this confusion exists is that both Trinitarians and Modalists can, and do, say the one God is manifested, or expressed, in three different ways, three different distinctions. The Trinitarian modes are the modes of three distinct persons of the one God, while the Modalist mode are the modes of three distinct "functions" or modes of being of the one God. When examined closely, Modalism and Trinitarianism essentially differ in one simple aspect. The Modalist believes in one person manifesting as three distinct beings. The Trinitarian believes in one being manifesting as three distinct persons. If a person was to equate the concept of "being" and "person" there is then no real difference between the two. The Modalist Supreme identity is one person. The Trinitarian Supreme identity is one being. The Modalist Supreme identity is manfested mainly in three functional offices, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Trinitarian Supreme identity also functions as three distinctions, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity does not, on one hand, assert that three persons are united as one person, or three beings in one being. The doctrine of the Trinity does, on the other hand, assert that three persons are united as one being, or one being as three persons. The important thing to remember here is that Trinitarians vehmently reject Modalism as heresy. However, one must also be reminded that Trinitarians very often misrepresent Modalists due to either ignorance or simply an overzealousness to assault their belief system. Modalism does not have a very wide following and is mostly confined to distinct groups within pentecostalism such as the United Pentecostals (the majority of other Pentecostals, such as Assemblies of God, who broke away from them in the early years of the movement, are Trinitarians). Economic Unity: Yours and Mine The early church understood an "economic unity" existed between God, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. This is simply a way of saying the three had a unity of function between them which we must understand should not be confused with a unity of substance / being. Economic unity is about doing not being. Trinitarian historians sometimes conveniently refer to this concept as "Economic Trinitarianism," a term which is somewhat misleading to the unwary reader. In the Trinitarian psyche, this "economic trinitarianism" is a primitive form of his own more highly developed dogma. However, this economic unity is recognized by Trinitarians and nonTrinitarians alike. An Apostolic, a United Pentecostal, and other Oneness groups, or most other non-trinitarians do not have any problem recognizing there are three defined entities and a unified functional relationship exists between those three. And the non-trinitarian realizes this does not amount to Trinitarian dogma. For some reason, many Trinitarians do not quite comprehend this fact. Economic unity, or economic trintarianism, is about "function" and not "substance/being." It is a concept which does not emphasize "being" but "doing." It is a verb thing and not a noun thing. The issue with Trinitarianism is whether or not the three constitute one being known as "God." For the Trinitarian, it is a matter of "being" God inherently (ontologically), not simply doing "God" functionally (economically). It is a question of identity and nature. For the non-Trinitarian, the three have a unified purpose and function and there is no reason seen to conclude the three should be understood as a three in one being called "God." The non-Trinitarian recognizes the early Fathers saw a relationship between the three and just one of those three was actually God, and God being already identified, he sees no reason whatsoever to label all three together as "God." Jesus functioned according to God the Father in the Spirit. The same spirit in Jesus was the same one of the father, and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus taught that he and his father were one. "I and my Father are one", John 10:30. The same spirit in him was the one imparted to him from God himself, or his Holy Spirit. He then later prayed that the church would be one with him and the Father, "even as we are one", John 17:22. He was referring to functional unity in both instances. It is the Holy Spirit, or the spirit of God. That unified him with his Father in what he did and it is the Holy Spirit which unifies us in God in what we do. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Rom 8:14). After he rose from the dead, Jesus called his disciples and said, "As the Father sent me, now I also send you.... Receive the Holy Spirit." That economic unity exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, to define all three as the one God is quite another matter. And this is the distinction we must see here. Trinitarians often disingenuously make huge unwarranted leaps by trying to persuade others that the early Christians were "Trinitarians" simply because they believed in an economic unity which is simply a unity of function of one God. We must understand that an economic unity between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, does not amount to Trinitarian dogma. It is very common for Trinitarians to read passages like Matthew 28:19, (Which is questionable in the very least, and admitted by some Catholics as a later insertion by their organization.) 2 Corinthians 13:14, and 2 Peter 1:2 and suppose the writers are here referring to their "three in one God." However, all we have is God mentioned with two other entities, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The non-Trinitarian has no problems with these passages. In fact, he has less problems. All they need to do is recognize that God is the two other entities. In the end, there is only one God. The Trinitarian needs to first define the word "God" in his mind as "the Father, the first person of the Trinity," and then extraneously decide for himself to label the one already called "God" as "the Father, the first person of the Trinity," and then think of the other two as "second and third persons of the Trinity" and then label all three together as "God" by an act of His own will. These mental gymnastics are standard fare for Trinitarians and it is something the nonTrinitarian does not need to do and the Bible never does either. The nontrinitarian simply accepts what it says and sees that the one God of creation is
shown in two other entities. The early fathers viewed God in a similar manner and perceived of an economic unity. However, this does not amount to Trinitarian dogma which insists God is a ontological unity of substance, that is, God is three persons but one being. The word "Trinity" The English word "trinity" is derived from the Latin word trinitas which simply means "threefold" to indicate a group of three related things. We get our English prefix "tri" as in "tricycle," "triune," "trio," "triad," "triumvirate," and "triangle" from the same Latin prefix root "tri." Most English speakers are quite aware that "tri" simply means "three." The word "Trinity" is essentially a combination of the two words "tri" and "unity." Or to use the vernacular of today, it is three seperated but united forms. Rome had a political trinity or triumvirate, in the government of Julius Caesar, Marcus Crassus, and Pompisius Magnus. Ceasar's cause eventually won out by defeating the other two. However, the word "trinity" or "Trinity" is used in theology to refer to much more than the original word itself implied in ancient times. The word is now loaded with theological ideas to mean "the doctrine of the three in one God" or "the union of the three in one God" and at other times it actually means, "the three in one God" as the Catholic term "The Blessed Trinity" implies (not a blessed biblical doctrine, as they needed to incorporate this concept from pagans, but the union of, or, the blessed God himself). To state it clearly, the original intent of the word "trinity" was not a word used to mean "the three in one God" until that word was later adopted by Trinitarians as a label for their "three in one God." The word "trinity" existed long before the theological doctrine of the Trinity existed. It was simply a word employed to express a related threeness without any theological nuances whatsoever where three entities have a common unity with one another. For this reason, the early church fathers used the word "trinity" to refer to the three but they did not mean "three persons in one God" by the use of that term in the same way later Trinitarians came to employ that word. Trinitarians have a very bad habit of reading their theologically loaded Trinitarian concepts attached to the word "trinity" back into the words of the church fathers who used the same term without any such intent. The Greek equivalent of the Latin word "trinitas" and English word "trinity" is trias which is not found anywhere in the original Greek scriptures. This writer obviously disagrees that the concept is implicitly inferred in the Scriptures. The Trinitarians disingenuously like to make much out noise concerning the use of the word "trinity" by the early church fathers. About 180 A.D., Theophilus of Antioch spoke of the trinity (trias) of God, God's Word and God's Wisdom (Ad. Autolycus, II, 15). Tertullian also used the word "trinitas" in one of his works. Origen also uses the word. However, these men did not use the term as a theologically loaded word to refer to a three in one God as the word later came to be used and was adopted for Trinitarian theology. If we review their writings even casually it becomes quickly evident they most certainly did not believe what today's Trinitarians believe although many Trinitarians will attempt to claim they did. When the early fathers used such terms they were simply using the word to refer to the relationship between the three entities, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the same sense we use the modern word "trio" without the later connotations of theological Trinitarianism. In this sense, every non-Trinitarian agrees that we can call these three because they are indeed three and there is an economic unity of function between these three. But they are never equal, as Jesus said this in John 14:28. "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." In other words, Trinitarians are reading their own theological concept, "three person God," which was later attached to the term "trinity," anachronistically back into the word these men used to simply mean "a
related threeness." They had no such notions that God was a three person being and continued to believe and confess the Father alone as the one and only true God. Put another way, Trinitarians are suggesting that these men were promoting the idea of "the three in one God" when in fact they used the word to only describe the economic relationship between the three entities, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is, God, God's Son, and God's Spirit. In that sense, any non-Trinitarian completely agrees with the use of the word "trinity" or threeness, as the early fathers understood that word. We have all read the questionable passage of Matthew 28:19 and recognize there is a "trinity" or "trio" of related entities mentioned in that passage. But three does not necessarily mean the three are seperated beings, yet altogether one God. It is when the word is theologically loaded to mean "three persons, one God" that non-Trinitarians disagree. You will also note that it is manipulative interpretation to take Theophilus' quotation above which is referring to God, His word and His wisdom, to be a direct reference to "the three in one God." Even if one first preconceived the notion that the Holy Spirit was equivalent to "His Wisdom" in order to make it work, we still do not have in this statement a theological concept of a three in one God. All he is saying is that there are three, (1) God, (2) His Word and (3) His Wisdom. Either way, Theophilus' statement is devoid of any notion that these three things altogether are the one God and this is the real issue at hand. Indeed, "God" is mentioned as a separate entity from the other two. Trinitarians have a very annoying propensity for reading things into the text. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes Theophilus by writing, "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom." The word "God" in this sentence, as Theophilus wrote it, is a distinct entity from the other two entities. But notice how the reader is suggestively told to presume the word "God" refers to "God the Father" with the addition of bracketed words. This is how Trinitarians are trained to think. So by getting the reader to think to himself, "the Father, the first person of the Trinity" when he sees the word "God," the idea then is for the Trinitarian reader to apply the label "God" to all three entities by an act of his own will instead of simply recognizing the first one identified in Theophilius' sentence is the one God. By doing these mental gymnastics, they feel they can believe for themselves the word "God" in this sentence means "God the Father the first person of the Trinity" and they can rightly conceive all three together as "God." The scriptures never point to such reasonings. Why they feel they can justify doing this type of thing is a fascinating study in itself. The Trinitarian then thinks to himself that the one true God is not the first word in the sentence but is all three entities together. However, Theophilus mentions God distinctly from two other entities. His one God was the Father alone. Trinitarians regularly practice these kinds of mental gymnastics in their minds to convert words according to their own pleasure and read their doctrine into the Bible and the writings of the early church fathers. This practice of reading preconceived ideas into the words of others is very common among Trinitarians especially in the particular case of the word "God" appearing in place of "the Father." They do the very same thing at 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 Peter 1:2. The truth is that we can just as easily say, without any preconceptions, that Theophilus did mean "God the Father" when he said "God" because to Theophilus there is only one God and that one God is the Father and no other, and the other two entities he mentions are not God who he mentions distinctly from the other two, but two things that belong to God and are quite distinct from the person of God, His word and wisdom. It appears the first time the word was used in a theological sense similar to later defined Trinitarian dogma, was about the middle of the third century. Around 200 A.D. Tertullian made some statements that sound Trinitarian but are still a far from Trinitarian dogma. For example, he like Arius, taught there was a time
when the Son was not. Trinitarians like to ignore such facts. Both Tertullian and Origen had subordinationist perspectives on the Son with respect to God the Father. Novatian wrote a document around 255 A.D. which shows that Trinitarian concepts were beginning to emerge in the church. However, even though some of his comments may sound Trinitarian, Novatian still comprehended the one true God to be the Father alone. About 270 A.D., in the years approaching Nicea, Gregory Thaumaturgus made several statements that also sound very Trinitarian and he used the word "trinity" profusely. However, Gregory still understood the one God to be the Father alone. "The Trinity" was still the concept of a unity between the three, God, His Word, and His Spirit, but had not yet become the idea of a three in one God. The modern definition of the word "Trinity" would not be found in history until the latter half of the fourth century. Beginning at the end of the second century, various forms of Monarchianism were contesting other conceptions of God. This pressured those who disagreed by reacting to formulate a concept of God which would answer the difficult questions raised by Theodotus, Noetus, Praxeas, Paul of Samosata and Sabellius, and later by Arius and the Arian view. The whole Arian controversy erupted because Arius' colleague Alexander was describing the relationship of God and His Son in a way that sounded quite Sabellian (Modalist) to Arius. The ensuing controversy was partly confused by an incessant amibiguity in some of the terminology that was in vogue during that period of time. In fact, some of the terminology was borrowed from Platonism and/or Gnosticism. The Greeks only really believed in the Father and Logos. This is simular to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe today. What was being purposed here was a two god system in concept. Simply the father and the (Logos) son. And to counteract such teachings, the trinity was conceived. Their concept was to unify the different aspects of God into one. And they needed some idea to make God, who has many expressions, though primarily three in the New Testament, one. We can see the same problem today when Trinitarians describe God as "one being" to counter the fact that Scripture describes him in singular person terms such as "He," and "Him." In Trinitarianism, the word "being" can mean either "essential nature" answering the question "what," or it can mean "one identity," implying the question "who," that is, God described as "He," or "Him." That being the case, it would be easy to charge a Trinitarian with Sabellianism or Modalism if he responded that God was "one being" to the question concerning the Scriptural use of the singular person pronouns ascribed to Him. On the other hand, Modalists describe God clearly as one person who manifests himself in three different modes of being. These ambiguities are precisely the same types of problems that were encountered with the words hypostasis, ousia, homoousia and homoiousia in the fourth century. Being, Person, Identity As such, we come to a critical question. If indeed, the terms "one being" and "one person" are not at first intended to be synonymous concepts in Trinitarianism, what about the terms "one being" and "one identity?" Are Trinitarians really attempting to say that the one God is one identity yet three identities or one individual but three individuals? This is the real question at hand. Since Trinitarians respond to the question of the Scriptural references to God in terms of singular person pronouns by stating God is "one being," as opposed to "one person," are they not saying God is "one identity" in order to explain why he is called "He," "Him," "I" and "Me?" And if so, is not the word "person" the word we use to describe an "identity?" And if so, how does the Trinitarian escape Sabellianism or Modalism in this case? It is quite easy to say God is one being yet three persons if you implicitly define the word "being" as substance. But, if you implicitly define the term "one being" as "one identity," then you would have "one identity yet three persons." Here the word "identity" also means "individual" and it must mean this in order to respond to the question concerning why is God
described with singular personal pronouns such as "I" and "He." So in the end, we really have the Trinitarian implicitly inferring "God is one individual yet three individuals" and he finds himself knocking on the door of Modalism. And this is why the words "identity" and "individual" are pretty much vacant in the theological world of Trinitarians. And it is here at this question the Trinitarian expression "unfathomable mystery" becomes necessary and suddenly appears to guard his doctrine. 1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." The doctrine of the Trinitarian God contains many complexities and subtle nuances. It is these complexities and subtle nuances that afford the Trinitarian apologist room to maneuver to promote and defend his belief system. The doctrine sounds simple at first: "three persons in one God." But what does it mean really? Does it really mean "three individuals in one individual?" Is not the one God of creation one individual? Note that word "individual." It comes from the idea of being "indivisible." An "individual" is "undividable" because he is one. The Trinitarian claims his God is "indivisible." So are they really trying to formulate a doctrine which claims that God is one individual yet three individuals and is at once indivisible and divisible at the same time? It seems such an idea is the ulimate goal of the Trinitarian agenda but it is just too dangerous for them to say out loud.
