The above scripture, found in Revelation 21, tells of the day when those that have been redeemed are finally and for all time, united with the Divine. If you are a student of the Bible, do you notice anything missing in this scripture, as it pertains to the Godhead?
If the early church promoted a concept of the Trinity, would it not make sense that the Holy Spirit would be present in this particular description? For example, something like, “for the Lord God Almighty, the Lamb and the Holy Spirit are the temple of it”? After all, this chapter represents the culmination of all things. Could anyone provide a plausible explanation as to why the Holy Spirit is missing?
Well, as it pertains to clarity around the issue of the Godhead, hopefully you’ll find the following overview enlightening. Comments and questions are welcome.
This post is not meant to be an exhaustive study on the Godhead, but rather we encourage you to delve into it in more detail for yourself, and to explore how traditionally held beliefs line up with biblical truth.
We’ve broken this overview into a few different sections:
Part 1:
- Exploring Historic Origins of the Trinity
- Triads & Trinities in Paganism
- A Curious Omission
- The Truth of the Godhead
Before going further, it is important to specify that we are not arguing for the absence of the Holy Spirit. We believe the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential in every area of life. What this post seeks to explore is whether or not the Holy Spirit is a “person” of the Godhead or simply the “Spirit of God”. In the end, we hope to clearly define that God the Father and the Lord Jesus are the two entities that exist in the Godhead.
>> Exploring Historic Origins of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity is among the most recognized teachings in Christendom. For many, it stands at the pinnacle of all other doctrines. But oddly, rather than being deeply understood as you might expect, it is mostly taken for granted to be true and can often be addressed by teachers with a “do not question” attitude.
But what we’d like to do is brush the dust off the Bibles ourselves and take a closer look at this teaching through the lens of the scriptures.
Interestingly, the Trinity doctrine is not taught explicitly anywhere in scripture – either the Old or New Testament. Of course, the Bible does not teach systematic doctrine, but to actually draw out the doctrine of the Trinity from scripture requires a lot of creativity. Truth be told, this doctrine was not formally introduced until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. – a politically motivated meeting, convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine. A rift over the Godhead had begun to gather momentum, and had become significant enough that the emperor called for this assembly of bishops.
One Christian scholar, John Anthony McGuckin, described what happened after this monumental event:
After the council, many of the same bishops who had signed its creed appeared at other councils, often reversing their previous decisions according to the way the winds of preferment were blowing.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions…”
Here we see that an unbaptized, politically savvy Emperor played a crucial role in this religious debate. Yet even after Nicea, debate continued for decades. It wasn’t until 381 A.D., when Theodosius was emperor, that the doctrine of the Trinity was articulated.
It is for these reasons that the Encyclopaedia Americana plainly states:
‘Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.’
As a side note, it was in a future council, similar to this one (The Third Ecumenical Council, 431 A.D.), that Mary veneration or worship was sanctioned and affirmed. In fact, in 379 A.D. praying to saints was authorized as valid. A whole host of other false doctrines can be found here. It was during these days, and before, that Christianity’s merging with pagan philosophy was taking place at unprecedented levels.
Despite how highly political these councils were, many Protestant churches look to some of the creeds they produced as the foundation of their faith. During these early days, the Trinity was positioned as a doctrine not to be understood, but rather to be believed in pure, simple, childlike faith. But a person looking to uncover truth today should not rest on the precepts of men, but rather weigh everything against the word of God as revealed in the Bible.
Here is a quote from researcher Robert Hermann: “It is a well confirmed historical fact that beginning in about 130 A.D. many of the Church Fathers – the Apologists – were converts from paganism and trained pagan philosophers. These included Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165), Tatian (ca. 200) and Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 160-200). Indeed their knowledge of the Old Testament came through their readings of the philosopher Philo. Tertullian explicitly employed written works of pagan philosophers in support of his Christian philosophy.”
Nothing is wrong with coming to Christ from a philosophical background. God is in the business of salvation from any background. But in the case of some, their philosophy entered in as well. Whereas the Apostle Paul discarded his accolades (Phil. 3), not all men did the same. In fact, as you read the epistles – Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John – we see all sorts of philosophy beginning to undermine the church. How much more after the departure of these stalwarts of the faith?
Thanks be to God we have the scriptures. We are not to build our teachings on the foundation of councils, but rather “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Eph 2:20). Where councils and scripture depart, we are to side with the latter.
It is important to note that various creeds and doctrines were established centuries after the early church went off the scene, and political intrigue, greed, power and manipulation became commonplace. Some have argued that the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity is that it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Why? Instead of growing through conversion, it grew by acquisition. Instead of replacing pagan religion, it incorporated it to a great extent. Other teachings were simply manufactured from thin air.
For example, the concept of Purgatory, little more than a ‘finishing school’ for the dead who are not deemed ready for heaven yet, is completely the creation of medieval imagination, used as a tool to enlarge the control and coffers of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, where many of these teachings originate, is built upon many such creeds which have been elevated above the scriptures. To make matters worse, for several centuries reading of the Bible by anyone other than clergy was virtually banned, ensuring that key teachings would never be questioned. For centuries, even church services were conducted in a language (Latin) that the common man could not understand. It was the Dark Ages indeed. Of course, the truth was never completely shrouded, though dissenters were quickly rooted out and destroyed.
Some relief came just before, during and after the time of the Reformation when the teachings and authority of the Catholic Church were questioned, and many truths were restored, but some ancient creeds and doctrines remain foundational for many of today’s churches and denominations. One of these is the Trinity. Another is Hell.
Isn’t it striking that one of the ‘pillars of Christianity’ didn’t come into existence until 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ? Is this the same foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone, or is it another? On this point alone, it is curious that we are encouraged not to question the doctrine. In the catechism of the Catholic Church, it is referred to as the “mystery of the most Holy Trinity.” Here is a quote from the catechism itself:
“The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the ‘hierarchy of the truths of faith.’” (Catechism, 234)
We will see shortly whether or not this “most fundamental” teaching has its roots and foundation in the scriptures. In our day, the World Council of Churches is insisting that all churches and religions that are members of the Council should advocate the belief that there is one God, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” That is, that there are three persons in one God.
But is it true? And if not, what are the implications? As the ”most fundamental and essential teaching” in Christendom, surely it is worth a closer look.
Even in the Catholic Church, questions have arisen around this teaching. In The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1965, p. 299-300) we find this:
“The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the fourth century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
Please read that again. We also have these words from Trinitarian philosopher, Emil Brunner (The Doctrine of God), who had this to say:
“The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine… It is the product of theological reflection upon the problem… The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity is not only the product of genuine Biblical thought, it is also the product of philosophical speculation, which is remote from the Bible.”
Why has it been made so complex to grasp what God was trying to make clear to us?
>> Triads & Trinities in Paganism
The concept of a triad or a trinity of gods was one of the earliest inventions of pagan religions. Of course, this fact alone doesn’t automatically mean that the Trinity teaching common in Christendom is false, but does raise some questions when all the evidence is considered together.
In the book ‘Egyptian Religion’, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular.”
Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there were superior gods who consisted of three persons in essence. For example, the Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent their concept of this three-in-one god. Is it possible that pagan concepts had some influence in the formation of this doctrine, just as Mary worship or defining December 25th as day of Jesus’ birth, were simply pagan ideas overlaid with a veneer of Christianity?
Think of it: the Babylonian concept of mother-and-child worship, originating with Semiramis (mother) and Tammuz (son), became the basis for Madonna-and-Child worship in Catholicism. Is it difficult to believe that the concept of the Trinity was also influenced by pagan sources? Especially when we consider that dozens and dozens of other pagan concepts were introduced in and around the same time, many of them found here.
As the secular historian William Durant observed that over the course of years, “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it…”
It should be pointed out that the translators of the Bible were so eager to solidify their belief in the Trinity that we come to a scripture like 1 John 5:7 which reads as follows in the King James Version: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This is a completely false rendering of the text, but has been sincerely used over the centuries to prove that the Trinity is biblical in its foundation. But it should read: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” If this were a simple slip or an error, it could be excused, but this is an intentional misrepresentation that raises questions about the motives of the translators at this time.
This is why it is so important to not simply ingest whatever is presented to us, but to diligently seek the truth as it is delivered in God’s word, as His Holy Spirit directs us. Look what Luke records of a group of people who did not swallow everything taught to them: ”Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11).
Image attribution: Skybase
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 7th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
So, you don’t like Constantine presiding over a council, but you think Will Durant’s assessment of Christianity.
I fully appreciate the concern to do diligence over the Scripture (ala the Bereans), but I sincerely believe that this is a non-issue. Maybe it wasn’t so much that the Christians ‘adopted paganism’ (as you assert) as much as they were clearly defining the muddled ideas of which paganism could only see through a mirror. You know, even Paul said something in Athens like, “what you worship as unknown, I make known to you.” He wasn’t saying that the unknown god was represented by the unnamed statue, but was, instead, pointing them in the direction they had been reaching and searching, groping for in the darkness.
Then again, what you say is a relatively recent development in systematic theology, I suggest goes all the way back to the book of Genesis, chapter 1, where the Spirit of God hovers, the Father speaks, and the Word creates. This is echoed in John 1, Mark 2, and so on.
jerry
Jerry, as alluded to in the introduction, this is a 2 part series. In the second part we deal with the scriptures, some of which you mentioned in your comment.
In terms of Durant, do you disagree with his comment? Even Catholics themselves will admit that a fair amount of paganism exists within their religion. Usually that is not disputed much, especially when you do the research. Anyways, to pit the motives of an historian against that of an emperor is not on balance.
IDo you dispute anything mentioned above? If so, which parts seem like a mischaracterization or over-statement that is not backed by history?
Again, I would recommend reading Part 2. Your comments on it would be welcome, especially the sub-section “A Strange Ommission.” What do you make of that?
To take the testimony of John 1 and Mark 2 as proof of the trinity is very weak. No one is denying that there is a Holy Spirit or the gifts of the Spirit, only that it is not a person. It is the Spirit of God. It is the unifying force between God the Father and His Son – as well as those adopted into the family of God.
Will Durant had an agenda that was decidedly anti-christian in sentiment. Historian he may have been, but friend of faith he was not. Of course he sees the church in that light!
And so what if ‘even Catholics admit…’. What has that to do with anything found in Scripture? You cannot quote Catholics as a source of authority and then accuse them of carrying negative theological weight because they have, allegedly, adopted pagan ideas into practice! That’s just not a good debating idea. What Catholic scholars can you reference that back up your claims? What early church fathers? Can you give me some reference points to check on my own?
And if you are willing to admit there is a ‘holy spirit’…well, I certainly do not see what point you are making by denying that the holy spirit is a person. Again, are you proposing to replace trinity with duality? Again, this is an even worse idea than trinity.
What do you gain or what cause do you advance in denying there is a person called ‘Holy Spirit’?
I didn’t say Mark 2 or John 1 was conclusive evidence of anything. I said that Mark 2 and John 1 echo what is written in Genesis 1…my point being, of course, that the Trinity is not a recent invention of a pagan roman emperor but the theological reality since the beginning of history. That’s a huge difference.
The vast, vast majority of Church historians, theologians, preachers, pew-sitters, scholars, etc disagree with your assessment. Can you reference, please, some current or at least recent evangelical scholars or preachers, well known, mainstream, peer-reviewed scholars who advance this idea of yours? I read a lot of books, and I have never read this idea (and you know that I don’t just read people I agree with!)
Jerry – will all due respect, your biggest challenge so far is that you have failed to read Part 2. Essentially, you are crying that we have only referenced 1 John 5 as our evidence, when in reality, the whole of Part 2 deals with the multiple scriptures you are looking for.
You make reference to ‘poor argument’. Well, I would advise that a much poorer argument stems from drawing your debating points after only hearing part of the argument. With this I think you would agree. Kindly read the second part.
You mischaracterize the argument made here saying we are basing our ideas on history from Durant. We have a single quote from the man – a reputable historian – and you claim that he is the basis. A little far-fetched and disingenuous. That’s very poor in my view. And to make your argument worse, you don’t debate the actual truth of his statement, you simply dismiss it on the basis of whether you find what you assume about him appealing.
Catholicism is rife with paganism from top-to-bottom. You can start here, but feel free to branch out on your own: http://www.themidnightcry.com/2010/11/the-perils-of-false-doctrine
Seeing as the Catholic Church is the originator of this doctrine (the Trinity), it only makes sense to address the fact that it was also responsible for introducing literally 100s of other false teachings. Any good discussion begins with the origins. Therefore it begs that a serious bible student would not take everything at face value, but take a more “Berean” approach.
You ask, “What do you gain or what cause do you advance in denying there is a person called ‘Holy Spirit’? ”
Are we not to know who we worship and who we pray to? A Catholic might ask, “What do you gain by dismissing Mary veneration and worship?” For the simple fact that it is false. Or, “If purgatory serves to give people comfort, why decry its teaching?” Because it is false and unbiblical. We serve a God who desires we know Him. Furthermore, the Bible is very clear about the Godhead (as we deal with in part 2 deals).
I might ask you, why are you so intent on defending a doctrine that is a ‘deviation from early Christian teaching.’ It can be proved false by relying on the testimony of scripture, without the filters of manmade teachings – especially a teaching that originated during one of the darkest times of church history.
You mention Genesis 1 as part of your defense of the trinity. To declare that Genesis 1 makes the trinity obvious is extremely wobbly. I have heard many defenses, but so far, this is the weakest. No one claimed the trinity was the invention of a pagan emperor, by the way.
In part 2 you will find we address some key areas:
- reading Rev 21 & 22, why are only God the Father and the Lamb mentioned, but not the Holy Spirit?
- why is every single one of Paul’s epistles are they introduced in the name of the Father and Son?
That’s for starters. Maybe you can answer these in a believable way. But the silence of the personage of the Holy Spirit is deafening.
You may call the argument made here as dualism, but I would not. There are simply 2 entities in the Godhead (as Rev 21/22 declare, as do all of Paul’s introductions). So what is our view of the Godhead? Simple:
“God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
If you find this odd, then I don’t know what can be said further.
..Christian tradition starts speaking of the Spirit by saying that the Holy Spirit is God based on the Bible. In a Barna survey in 1997 61 of US residents surveyed agreed with the.statement that the Holy Spirit is a symbol of Gods presence or power .but is not a living entity .