The following article is some questions which, in my decades of being a Calvinist Christian, I’ve suppressed, not daring to give them utterance lest I blaspheme. But in recent years I’ve read books and watched podcasts from various cults and Islam which have made me more alert to the problems in my own narrow abusive cult of evangelicalism, and I’ve become bolder in airing them. But each time I post it online, I withdraw it again because of the fear of being wrong and undermining another Christian’s faith.
I know that some of what I write here could be easily and rightly regarded as waffle; but that doesn’t worry me. I’ve written it for myself – it’s something I’ve wanted to do for some time now. I’m writing to challenge the creeds which have shaped my life, and my evolving understanding of God. It’s a kind of protest against so much which has kept me bound fast in fetters – narrow theology which doesn’t deserve to live; spiritual and psychological abuse by those leaders who should have nurtured me as a young Christian; and much more.
The doctrine of the Trinity is the most incoherent and illogical doctrine imaginable, and has caused multitudes of people to abandon Christianity. It took centuries for some of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church to formulate and define; and yet the doctrine still remains incomprehensible.
But despite the doctrine having been formulated, the doctrine itself is not clearly stated in the Bible. The elements of it are there but the best we can say is that The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; the final statement that these Three are One, is not given. So, we are left with various verses which attribute deity to each of the Three divine Persons but nothing to say they are one God….unless one takes into consideration the Johannine Comma. It states: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” (1 Jn 5:8 KJV/NKJV). Because of its dubious history and origin, it has been rejected by mainstream scholarship and is not included in any modern bible version.
The Athanasian and Nicene Creeds were and are widely accepted by all major branches of the Church. They are the source and the formula which is the Trinity. Christian understanding of a Trinitarian God comes from these Creeds. A person cannot be a Christian if they don’t accept and believe these creeds – this makes them dogma. Reading through them, one is struck by the illogicality and incomprehensibility of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.
God is not contingent
THIS IS IMPORTANT. It is fundamental to the three Abrahamic religions, and central to their theology of God. God, not being contingent, means that he depends on nothing and nobody whatsoever; he is self-existent; completely independent. If the whole of creation were to disappear, God would still “be”. If the creation disappeared, he would not miss it. And if he created another in its place, he would not be dependent on it; in fact, the opposite is the case – it would still depend totally on God for its existence. There was never a time when God “was not”, and there will never be a time when God “isn’t”. He “inhabits eternity” (Isa 57:15).
The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are more specific, stating that it is only the Father who is not contingent. This is the beginning of woes for the doctrine.
“I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible” (Nicene Creed).
“The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten” (Athanasian Creed).
Here are plain statements about the nature of God which would be acceptable to all who believe in God, whether orthodox Christian, Christian cult, or Muslim, provided that the understanding of “the Father” means God.
But things get a bit sticky when it comes to the Son and the Holy Spirit, the second and third divine Persons of the Trinity. Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit can be contingent because their existence depends on the Father. The creeds tell us that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father” (Nicene Creed).
“The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed).
“Eternally begotten” and “The Father eternally begets the Son” are simply gobbledygook theological terminology for something which is meaningless. How can anything be eternally begotten? The very term “beget” means there was a once-only beginning. It is impossible and unreasonable to say that anything or anyone can be eternally begotten; it is an oxymoron, i.e. contradictory terms appearing together.
This is a concept invented by Origen (185-254 CE), marking a significant stage in the centuries-long development of the doctrine of the Trinity. “Origen states that the generation of the Son is eternal and also continuous; the Father is begetting the Son at each instant” (The School of Alexandria – Origen – Ch 8 – God the Father – CopticChurch.net).
However, to “beget” means to bring something into existence; to cause; bring about; i.e. to give existence to something which previously had no existence. It is not a continuing action but a once-for-all event. If, as Origen claims, “the Father is begetting the Son at each instant”, the Son is in a state of continually being originated; his being and existence is continually being conceived and never reaching the natural consequence of being begotten. A created being is begotten in a moment and continues to grow and develop into its potential; but the Son can never reach his potential because he is in a state of being perpetually, endlessly, continually, begotten. The concept is ludicrous beyond comprehension and rationality.
Furthermore, for the Son to be begotten implies he had an origin; no matter how far back into eternity, there has to have been a beginning; the Son had to have had an origin. He can’t be being “eternally begotten” if he always existed. He can only be begotten, eternally or otherwise, if there was a time when he didn’t exist. (see Micah 5:2 in which the KJV has Jesus as being pre-existent, and NRSV and NIV have him as having an origin in ancient time).
The main issue here is that If Jesus is eternally being begotten by the Father, his being, his existence,depends on the Father. This means he is contingent; which means he is not self-existent; not independent; which means he is not God in the sense intended by these creeds.
The same logic applies to the Holy Spirit. His existence depends not only on the Father but also on the Son, because he is proceeding from them both. This means he, too, is contingent, dependent on the Father and the Son for existence; which means he is not self-existent, not independent; which means he is not God in the sense intended by these creeds.
Where are the pre-Creed Christians?
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly” (Athanasian Creed).
The Athanasian Creed is from the 5th or 6th century CE. What happened to those Christians in the years from the first Christians until then? Fortunately for many, the Second Council of Constantinople fully defined the Trinity in 381 CE; so this cuts the danger period in half. Even so, that’s still approx. 300 years of Christians (can I call them that?) who didn’t believe in the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity because they didn’t know about it yet.
Have they been excused because the doctrine of the Trinity hadn’t been fully worked out in those intervening years? One would reasonably think so. Are they in hell because they didn’t believe in the Trinity? Or in Purgatory, working off the sin of not believing in the Trinity? Are they safe in an eternal refuge with God despite not having believed that he is a God in three equally divine Persons, as described in this ridiculous Athanasian Creed?
Taking the creedal statement as stated, the answer is No; they all have “perished everlastingly”.
The Athanasian Creed is a dogmatic statement of faith made by the Catholic Church, so it can’t be changed; therefore, the statement which damns all who do not believe in the Trinity must be accepted. Furthermore, this penalty was physically enforced, under pain of death, by the Emperor.
But if all who didn’t believe in the Trinitarian statement of the Athanasian Creed have perished everlastingly, then all the Church Fathers and doctors and bishops and popes up to 381 CE have perished; but these were the men who were involved in the development of the doctrine, weren’t they? And all the Christians in the churches which the apostles founded are done for, gone, extinguished.
Even Tertullian, who coined the term “Trinity”, didn’t understand the Catholic doctrine fully, so he’s gone; Origen, who came up with the doozy that Jesus is eternally begotten by the Father, is also gone because he still didn’t understand the doctrine fully – and you can’t believe something if you don’t understand it. Athanasias (who didn’t write this Creed) was a staunch defender of a Trinity but he lucked out because he died in his ignorance in 373, just 8 years prior to the starting date of 381 CE when people could start getting saved because of the creedal definition of the Trinity. Even God’s unwillingness to allow people to perish (2 Pet 3:9) wouldn’t have come into force until 381 CE because the Athanasian Creed’s doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been defined. “This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved”. Sorry, guys. A dogma is a dogma.
God doesn’t change
God, speaking through the prophet Malachi, stated: “I, the LORD, do not change” (3:6 REB).
And yet, the Trinity took on an extra person – the human nature of Jesus:
“For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost…..Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person” (Athanasian Creed).
Have you ever read such drivel? The author should have been a politician.
This statement tells us that the Son – who is supposedly God – HAS changed. He has taken unto himself a human nature. So, he is no longer pure deity, purely of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit. His deity is still pure deity, but now it has forever been joined to a human nature. The Son has changed. In eternity he was 100% deity, no more, no less. But when he entered time through being born as a human, he irrevocably and everlastingly became the Man Jesus. His human nature was joined to the divine without fusion – the divine nature and the human nature were each 100% pure; yet they were joined in the one Jesus Christ where they exist separately to each other. But, the creeds tell us, they are one Christ.
How such a being could exist defies logic and rationality, and could send a person insane trying to understand it. This is evidenced by the fact that various controversies raged for several centuries over the humanity and deity of the Son, and how they work together; some thought he was an incorporeal being, a phantom; some thought Jesus was a human upon whom the divine Christ descended and inhabited at his baptism until Jesus went to the cross, at which time the divine Christ left him because he (Christ) cannot die; others questioned how divinity and humanity existed together in Christ; was the human nature absorbed by the divine nature; how many natures did he have; how many wills did he have. But the bottom line is that somehow Jesus took to himself a human nature, and they exist together in the one body.
Which can only mean that Jesus has changed – he is no longer just deity; he is now divine AND human; no longer God the Son but the God-man. Therefore, there must be four Persons in the Trinity. Therefore, the Trinity can no longer be a Trinity – it has become a Quadruple. Which means that God has changed. Even if one argues that the Son is still the Son, one Being – by taking a human nature to himself, he is different to what he was before his incarnation, before he became Jesus. So, he has changed. If something is different to what it was on an earlier occasion, it has changed – it is different; no longer the same.
Despite the semantics of bishops and scholars and church councils over the centuries, I don’t see how any other conclusion can be reached. Jesus was fully divine in eternity; now he is fully divine AND fully human! HE-HAS-CHANGED.
So, does this change mean he is no longer perfect? One cannot change perfection without corrupting it. Nothing can be taken from the perfect because that would make it less than perfect. Nothing can be added to it because that implies that it wasn’t perfect before the addition. Perfection is perfect. Any alteration to it of any kind makes it imperfect.
But…can adding a perfect human nature to a perfect divine nature retain perfection? Can two perfections be combined to make a single perfection? A human nature, even a sinless human nature, is intrinsically inferior to and less than God because it is a creation of God. So, logically, adding even a perfect creation detracts from the perfect; so, the perfect is no longer perfect.
Questions about the practicalities of the doctrine
Furthermore, if the Jesus of the gospels is both God and man, he is not like us; he is a unique Being, a demigod, more akin to the mythical Greek heroes such as Heracles or Perseus or Achilles who were each born of a god and a human being. He is not an angel because Hebrews 2:16 specifically states this; rather, “he took on him the seed of Abraham”. But how can he be a substitute for human beings when he isn’t one; he is a unique being; an immortal; while we humans are merely mortal and will perish when we die (1 Tim 1:17).
And how could he be truly tempted if God cannot be tempted (Jas 1:13)? In the Nestorian controversy, the orthodox theologians insisted that Mary must be called “Mother of God”, theotokos, rather than Nestorius’ claim that she was the mother of Christ. If Jesus is truly God, how can he be truly tempted? If only his human nature is the part of him which was tempted, did his divine nature step away, so to speak, and let him endure it? But that couldn’t be right because Jesus, the orthodox theologians in the Nestorian controversy tell us, is God. And God cannot be tempted, as the bible tells us.
No doubt, it’s questions such as these which gave rise to other heresies, one of which was how many wills does Jesus have. If the two wills of Christ are separate from each other, presumably Jesus could genuinely be tempted, and his human accept or reject the temptation. But how could one perfect human will contradict the one perfect divine will? It couldn’t, even if Jesus wanted to. No doubt, Satan genuinely confronted Jesus with real temptations, but he was wasting his time and effort because Jesus is unable to be tempted or to sin.
And if, as the orthodox theologians in the Nestorian controversy and the great creeds of the Church tell us, Jesus is God, how could he die? God cannot die – he is immortal. But when Jesus was on the cross, he suffered physical pain, thirst, and a sense of the immeasurable loss of the Father withdrawing from him; his spirit died and went to who knows where. He suffered all these human emotions and physical pain in his human nature. For this suffering, he could not draw on his divine nature for support or strength, and his divine nature could not reach out and help him in any way, otherwise his sufferings would not be his own exclusively, and they would therefore not count – he would be disqualified to be the true Substitute for human beings because of the limitless advantage given him by his divine nature.
So, given that Jesus suffered alone, except for the same kind of support which is accessible to humans by the Holy Spirit, what was the point of his divine nature? If Jesus achieved everything necessary to save humans in his human nature, why did the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, need to be born as a human being with true flesh and blood and nature? He doesn’t seem to have taken part in anything Jesus did, so why bother being begotten and born as a human person?
All this is doing my head in; but, whether right or wrong, I can’t not see these ramifications for the Trinity.
The Trinity is not Divine revelation
The Catholic doctrine of the Trinity was not revealed from heaven; it is an invention of the genius of the human mind, and became a dogma reached through the combined use of PAGAN Greek philosophy, which took several centuries to develop, formulate, and define, and making the bible verses say more than they actually state. And yet the Church condemns to hell any and all who do not accept it. This God does not do. But if the doctrine is not a divinely revealed doctrine, we must define what actually is stated in scripture.
How can we understand that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God as stated in various bible verses, and not conclude that there are Three Gods, or one God and two divinities? This is the only logical conclusion.
God should have told the Jews that he is now a Trinity
Another consideration is that God made clear to Israel that he is a Monad, (Deut 6:4; Isa 42:8; 43:10-12; 44:6-8), and insisted that Israel worship him as such. When they worshipped idols, he punished them by violently banishing them to a seventy-years captivity in a foreign land.
So why, when Jesus came, didn’t he tell Israel that God is a Trinity? If Jesus was sent to reveal God, why didn’t he mention the triune nature of God? A Roman coin had the exact image of the Roman emperor; it wasn’t the emperor; it was an exact image of him. So why do we take it that when Jesus is described as the exact image of God and the brightness of his glory (Heb 1:3), it is saying that he is the second Person of a divine Trinity? And why didn’t Jesus tell Israel that they now have to worship him as a Trinity?
But Jesus didn’t tell them that. Sometimes he called himself a prophet and distanced himself from any hint of being more than that. At other times he claimed deity, and the NT writers also claimed that for him. How can Jesus be with God and yet be God (Jn 1:1)?
If Israel was required to change their centuries-old understanding that God was a Monad, didn’t they deserve to be told by God that all their past understanding was now to be tipped upside-down, and he worshipped as an incomprehensible triune being?
None of this makes sense; and the confusion which resulted from the lack of clear revelation remains with us today, with Jews, Muslims, and many Christian groups understanding God as a Unity (Monad), and Catholic and Evangelical Christians understanding him as a Trinity.
“As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible”. The whole creedal statement is incomprehensible!