Does the Bible Teach the Trinity?

Trinitarians say that the one God is one and three. The Bible only says He is one.

Trinitarians say that Jesus has two natures, human and divine. The Bible only says he has a human nature.

Trinitarians want one to accept the trinity and hypostatic union as divine mysteries- they say that God has revealed these seemingly contradictory things. Both of these doctrines, they teach, are composed of two seemingly contradictory components, which together form a divine mystery, which, despite the apparent contradiction, must be taken on faith.

This might be fine, except for the fact that a major component of each of these supposed mysteries simply isn’t in the Bible- meaning that the doctrines designed to reconcile these contradictory components with each other are not divine mysteries, but man-made dilemmas. And these dilemmas are easily solved, not by appealing to mystery, but my sticking to only what’s revealed in the Bible- namely, that God is one, and Jesus is a man, the Son and Christ of God.

This line of reasoning is simple- but it holds true. For the Trinity to be an acceptable doctrine, it should be taught in the Bible. And for it to be taught in the Bible, at least two central components of the Trinity doctrine- that God is one, and that God is three, need to be present in the Bible. Yet, all through the Bible, God is only identified as being one. While He repeatedly declares His unity, He never says that He is three. One can search through the Bible from cover to cover, and will find countless declarations that God is one- but one will never ever find even one statement which declares that God is three, or that God is three-in-one, or that He is triune, tri-personal, or any other such thing. The point here is simply this: a major necessary component of the doctrine of the Trinity is never taught by the Bible. On the other hand, that God is one is repeatedly and clearly expressed in both the Old Testament and the New.

There are passages, of course, which mention three persons; there are several instances in the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of as three; however, this is not the same thing as saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the one God. Unitarians also believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -that these three exist is not at all the question at hand. Rather the question is, where are these three said to be the one God? None of the passages that mention these three together call them one God, or say that they are the same being- not a single passage. And in fact, in the majority of instances in which these three are mentioned together, the Father is simply called “God”, and the Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished as two others besides “God”. This fits perfectly with an understanding that God is one person, and that the Son and Holy Spirit are two others besides God, but does not support the notion that Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God.

Instances where Christ is called “God” or “a god” also don’t help the trinitarian case here; throughout the Bible, other beings besides the one God of Israel, YHVH, are called “gods”, including angels, and rulers in Israel, on account of the God-given authority and dominion they exercise within creation. In the case of Jesus, God’s human Messiah and Son, the title “God” (or “god”- there is no capitalization in NT Greek) serves the same purpose -a subject we shall return to later- denoting the God-given authority and dominion Jesus possesses as God’s appointed Lord over the universe.

As for the Holy Spirit being called “God” or “a god”, this is something which never occurs in the entire Bible. Where with Christ, the term “God” is at least applied to him, we have not even one clear instance of this with the Holy Spirit. There is one passage in Acts 5 which trinitarians often use as a proof-text for the Holy Spirit being God- but by the same logic some trinitarians use to try to ‘prove’ the Holy Spirit is God from Acts 5, one can also “prove” that the Holy Spirit is an angel from Acts 10. In fact, only by employing faulty logic and sloppy exegesis can either conclusion be achieved. Acts 5 never clearly calls the Holy Spirit ‘God’- rather is declares that just as by lying to Peter, Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit, so by lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias had lied to God. This no more proves the identity of God and the Holy Spirit than it proves the identity of the Holy Spirit with Peter. (See also: Twelve Arguments Showing the Holy Spirit is Not the One God).

The fact that the Bible never clearly calls the Holy Spirit “God” is rather damning for the doctrine of the Trinity- if one of the persons who is supposed to be a member of this triune God is never even called “God” once in the Bible, then it can never be fairly claimed that the Bible teaches the one God is three persons. Were the Holy Spirit called “God” or “a god”, this would hardly prove the trinitarian case- but this cannot even be said to occur. This inconvenient truth about the Holy Spirit is often ignored by trinitarian apologists. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link- if the Bible never even teaches the Holy Spirit is God, then it certainly cannot be said to teach that God is a Trinity.

This all begs the question, why should anyone believe that God is three, when God has never revealed this about Himself? If the one God never says it of Himself, Jesus never says it about God, or says about himself that he is a person of a triune God, and if the Holy Spirit, in all the scriptures he inspired, never saw fit to mention this supposedly important doctrine even once, then on what good grounds should we believe that God is three? This question is only aggravated by the fact that it seems obvious that for God to be both one and three is a contradiction, especially when it is asserted particularly that God is one and three in the same sense, as many trinitarians do.

Now, if God did indeed reveal that He is both one and three, then this contradiction need not bother us- God is far above us, and we might well accept it as a divine mystery; something God understands that we cannot, which should be accepted on the basis of God’s trustworthy testimony about Himself, despite the fact we cannot understand it. We ought to have no problem, inherently, with the idea of divine mystery, or with believing in something we cannot fully understand. The problem is, God never revealed this. If that’s true, then this will never be a matter of how much we trust God over our own understanding- rather its a matter of people trying to impose on us a very significant belief about God, which God has never revealed to us or given us any reason to believe about Himself.

Our loyalty must be to God, not mere tradition, or social acceptance. There’s a real social cost to not believing the doctrine of the Trinity- but that’s okay. We should desire first and foremost the truth about God, and trust God with the consequences of believing that truth. The fact that God only ever revealed that He is one, and never that He is three, should in itself cause us to reject the Trinity, and to insist that any who would have us believe it provide clear biblical proof that God has claimed to be not only one, but also three – and such proof they will not be able to find.

It ought to be our assumption, when we see that God has revealed Himself to be one, and is consistently spoken of as a single person (for instance, by the use of singular personal pronouns), that He is only one, and not three (for this three-ness appears to contradict His unity, which we already know is true); and anyone who would insist that we must also hold what appears to then be a contradictory notion about God, that He is also three in addition to being one, should not be heeded unless they can do so on the basis of irrefutable scriptural evidence. Otherwise, we risk carelessly compromising what God has clearly revealed about Himself for something He has not, a mere invention of men, or rather, doctrine of demons.

Hear O Israel! YHVH our God, YHVH is one.

Deuteronomy 6:4

Test all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 Thessalonians 5:21

When we consider the doctrine of the dual-natures of Christ, we are confronted with a similar situation as we are with the Trinity- two essential elements of the doctrine, which appear contradictory, are put together to form what is regarded as a divine mystery- that Jesus has both a human and a divine nature. However, the Bible only speaks of Jesus having a human nature, and never asserts that he possesses any other. One may scour the Bible from one end to the other on this subject, and find references to Christ being ontologically human abound- in the the Pentateuch, through the Prophets, and into the gospels, and in the writings of the apostles after, we repeatedly and clearly see Jesus predicted to be a man, said to have been a man, call himself a man, and be asserted again and again to have been a man by his apostles.

We need to consider what that means- to call someone a man includes, implicitly, a statement of that person’s nature. Jesus belongs to the human species, that’s the kind of being the Bible tells us he is, unambiguously. In not one of these cases where Jesus is called a man is his humanity ever qualified, either, as we might expect if he actually had another nature as well- never does a biblical author take the time to clarify or specify that their words should not be understood how they sound on a bare surface reading, as telling you that the kind of being Jesus is is a human being. The reader is left to understand that Jesus is a ontologically a man, and nothing else.

Surely this is the impression that those who were familiar with Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah had, when they heard their God would raise up a prophet like Moses from among their own brethren, and that the Messiah would be a descendant of David, and surely those who first heard the preaching of the apostles in the book of Acts would have understood nothing more than this either, as the apostles repeatedly declare Jesus to be a man, but never once in all their preaching mention him having a divine nature.

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—  this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”

Peter, Acts 2:22-23 NASB

All in all, then, the Bible gives us a clear picture of Jesus Christ as a man, and as having a human nature. The same cannot be said about having a second, divine nature. Not a single verse in the Bible asserts that Jesus has a “divine nature” or any nature other than a human nature. Instances where Jesus is referred to as “God” (or “god”-there is no capitalization in Greek), cannot reasonably be taken as referring to a nature Jesus possesses, because biblically speaking, Godhood is not a nature or a species to which an individual may belong, but rather, to be “God” or “a god” denotes dominion and authority. For this reason, human judges and rulers, and angels as well, are called “gods” in the Bible, without impiety or absurdity.

We see Godhood spoken of this way in respect to YHVH all the time- He is called the “God of Israel”, “God over all”, the “God of gods”, “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”, etc. and is called “my God”, “your God”, “our God” etc. Why do the Bible, and the people who speak in it, employ all this possessive language? Notice that we wouldn’t speak in a similar way of some ontological attribute or species, but we would of other relational roles. This can be shown by an easy test: try inserting “eternal” into those phrases in place of the word “God”, and see if they make any sense. Then try inserting “King” or “Lord” and see if they sound sensible, and that should show you which of those sorts of things Godhood is parallel to in biblical thinking.

Biblically, then, a person being called “God” or “a god” does not denote an ontological status or a nature, nor does it identify that person with the one God, YHVH. If it did, God would have to be something much more than a mere Trinity in order to accompany the multitude of persons beside Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the Bible calls “gods”. But if we think about Godhood with a biblical mindset, we will understand that a person being called a “god” in the Bible simply denotes authority and dominion, and does not identify the person bearing the label with the “God of gods”, the one God, YHVH.

What we have then, is scripture clearly presenting the Messiah, Jesus, as a man, and never telling us that he is ontologically, or in respect to nature, something other than a man. Like other men in the Bible, he can be referred to as a god- that simply fits the pattern of how scripture speaks, and should be expected. If angels on account of their authority can be called “gods”, then how much more so can he who has been given all authority in heaven and earth by the only true God? If judges in Israel can be called “gods”, how much more so can he through whom God will judge the entire world? I would suggest it should not surprise us or bother in the slightest that the human Messiah is called ‘our god’ in light of all this. This isn’t a statement of nature, but of status and authority.

In light of all this, then we are given reason by the Bible to only think that Jesus has a human nature- no other nature is ever revealed to us. There is no reason, then, to try to embrace the apparent contradiction of single individual possessing two distinct natures- something which makes no sense, and which we have no example of with anything else in the universe. If the Bible revealed such a thing, we should accept it, trusting God’s wisdom above our own, and being content to not understand things that are above us. But as with the Trinity, God never revealed this. Our acceptance of such a doctrine then cannot be seen as a test of how much we trust God over our own reason, but rather, whether we will restrict ourselves to what God has actually revealed about His Son, or embrace something foreign to that revelation, which appears to contradict it.

We should be very cautious about accepting something which seems to contradict what God has revealed about Himself and His Son. When God reveals He is one, we should not be willing to accept the contradictory notion that He is three, unless He Himself reveals this to us. Likewise, when God reveals that His Son is a man, we should not be willing to accept the contradictory notion that he is also ontologically God, without some clear revelation from God on this point. Otherwise, if we accept these doctrines without warrant from God’s own revelation, we risk simply contradicting God on these important matters. And such clear revelation in favor of the Trinity and dual-natures of Christ, we do not have. With that being the case, no Christian can be said to have good reason to accept the doctrine that God is triune or that the man Jesus possesses a second, divine nature. Rather, we should embrace without reservation the clear biblical teachings that God is one, and that Jesus His Son and Messiah is a man.

Arguments For Unitarianism

Is the Son Co-eternal With the Father?

Trinitarians place heavy emphasis on the idea that Jesus, the Son of God, is “co-eternal” with God his Father. What is meant by this is not simply that Jesus is eternal in the sense that he is everlasting and will live forever, as God his Father does, for this is a point upon which Trinitarians and Unitarians agree. Rather the emphasis of trinitarians on this point is that the Son is co-eternal with the Father in the sense that He is co-eval with Him; that as long as God has existed (which is always, and without beginning) the Son has existed as well.

This doctrine of past co-eternality, or coevality (that the Son is as old as the Father) is never stated in the Bible. Common texts alleged in support of the doctrine do not state it directly, but are rather the subject of argument by inference. Ultimately the philosophical and doctrinal presuppositions about time a person brings to these biblical texts will significantly affect their reading of the various passages alleged in favor of co-eternality. But to understand whether or not the Son is co-eternal with the Father, do we really need to dive deep into speculation about the nature of time? Or does the Bible actually provide us with clear answers?

While the Bible never expressly teaches ‘co-eternality’, it does, to the surprise of some, say things that are incompatible with it. Firstly, a text commonly noted by opponents of co-eternality is 1 Chronicles 17:13:

“I will be his father and he shall be My son”

This text in which God speaks to King David has often been taken as a Messianic text, having not only reference to Solomon, David’s immediate heir, but also to the future Christ, the Son of David, who would sit on David’s throne forever in God’s kingdom. Notice that God did not say that He already was the Father of David’s son, but that He “will be” Father to David’s descendant in the future; likewise, the Messiah is not presently said to be God’s son, but it is promised that he “shall be My son” in the future. If Jesus already existed at this time in history as God’s co-eternal Son, it seems very strange indeed that this relationship is spoken of only as something to come in the future and not something which existed at present.

There is another passage which is even clearer than this at dispelling the notion that Christ is co-eval with the Father, 1 Peter 1:20:

For He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

1 Peter 1:20-21 NASB

This one verse disproves the theory that the Son is coeval with the Father; for to foreknow (or foreordain) is to know (or ordain) beforehand; and so if God foreknew His Christ, of necessity He must have been before Christ. If Christ had been literally pre-existing with God, then it would not be said that God foreknew Christ, but simply that He knew him.

It is, then, a necessary implication of this text that God was before His Christ, and therefore, that Christ was after his Father -or else it would not be possible for Peter to have said that God foreknew Christ. Again, were Christ co-eternal with the Father as trinitarians say, this passage would not say that Jesus was foreknown by God, but simply that God knew Him. But by saying that God foreknew Christ, Peter puts God chronologically before Christ.

Its a great blessing that the Bible actually supplies us an answer to the otherwise highly philosophical and speculative question of co-eternality. No amount of extra-biblical philosophical speculation or human tradition can compare to the witness of the Bible itself. The apostle Peter was clear: God foreknew Christ before the foundation of the world, and so it necessarily follows from this that the Father is before Christ, and that Christ is after the Father, not co-eternal or coeval with Him.

We might end by noting that the amount of weight trinitarians place upon the doctrine of co-eternality is downright dangerous- they declare that a person is anathema (accursed) and excommunicate from the body of Christ if they do not agree that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, all while this doctrine is not only absent from the Bible itself, but actually opposed to its teaching. Is the apostle Peter anathema? The modern Christian must judge if they will be better served to side with the beloved disciple of the Lord Jesus, or the council of Nicea on this matter.

Arguments For Unitarianism

Is the Trinity Necessary For Salvation?

What does a person need to believe to be saved?

To Christians this is an important question; not so that we can bash people over the head with the label ‘heretic’ who don’t meet that standard, but for sake of evangelism to the world. We are, after all, called to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19); one of the church’s greatest missions on earth, and one of the greatest ways she shows her love for her Lord, is to seek the salvation of the lost. This is something that should be near and dear to the heart of all Christians then, firstly as we ourselves know the great value of salvation, which should motivate us to share that with others; and secondly, if we genuinely love God and the Lord Jesus Christ, we will genuinely love and care about our fellow man as They do, and desire man’s salvation, to the glory of God.

The question of ‘what does a person need to believe to be saved?’ then, is very important one to be able to answer, if we are going to try to reach the lost. Faith is of course required for salvation; it is upon grounds of faith and repentance that scripture teaches a person may be baptized as a Christian and received into the fellowship of the church. But faith in which doctrines is required? Scripture, after all, teaches many doctrines; which together comprise “the faith handed down once for all”, as Jude calls it (Jude 1:3). Yet, scripture does not teach that a person must know and believe everything revealed in the holy scripture to be saved.

Rather scripture distinguishes between doctrinal ‘milk’ and doctrinal ‘meat’; there are some doctrines suited for new believers, who are not spiritually mature or discerning, and some that are suited for more mature believers. Less mature believers, which scripture at times refers to as “carnal” and ‘immature’ may not be able or willing to accept the ‘meatier’ doctrines of the faith right away; yet scripture does not for that reason declare these believers to be any less true Christians than those who are more mature. Scripture itself then distinguishes between parts of the faith which are required for all Christians to believe, and those which are not required to be saved, but are to be learned and accepted by the spiritually mature.

“Concerning him [Melchizedek] we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.” Hebrews 5:11-6:2 (NASB)

The “faith handed down once for all”, then, is much broader than what scripture calls the “gospel” or “foundation”. The gospel, or foundation, is what is must be known and believed in order to be saved; its acceptance is required for Christian baptism or reception into the church as a believer. The other doctrines of the faith are not required for Christian baptism, yet, they are true, revealed doctrines, that can be known with certainty to be true on the basis of the holy scriptures. These ‘meaty’ doctrines cover a much wider variety of topics than the gospel does, and include more detail on topics that are aspects of the gospel; and these doctrines, as true, known, revealed doctrines, are worthy to be taught, preached, believed, and known by Christians as important parts of that faith handed down once for all. Yet, their importance and value does not make them part of the gospel; and while knowledge and assent to them can be reasonably expected to accompany growth as a Christian, as one matures in their understanding and studies the scriptures, they are never to be added to the gospel as something which must be known and believed in order to be saved.

For when answering the question, ‘what must a person believe to be saved?’, we can err in one of two ways in answering this question, by either setting the bar too high, and requiring more of people than God does, or by setting it too low, and thereby giving people a false assurance of salvation when they have not met God’s standard. Both are serious problems; adding to the gospel can do great harm by making someone to trust in something other than the provision God has made for their salvation to save them; it can also simply set a stumbling block before them to accepting the gospel at all.

An example of this is found in the ‘Judaizers’, early Christian teachers who taught that in addition to believing the gospel preached by the apostles, a person must also be baptized and observe the law of Moses to be saved. This addition to the gospel, if believed, would cause a person to not only trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation, but also their works of fleshly circumcision and law-keeping; and by causing a person to not trust solely in God’s provision for them, could jeopardize their own salvation, scripture tells us (Gal 5:4). In response to these teachings, the apostle Paul wrote:

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel more than what we have preached to you, he is to be anathema! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel more than what you received, he is to be anathema!” Galatians 1:8-9 (NASB)

The above anathemas, or, declarations of curses, are one major motivation for us to not add to the gospel. Besides the great harm doing so can cause to others, scripture tells us that the one who preaches a gospel more than what the apostles taught is anathema, or accursed. This does not include merely the particular additions of the false teachers Paul was dealing with, but any addition to the gospel. That includes other works besides circumcision and those of the Mosaic law, as well as false doctrines. But let us also note that in addition to works and false doctrines, true doctrines which are not part of the gospel would be equally prohibited; for it is just as much an addition to the gospel to preach some revealed, true doctrine, that God has given as ‘meat for the mature’ as part of the gospel, as it is to add anything else to it.

This serves to greatly highlight how important the distinction between doctrinal ‘milk’ and ‘meat’ is then; for to mix them up, and to give doctrinal meat to spiritual infants as something that they must know and believe in order to be saved, may not only present an enormous stumbling block to those who are being saved, but may cause us to fall under the anathemas given by the apostle Paul. We may not add anything to the gospel of Christ, as preached by His apostles- even true doctrines which have been handed down by those same apostles as part of the Christian faith. We may not safely lay any other foundation, or preach any other gospel, than what the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ preached. Thus we have very good reason to want to be careful that we do not add anything to the gospel.

But we must avoid the opposite extreme of detracting from the gospel as well; for if we risk great injury by adding to it, we must remember that a watered-down gospel poses an equally serious problem; there are things scripture tells us must be believed by a person in order to be saved, in order to qualify for Christian baptism, or to be received into Christian churches as a brother in the Lord. A watered down version of this, missing some required component, will not be able to save a person.

An example of this is the Docetist heresy faced by the early church during the lifetime of the apostles. These false teachers taught that the Lord Jesus Christ had not really come in the flesh; He was, according to them, a mere phantasm or spirit of some kind, which although it appeared human, was not human. And so, they detracted from the gospel preached by the apostles Christ’s real humanity, and with it, His real suffering and death on our behalf, and His real bodily resurrection. In short, they preached a different Christ than the apostles. Although they would have affirmed parts of the gospel, their denial of other parts of it disqualified them from really being Christians in the eyes of the apostles; for scripture teaches that in order to be saved, one must believe the entire gospel. Thus 2 John 7:10 tells us Docestists were to be regarded as antichrists and false teachers, and to be rejected from Christian fellowship.

All this should highlight how important it is to get the gospel right; if we preach a gospel less than that of the apostles, it is insufficient to save; and if we preach a gospel more than the apostles, we ourselves are anathema. So scripture presents this as something which we must get right, neither adding to nor subtracting from the gospel.

What then, is the gospel? It is not, as we have said, all things taught in the scriptures; for many of those doctrine, while part of the Christian faith, are not part of the foundation, the gospel, required for Christian baptism, but are intended to be learned and known by those growing into spiritual maturity. And it certainly does not include anything not delivered in the holy scriptures; for although we may speculate about things not revealed, no such thing can be part of the gospel, for we have the gospel preached by the apostles repeated many times in the scriptures, full, and complete. The gospel is then, that simple message preached by the apostles, which men, upon believing and repenting towards God, could receive Christian baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). It then must surely include faith in “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”; and as we read earlier, the foundation includes teaching regarding “repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.” (Heb 6:1-2 NASB). The gospel is likewise summed up by Paul:

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.” 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (NASB)

The good news of God’s coming kingdom, over which Christ is God’s appointed king, is also an important aspect of the gospel:

“Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.” Matthew 4:23 (NASB)

“But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” Acts 8:12 (NASB)

This may sound like a lot, but ultimately, this gospel is simple. Combined with the teaching of the apostles throughout the book of Acts, we might sum up the gospel, or doctrinal “foundation” of Christianity as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible;

And in the man Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord, Who was crucified, died for our sins, and was buried, and on the third day rose again from the dead; Who ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from which He shall come to judge the living and the dead;

And in the Holy Spirit;

And in the resurrection of the flesh, eternal judgement, the kingdom of God and Christ, and the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. Amen.

This simple creed may sound familiar as the ‘rule of faith’ so frequently referred to by early church fathers in their writings as the doctrinal standard of their day. Creeds like this would typically be used as baptismal creeds; a summary of a person’s faith in Christ to be recited at the time of baptism. Belief in said faith and repentance from one’s sins was the only requirement for baptism for the remission of sins, and with it, reception into the Christian church.

This summary encapsulates the message found throughout the book of Acts as preached by the apostles. It includes all the elements of faith listed in Hebrews 6 (faith towards God, in the resurrection of the dead, and in judgment with eternal consequences), and the main points of Paul’s summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, including the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It includes faith in the only true God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ; for one can hardly believe that Jesus is the Christ of God, the anointed of God, without believing in the God whose Christ and Son He is. “For He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.” 1 Peter 1:20-21 (NASB). It includes all that according to Jesus is necessary for eternal life; “This is eternal life, that they may know You [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” John 17:3 (NASB). In short, it includes everything that scripture reveals to us is part of the gospel, everything that during the ministry of the apostles, a person was expected to know and believe in order to be a Christian.

Its just as noteworthy what is not included here as what is. Notice that it does not include any teaching that a person needed to become a member of one particular church; in baptism a person became a member of the body of Christ, and as such, was qualified to become a member of a local church, but membership within a certain local church was not part of what saved a person. Likewise, while acceptance of a gospel other than that of the apostles could cause a person to “fall from grace”, and trusting in any other gospel was dangerous, notice that the gospel preached by the apostles did not include any very detailed teaching on soteriology. A person was to understand that they were receiving salvation, including forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit, as a gift from God on the basis of their faith in the gospel and their repentance; but the detailed mechanics of soteriology were not included in the gospel. For instance, when Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 2, or to the gentile Cornelius and his household in Acts 10, detailed breakdowns of God’s foreknowledge and predestination never seem to have entered the discussion, although scripture includes teaching on these subjects.

Its also worth considering what teaching about the Trinity is included in this apostolic gospel. Faith in the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the one God, the Maker of all things, was included; and although with many audiences in the book of Acts this point was able to be assumed and built upon by the apostles without much explanation, we see that when Paul preached to those not familiar with the Old Testament and the God of the Bible, he spent considerable time beginning his presentation of the gospel with an explanation of Who the one God is, as we see when he preached to the Athenians in Acts 17.

Regarding the Lord Jesus Christ we may note that his humanity is frequently asserted, as are the details of his life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, and the goos news of his kingdom. His role as God’s appointed Christ, Lord, King, Savior, and Judge features heavily in the apostles preaching, and the fact that God will judge all men through the Lord Jesus Christ is emphasized much.

But it is very noteworthy that there is basically no mention whatsoever of the Lord’s pre-existence or divinity in any sermon in the book of Acts, or in any of the first three gospels; He is only spoken of as a man empowered, appointed, and sent by God. This indicates that even if these doctrines are true, delivered as part of the faith handed down once for all, they are not part of the gospel, or something required to be known and believed to be saved. The fact that, according to the book of Acts, basically everyone who heard the apostles preach would have been entirely ignorant of these doctrines when they were baptized for the remission of sins and reconciled to God, shows us that they are not part of the gospel which must be known and believed to be saved.

Finally it may come as a shock that while belief in the Holy Spirit can seen to be required by the baptismal formula’s inclusion of the name of the Holy Spirit, basically no detail about the Holy Spirit seems to have been required to be known or believed. Bare belief that, in addition to God and His Christ there is also a Holy Spirit, seems to have been enough for the apostles to view someone as having sufficient faith to receive baptism. Notice that not only is the Holy Spirit never explicitly taught to be God or to possess a divine nature, but it is also never even clarified that the Holy Spirit is a person. The personhood of the Holy Spirit is taught by scripture, and can be known with certainty to be a true doctrine; yet this is never shown to be a point emphasized as necessary to be understood in order to be saved.

Its noteworthy that the details of trinitarian doctrine are absent from the gospel. Of course there is an enormous amount that God has revealed to us about Himself, His Son, and His Spirit; there is much scripture says concerning the relationships between these persons, their roles, their attributes, etc. Yet these truths are not therefore part of the gospel, but are rather valuable truths revealed to us that we may grow in the knowledge of God and Christ as we mature in the faith. And if those many details revealed in scripture pertaining to these things are not part of the gospel, how much less could anyone rightly think that any extra-biblical speculation, or mere theories, or plausibilities, which are not revealed in the scriptures themselves, are part of the gospel?

Whatever one wishes to guess or theorize about concerning the nature of the Son or the Holy Spirit, or if the Son was begotten by the Father before the world was and literally pre-existed his conception in Mary, or other such questions, cannot even be regarded as truly being part of the Christian faith, unless they are delivered as such in the Bible; much less can they be considered to somehow be required of anyone for salvation, or made a requirement to be imposed upon a person without which they cannot receive Christian baptism, or be admitted to, or remain a member of, a Christian church.

Those then who believe such doctrines to be required for salvation should examine themselves and their beliefs closely, to see if these things they say are necessary for salvation really have warrant from the scriptures as such. For despite whatever any council or pope may have said, the anathemas of the apostle Paul, or rather, the Lord Jesus who spoke by him, will be of more weight than any decision of theirs; and when God has declared that no man may add to the gospel of His Son without being accursed, let us not suppose that popes and councils may have made it otherwise, or done anything to controvert what the Lord has said. Anyone who adds to the gospel preached by the apostles is, according to the scriptures, anathema; let us each beware lest that be us.

Finally, let us beware of any doctrine which so contradicts the rule of faith as to deny any part of it; for just as the Docetists denied the humanity of the Lord Jesus, and the Gnostics denied the Father of the Lord Jesus, teaching that He is not the one God, the Almighty, the Maker of all things, but that He was one of multiple Gods, and another besides the Maker of all; so too other false teachings have since arisen which deny the gospel as well.

Today there are still some who deny the true humanity and death of the Son of God; there are many who deny that the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God; modalism is today a rampant heresy, deceiving many, which, by making God and Christ one and the same, denies the Father and the Son, the first article and the second article of the rule of faith. For one does not believe that Jesus is the Christ of God, if they believe that He is the God Whose Christ He is supposed to be; and they do not believe that He is the Son of God, if He is the same God Whose Son He is supposed to be. For these do not really believe in a Christ of God or Son of God at all, but simply believe in a God which takes on Himself the role of Christ, who may be called both Father and Son.

General

What is Biblical Unitarianism?

What is Biblical Unitarianism?

In the name “Biblical Unitarianism”, “Biblical” denotes faith in the Bible; serving to distinguish from Unitarian Universalists, a liberal non-Christian group. “Unitarian” simply refers to the belief that the one God of the Bible is only one person, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. A “Biblical Unitarian” then is a Bible-believing Christian who believes that the God of the Bible is one person, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than a Trinity of three persons. Biblical Unitarians believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but do not believe that they are all one God; rather, the one God is the Father alone.

Biblical Unitarians note that in the Bible, God is never spoken of as being a Trinity, or as being multiple persons. Rather, they note that all throughout the Bible, God is always spoken of as a single person, indicated by the use of hundreds of singular personal pronouns, and that the one God is expressly equated with the person of the Father alone several times:

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 NKJV

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

John 17:1-3 NKJV

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Jude 1:24-25 NASB

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Ephesians 4:4-6 NASB

These passages of scripture all expressly equate the one God of the Bible with only one person, the person Jesus calls His God and Father. Biblical Unitarians note that Jesus never claimed to be the one God, but rather taught things which clearly distinguish Him as another person or being besides God:

“Believe in God, believe also in me.” -Jesus, John 14:1 NKJV

“Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.” -Jesus, John 8:54 NKJV

“I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.” -Jesus, John 20:17 NKJV

Biblical Unitarians thus conclude that Jesus is not the one God of Israel, but another person and being besides the one God- His only-begotten Son, His appointed Christ, the one mediator between God and man, as the following texts say:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” -John, John 3:16 NASB

“The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.” -Peter, Acts 3:13 NASB

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” -Peter, Acts 2:36 NASB

“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” -Paul, 1 Timothy 2:5 NASB

Biblical Unitarians note that the apostles call Jesus a man, repeatedly, and without qualification; for this reason, Biblical Unitarians confess that Jesus Christ is a true man, fathered uniquely by God in the womb of Mary, by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Not only did Jesus’s apostles call him a man, but he also called himself a man -and so do the Old Testament scriptures:

“But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.” -John 8:40 NASB

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—” -Peter, Acts 2:22 NASB

“Because [God] has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” -Paul, Acts 17:31 NASB

“He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” -Isaiah 53:3 NASB

Thus the simple confession that the one God is one person, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that Jesus is the human Son and Christ of God, forms the heart of Biblical Unitarian faith in God and Christ.

But what about the traditional doctrine of the Trinity? That there exists one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Biblical Unitarians note that besides the fact that this doctrine is absent from the Bible, it also conflicts with several things the Bible teaches. If we have to choose between tradition and scripture, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29 NASB). We must “Test all things, and hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess 5:21) rather than simply believing something because it is traditional. Biblical Unitarians note that the doctrine of a triune God is incompatible with some of the Bible’s clear teachings about God and Jesus. Where the doctrine of a triune God teaches that the Father and Son are equal and identical, the Bible repeatedly marks God and Jesus as distinct and different from one another:

  1. God is the Almighty (Greek “Pantokrator”, meaning, ‘Ruler over all’); He is supreme in authority over all (Rev 4:8, 2 Cor 6:18). Jesus is subject and obedient to the Father as His God, and so is not supreme over all in authority (1 Cor 11:3, 1 Cor 15:28).
  2. God is uncaused, the Maker of all things. Jesus is caused by the Father, as the very name ‘Son’ implies; He also expressly declares that He lives because of the Father (Jn 6:57).
  3. God is immutable, meaning He is eternally unchanging. He is also not a man, for the Bible says “God is not a man” in Numbers 23:19, and “For I am the LORD, I do not change” in Malachi 3:6. Thus it is impossible that God would have gone from not being a man to being a man, as this would obviously be a change in God. This contradicts the Trinitarian teaching that the one God became a man.
  4. God is invisible, having never been seen by man, and is declared to be incapable of being seen (1 Tim 6:16). “No one has seen God at any time.” -1 John 4:12 NKJV. Yet Jesus Christ was seen.
  5. God is omniscient; He knows all things absolutely (1 Jn 3:20). Jesus declares plainly that He did not know something, which only the Father knew: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” -Mark 13:32 NKJV. If only the Father and no other person knows this, then the Father alone knows all things; and so, the one God, Who knows all things, must be only one person, the Father, and no other.
  6. God is immortal; He is not subject to death (1 Tim 1:17). Whatever death is, an immortal being, by definition, cannot experience it. Yet Jesus Christ died (and rose from the dead); and this is a central part of the gospel. “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” -Romans 5:8 NKJV
  7. God cannot be tempted by evil”; yet Jesus “was tempted in all things” (Ja 1:13, Heb 4:15).
  8. Jesus is the Christ of God; that is, the anointed king, prophet, and priest of God, sent and empowered by God. Is the one sent by God the same as He Who sent? Is the one who is anointed the same as He Who anoints?
  9. Jesus is the Son of God; and no son is the same individual being as their father.
  10. Jesus is the one mediator between God and man, and by definition, no mediator is a party to their own mediation. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” -1 Timothy 2:5 NKJV. Notice, Jesus is simply described as a “man”, not a “God-man”, as trinitarianism says.
  11. Jesus is the Lord appointed by God over the universe, subject to God. “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” -Acts 2:36 NKJV. A person who is the one God has no need to be made Lord by God, for God has always been Lord.
  12. Jesus is the High Priest of God; a high priest worships His God, and is necessarily distinguished from the God whose priest he is. “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” -Hebrews 4:14 NKJV.

Biblical Unitarians note that these truths about God and Christ make it impossible to reasonably believe that they are together one being or one God. Rather, the one true God, the God of the Bible, is only one person, the one Jesus Christ calls His God and Father.

Arguments For Unitarianism General

100 Biblical Arguments For Unitarianism

The following was written in 1825 by Samuel Barrett (Boston: American Unitarian Association).

Unitarian Christians believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Saviour of men. They believe in the divinity of his mission and in the divinity of his doctrines. They believe that the Gospel which he proclaimed came from God; that the knowledge it imparts, the morality it enjoins, the spirit it breathes, the acceptance it provides, the promises it makes, the prospects it exhibits, the rewards it proposes, the punishments it threatens, all proceed from the Great Jehovah. But they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Supreme God. They believe that, though exalted far above all other created intelligences, he is a being distinct from, inferior to, and dependent upon, the Father Almighty. For this belief they urge, among other reasons, the following arguments from the Scriptures.

1. Because Jesus Christ is represented by the sacred writers to be as distinct a being from God the Father as one man is distinct from another. “It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me,” John 8:17, 18.

Arguments For Unitarianism

Why Can’t Protestants Affirm the Athanasian Creed?

The pseudo-athanasian creed, usually simply referred to by its supporters by the misleading name of ‘the Athanasian Creed’, was neither authored by Athanasius, nor does it represent his understanding of the Trinity. Athanasius strongly affirmed, for example, that the one God is the first person of the Trinity in particular, the Father:

“But if this is not to be seen, but while the creatures are many, the Word is one, any one will collect from this, that the Son differs from all, and is not on a level with the creatures, but proper to the Father. Hence there are not many Words, but one only Word of the one Father, and one Image of the one God.” (Against the Arians, Discourse II.)

“For, as the illustration shows, we do not introduce three Origins or three Fathers, as the followers of Marcion and Manichæus; since we have not suggested the image of three suns, but sun and radiance. And one is the light from the sun in the radiance; and so we know of but one origin; and the All-framing Word we profess to have no other manner of godhead, than that of the Only God, because He is born from Him.” (Against the Arians, Discourse III.)

We see that unlike the creed, Athanasius’s theology was marked by a confession that the one God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ; and Christ stands in relation to the one God, as His Word and Son. Rather than being truly Athanasian, then, in reality the pseudo-Athanasian Creed is representative of early medieval scholastic articulations of the Trinity, especially following the theology of Augustine.

Despite the creed’s anonymous authorship and its theological clash with the real teaching of Athanasius, it has gained very wide acceptance in the west, in traditions which in some way stem from that latin medieval scholastic tradition, out of which it was formed. Not only do the Roman Catholics affirm it, but also Lutherans, many Anglicans, Presbyterians, and other Protestant groups. It is regarded by many Protestants (falsely so) to be an ecumenical creed; yet this is of course impossible, when we consider the contents of it in relation to the Eastern churches. Many Eastern Orthodox, for example, not only affirm the monarchical trinitarianism Athanasius taught in opposition to Augustinian semi-modalism, but they also universally reject the filoque- the doctrine that the Holy Spirit not only eternally proceeds from the Father, but also from the Son (‘filoque’ means, ‘and the Son’).

Yet, despite the creed being paraded around under so many false pretenses (false authorship, false claim to conceptually Athanasian theology, false claim to being ecumenical) it stills finds acceptance among many tradition-loving Protestants. I want to briefly observe here that this is in fact, grossly inconsistent with the founding principles and ideas of Protestantism; and this is not a difficult point to demonstrate. To do so, we need not dive into the theology presented in the creed itself, but only note that which frames the confession. It begins by saying:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

After 25 lengthly lines of words about the Trinity, we read:

“He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.”

After going on talking about the incarnation for many more lines, the creed closes by reiterating:

“This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.”

Perhaps the only thing in the entire creed that can truly be said to be clear or intelligible to the average person, are these threats against the eternal salvation of anyone who dares not lend their assent to all the things this creed says. Yet, as we noted above, this creed goes into detail explaining not only what is more widely accepted regarding the Trinity by those following Nicea, but a specifically western, latin, and augustinian version of these doctrines. It includes this line, for example, that no professing Christian from, or in agreement with the Eastern Orthodox churches, would ever assent to:

“The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

Here we can spot the filoque -the Holy Spirit is said not only to proceed from the Father, but also the Son. This doctrine is repugnant to all Eastern Orthodox, and anyone in the West who happens to side with them on this point. Yet, here it is included in this creed, among things which, according to the repeated expression of the same creed, must be believed in order to be saved, and without which, no one can be saved. In other words, everything in the creed is effectively part of the gospel; for that which must be believed to be saved, and receive Christian baptism, and to be received into Christian fellowship, is the gospel. All then which is included in this creed is gospel, apart from which there is no salvation; for “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”

Yet, such a confession is completely opposed to the founding principles of Protestantism; among which, is that no one may add to or alter the gospel preached by the apostles. For it was on account of this very sin that the various Protestant groups have felt free to depart from the Roman Catholic church, and often to declare it no church at all. They rightly appeal to these verses:

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel more than what we have preached to you, he is to be anathema! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel more than what you received, he is to be anathema!” (Galatians 1:6-9 NASB)

‘Anathema’ simply means accursed, and has since the time of the above epistle’s authorship frequently been declared by churches upon those they consider heretics. In this case, there can be no question the legitimacy of the anathemas; these are not the decisions of any human council, but of an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. But they no not anathematize a trinitarian error: they anathematize anyone who preaches a gospel more than what the apostles preached. This is extremely serious; anyone adding to the gospel, by doing so, jeopardizes their own standing, according to scripture.

For this reason, Protestants rightly protested various ways in which the Roman church had added to and/or altered the apostolic gospel. Yet, here we see a great hypocrisy among many Protestants: while condemning others for altering the gospel, they do so themselves, by adding so many lines of incoherent ramblings about the Trinity to the gospel. And, if one of them should argue that every line of those Augustinian speculations is not only biblical, but part of the gospel, he shall have an enormously difficult time trying to prove that even a small portion of it was preached by the apostles as part of the gospel. For all through the book of Acts, we see men were saved by believing a gospel that included almost none of what the pseudo-athanasian creed says. If this is so, then the doctrines of the creed are not part of the apostolic gospel- and to add them to that gospel, is to be accursed by Paul himself, who spoke in the authority of the Lord Jesus, under the inspiration of the Spirit.

But one will argue that all of Augustine’s dogmas are found in scripture, and perhaps that they are even part of the gospel; so be it, we need not address this question, to prove that the creed adds to the gospel. The Protestants who accept the creed need only answer this question: is it possible for one to be saved without believing the filoque? Or put another way, is the filoque itself part of the gospel, and so, something which a person must believe to be a Christian?

If they answer ‘no’, they do well, in not adding to the gospel, and avoiding the anathemas of Galatians chapter one. But if this is so, then why do they affirm a creed which adds to the gospel? By teaching people to believe that creed, they will by their own admission be encouraging people to learn from it a gospel more than that preached by the apostles. If, on the other hand, they should answer in the affirmative, and say that the filoque is part of the gospel, and required for salvation, they will be far more consistent in affirming the creed; only they will have this problem, that they are anathema. For by adding to the gospel, as they say Rome does, they are just as accursed as they say Rome is, for the same sin.

It is plain then that no Protestant can consistently affirm the pseudo-Athanasian creed, unless they are prepared to deny the possibility of salvation of everyone who sides against the filoque; namely, all Eastern Christians, and all western Christians who agree with them. If they do, they certainly add to the gospel, by teaching that which the apostles did not teach is required for salvation. If they do not however wish to proclaim all Christians who do not believe the filoque to be damned, then let them forsake the pseudo-athanasian creed as something wicked, as something which adds to the apostolic gospel and is anathema for it. For if one can be saved while rejecting the filoque, what good will come from reciting a creed which damns to hell those who you admit may well be your brothers in Christ, over such a minor disagreement? For the creed is as unbending as it is incoherent: there is no leeway given to accept the greater part of it, yet reject some, but it declares “This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.”

It is the duty of all true Christians to reject additions to the gospel, and to preserve whole and intact the gospel, as preached and delivered by the apostles. We have no right to add any doctrine or work to it, which they themselves did not enjoin as part of it. Yet that is precisely what this creed does. Given the pattern of the Roman church, it is unsurprising that they rush into this great sin; but those who keep themselves separate from the Roman church on that very account, would do well to pay heed that they do not, like the Roman church, add to the gospel by way of this wretched creed. Those that do, are inconsistent Protestants; they ought either to reject the creed for its additions to the gospel, or else side with Rome, and accept all of their additions to the gospel beyond that found in this creed, if additions to the gospel are acceptable.

Uncategorized

Could the One God Become a Man?

Modalism and all its variations face a significant problem with the Lord Jesus Christ. These theologies teach that the Son of God is the same individual being as the Father; they are together the one God, the same sole Supreme Being. The Son, in these views, is just as much the one God as the Father is. But if that is so- if the Lord Jesus Christ is Himself a person, mode, subsistence, or part of the Supreme Being in some way, can He also be a man?

Arguments For Unitarianism