Be careful that you don’t let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

²⁹For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. ³⁰Men will arise from among your own selves, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them… ³²Now, brothers, I entrust you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build up, and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:29–32)

In the last section our goal was to restore the biblical meanings of several basic, core terms, such as “Son of God,” “Son of Man,” and “The Anointed One” (or “Christ”). When these terms are correctly understood in their biblical context and meaning, it is easy to recognize when false imitations are being introduced. As Christians, we have many Scriptures warning us to beware of and reject false teachers and counterfeit gospels. The verses above are just a small sample. Since we are called to “worship” in “spirit and in truth,” it is critical to rightly discern between truth and error.

The intent in this section is to show the exact methods and a few of the actual sources that have been used to corrupt these concepts away from simple, biblical meanings. We will start by showing how the Trinitarians adopted extrabiblical sources, and then show how Onenessians apply the same false methods to come up with their ideas.

This chapter will show that the earliest Christians did not believe in a Trinity at all, and that it truly was a later invention and development. Subsequent chapters in this section will show how the Onenessians followed the examples, and even adopted some of the extrabiblical teachings, of the Trinitarians in formulating their unique view.

Most Onenessians are aware that the Trinity owes its doctrine to pagan views and concepts. Onenessians are typically against adopting pagan concepts by which to view God. Most Onenessians realize that adopting pagan doctrines doesn’t make those concepts “Christian”; it just makes those Christians who adopt paganism into idolaters. What most Onenessians aren’t aware of is just how dependent the Oneness doctrine is upon many of those same pagan concepts, just not the obvious one of three gods.

We must forewarn you that this chapter, by the nature of its subject matter, will be much deeper and more complex than previous chapters. That is because the biblical Jesus is simple, whereas the unbiblical Jesus is complex and complicated. This chapter, by exposing the very complicated nature of both Trinitarianism and Onenessianism, will demonstrate how their positions complicate an otherwise very simple truth: the Son of God doctrine.

The issue we want to address now is “ coincidences vs. influences.” For example, Trinitarians have long been accused of being influenced by and adopting a form of polytheism (many-god-ism) from pagan cultures. A typical Trinitarian response is that any similarity is merely coincidental. So we want to show enough of the evidence to convince any discerning soul that pagan influence upon the Trinity is a valid charge and that we can rule out their claim of mere coincidence. (This isn’t intended to be a thorough piece against the Trinity. For that, see the author’s 2nd Edition of “God is One and Christ is All: Biblical Truth Against the Trinity.”)

In this first chapter of this section we will show the nuts and bolts of the exact method Trinitarians use to justify resorting to pagan “categories of thought” in their attempt to “prove” the Trinity is biblical. This method is one that Jesus himself clearly defined. He called it “setting aside the commandment of God, and holding tightly to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8).

³…Why do you also disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition?… ⁷You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, ⁸“These people draw near to me with their mouth, And honor me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. ⁹And in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrine rules made by men.” (Matthew 15:3–9)

Together with Onenessians, we know the Trinity originated in the ancient triads of the pagan gods. These triads evolved into distinct persons during the period of the Neoplatonists and antichristian Gnostics during the first and second centuries of our era. This idea was soundly repudiated by Irenaeus in the mid- to late-second century. Then Tertullian and his contemporaries directly adopted the ideas from the antichristian Gnostic Valentinus.

Following, in the words of one Trinitarian author (Carl Brumbach) quoting another (A. H. Strong), is one of the ways they attempt to justify the development of the Trinity. This quote provides us with a good example of the subtle errors of interpretation that Trinitarians make. He is writing defensively in response to an accusation that the Trinity was a fourth century invention, along with other novelties such as Mariolatry, infallibility of the Pope, purgatory, and so forth.

Tertullian, who wrote during the early years of the church (190–211), is generally credited with being the first to use the term Trinity. It is obvious that the term predated the Roman Catholic era… It must be admitted that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed during the centuries in which the Romanesque errors were being introduced and developed. This, however, does not necessitate the belief that it is of Romanist origin … Please observe that I do not state that the doctrine of the Trinity was introduced during these post-apostolic years. It… “was implicitly held by the apostles and other NT writers in their declaration with regard to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, even though they did not formulate it as a precise doctrine. They held it, as it were, in solution; only time, reflection, and the shock of controversy and opposition caused it to crystallize into definite and dogmatic form.” It should be understood that the men who sat in the various councils and forged the creeds adopted there were only attempting to place in theological terminology that which they believed to be biblical teaching . Carl Brumbach, God in Three Persons: A Trinitarian Answer to the Oneness or ‘Jesus Only’ Doctrine Concerning the Godhead and Water Baptism, (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1998), 20–21. He is quoting A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 304.

On the surface this all may sound fairly reasonable, but as we are about to show, this “explanation” has all the characteristics of the devil’s method of interpreting the Bible. Notice how he admits that the apostles did not “formulate [the Trinity] as a precise doctrine.” That is an admission that the apostles did not openly proclaim (preach) what Trinitarians believe. So the Trinity was developed directly against the NT command to preach no other Jesus!

Next we’re going to show how our circles of discernment (from Chapter Two) expose, in a practical way, the Trinitarian dogma as a teaching that, undeniably, can only be found through the left-handed circle approach of biblical interpretation. Unfortunately, the Trinity is not the simplicity of Christ, so we will have to wade into some of the ugly depths of its complexity in order to suitably address it. As we will show with graphics, Trinitarians are not without their own falsely applied proof texts! But what will become clear is how dependent the Trinity is on stretching the gray-area verses beyond their original intent.

The next part of the quote from our Trinitarian author is:

Tertullian… is generally credited with being the first to use the term Trinity. It is obvious that the term predated the Roman Catholic era… It must be admitted that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed during the centuries in which the Romanesque errors were being introduced…This… does not necessitate the belief that it is of Romanist origin… Brumbach, ibid.

This statement is full of half-truths that attempt to hide the real issues. First, it is true that Tertullian held an earlier version of a Trinitarian position, but it was definitely not the same one as was developed later (thus, a half-truth). It is also correct that early forms of the Trinity doctrine predated Constantine and the Council of Nicaea by more than a hundred years. So it is actually only half true that non-Trinitarians are creating a straw-man argument when they accuse the Trinity of being “invented” in the fourth century at the Council of Nicaea. The subtlety of error lies in the fact that there is a huge difference between something being “invented” and something being “developed.” It would be like saying, “man has had cell phones for decades, because the telegraph was invented long ago”! The fact is that the Trinity of the fourth century developed far beyond what theologians such as Tertullian would have recognized. Tertullian was in fact far from being a Nicene (“coequal/coeternal”) Trinitarian.

However, that still isn’t the root of the matter. There is yet another truth that is being dodged and covered up: Tertullian wasn’t the first to say “Trinity”. This means it is very misleading to claim that “Tertullian is generally credited with being the first to use the term Trinity.” The truth is that the antichristian Gnostics were the first Trinitarians, and they were also the ones who actually first used the word Trinity. And it was directly from the antichristian Gnostics that Tertullian, by his own confession, adopted the core idea of the Trinity: the emanation of one god from another. In other words, the above Trinitarian, though trying very hard to make his defense appear to be technically accurate, attempts to convey some very misleading and thus totally deceptive information. In particular, he hides the actual origin of the word and concept of the Trinity. Furthermore, while it is accurate that certain forms of a Trinity existed before the fourth century, it is far, far from the truth to state or imply that the Trinitarian views of the fourth century originated in early apostolic Christianity, or that they were ever held by any Trinitarians at all before the fourth century. And that is the real issue! Sadly, Christians need to be on guard for these types of deceptive theological smokescreens!

The acclaimed historian of Christian dogma, Adolf von Harnack (see ccel.org/ccel/harnack), referred to and agreed with historian Charles Bigg (mentioned earlier), that the antichristian Gnostics were the first to use the word “Trinity.” Harnack pointed out that the Gnostics were also the first to speak of the persons as being “of one substance” (homoousios). This was before Nicaea, and before Tertullian. It means that Nicene Trinitarianism owes its main technical terms of trias (Trinity) and homoousios (one substance/essence) to the antichristian Gnostics.

Here is what Harnack has to say:

The Gnostic terminologies within the Æon speculations were partly reproduced among the Catholic theologians of the third century; most important is it that the Gnostics have already made use of the concept ‘homoousios’; see Iren., I. 5. I,… I.5.4,… I.5.5…In all these cases the word means ‘of one substance.’… Other terms also which have acquired great significance in the Church since the days of Origen (e.g., agénnetos) are found among the Gnostics… Bigg. (1. c. p. 58, note 3) calls attention to the appearance of trias in Excerpt. ex. Theodotus § 80, perhaps the earliest passage. Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogm a (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2005), I, 259: “The Attempts Of The Gnostics To Create An Apostolic Dogmatic, And A Christian Theology; Or, The Acute Secularising Of Christianity,” § 3, footnote 357.

The Greek word trias is the equivalent to the English word trinity and the Latin word trinitas (that Tertullian used). The word Trinity did not originate with Tertullian, but with the antichristian Gnostics! This alone ought to alert any sensible Christian that the Trinity was not an apostolic teaching, but originated as an antichristian teaching!

A current historian, Christopher Stead, agrees that the word homoousios (meaning “of the same substance,” an essential component of Nicene Trinitarian dogma) originated with the Gnostics. That is, it is an antichristian invention ! This is the origin of the Trinitarian idea that God is three persons in “one substance” (homoousios).

The word homoousios, usually translated ‘consubstantial’ or ‘coessential’, appears to have been introduced by Gnostic Christians of the second century… It originally meant, ‘having the same substance’, ousia…It thus means roughly, ‘made of the same… kind of stuff.’ Christopher Stead, Divine Substance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 190.

Furthermore, Tertullian even admitted that he was teaching a revised form of the same Gnosticism that the infamous Gnostic Valentinus had been teaching. In fact, Tertullian also admitted that he was introducing a doctrine—the emanation [prolation] of one god out of another—just as Valentinus did!

…I am introducing…one thing out of another, as Valentinus does …wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are…emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. Tertullian, Against Praxeus, Chapter 8.

Emanations of substances, without separation from the parent, are not the same as a birth of a son or daughter where an umbilical is severed. Thus, Tertullian, under the influence of antichristians, just redefined God’s “son” in an antichristian fashion. This same unbiblical gnostic redefinition has tainted the Trinity doctrine to this day.

This is how Tertullian, one of the earlier Trinitarians, introduced into the supposedly non-Gnostic assembly, the Valentinian Gnostic idea of a projection of one god-being out from another god-being, without separating him from the first god-being. Tertullian’s pregnant little statement about “emanations of substances” is actually the signature mark of antichristianism that John warned us about in saying it is an antichristian spirit that doesn’t confess Christ coming in the flesh.

Trinitarians, such as Brumbach, whom we are currently examining, want you to believe that the Nicenes were only formalizing what earlier Christians always believed. The problem with that claim is that the earliest apostolic Christians expressly did not believe in a Trinity at all, and the earliest Trinitarians (such as Gnostics, and Tertullian after them) believed in the Trinity in a form that later Trinitarians would condemn as absolute, intolerable heresy!

So how do we know that earlier Christians “expressly” did not believe in the Trinity? Irenaeus is a great source of information. He predated Tertullian by a generation, and he has always been considered to hold (for the most part) right teachings, both in his day and since. Note what Irenaeus said in the following quotation. He was speaking of antichristian Gnostics, and he wrote quite clearly against the idea of a production of one god out of another at all, from any angle or perspective!

They affirm (that this emission took place) just as a ray proceeds from the sun , then, as the subjacent air which receives the ray must have had an existence prior to it, so (by such reasoning) they will indicate that there was something in existence, into which the intelligence of God was sent forth, capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 13, par. 4–6.

Here Irenaeus shows us that Tertullian’s later “ray from the sun” idea also originated with the antichristian Gnostics. This antichristian view and expression eventually made it into the creeds that were formulated by Trinitarians in the fourth century. The creeds of Trinitarianism are forever tainted with this antichristian understanding.

This passage of Irenaeus also exposes the farce of Gnosticism and Trinitarianism. It is, according to Irenaeus, ridiculous to emit a God-being into nothing, especially since it never left its original place. He is effectively describing the same hoax as the eternally begotten son of Trinitarianism, only he was writing before the so-called “orthodox” Christians adopted the “emanation” idea from the Gnostics (and thus became ‘Trinitarians’).

Irenaeus also addressed and opposed the exact view the Nicene Trinitarians eventually “developed.” He went on to say, “If, again, they affirm that that (intelligence) was not sent forth beyond the Father, but within the Father Himself , then, in the first place, it becomes superfluous to say that it was sent forth at all .”

This is an accusation that points directly at the Trinity dogma. This is absolute proof that the earlier apostolic, non-Gnostic Christians were not Trinitarians, and for today’s Trinitarians to say that later Trinitarians just crystallized what was always believed is a blatant lie! What Irenaeus did was to totally denounce the concept that the word “Trinity” is a label of. But Irenaeus has done us a greater service than using an ambiguous label; he has precisely described the belief of the antichristian Gnostics, who first introduced the belief of one god being begotten from another god. This was a real and serious heresy according to Irenaeus!

Trinitarians, just as some Gnostics, don’t believe the Son was sent forth beyond the Father, but was within the godhead before creation. We quoted Tertullian a bit earlier, who said this exact thing: “The Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from him.” According to Tertullian, the Trinitarian Word wasn’t born out of the Father into something else. Irenaeus says that such thinking makes the relationship between the Father and his begotten son, superfluous—meaningless and valueless. Therefore, just as in antichristian Gnosticism, there was no point, purpose, or result in the begetting of the Son in the Trinitarian godhead. And that is exactly what the Trinitarian eternal begetting of the Son is. The Trinitarian “eternal son” is as eternally superfluous as the Gnostic one is according to early Christians like Irenaeus. And that is because the Trinity is just a refined continuation of the Gnosticism adopted by Tertullian.

These statements by Irenaeus prove that he didn’t believe in any generation of the Son of God before creation, let alone the “eternal generation” doctrine of later Trinitarians introduced by Origen. And just as importantly, such quotes prove that the Trinitarians of the fourth century were not simply “crystallizing” what Trinitarians had “always believed.” They were modifying it because it really didn’t make sense. In other words, they had to cover up the first lies with more fabrications.

Which leads us to ask, where did the Gnostics get this idea of multiple persons in the godhead? Answer—it is a concept that was also being taught by the pagan philosopher Numenius. It is in philosophy that we find the real source of the Trinity’s idea of “persons” in the godhead.

In this next quote, you will see the Trinitarian source for speaking of God in materialistic terms. You will also see the source for the “light from light” doctrine of Trinitarianism’s Nicene Creed. And that source is pagan philosophy , as is spelled out by the philosopher Numenius:

But as the second (Divinity) is double, he himself produces the Idea of himself, and the World, inasmuch as his nature is that of a Creator , although he himself remains intelligible… The First God may not undertake creation, and therefore the First God must be considered as the Father of the Creating Divinity … When, however, the Divine is communicated, and passed over from the one to the other, it does not leave the Giver while being of service to the Receiver; not only does the Giver not lose anything thereby, but he gains this further advantage, the memory of his giving (or generosity). This beautiful process occurs with knowledge, by which the Receiver profits, as well as the Giver. This can be seenwhen one candle receives light from another by mere touch; the fire was not taken away from the other, but its component Matter was kindled by the fire of the other. -As quoted in The Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius, trans. Kenneth Guthrie (Lawrence, KS: Selene Books, [1917], rpt. 1987), 26–30.

As is quite obvious, this is certainly not the simplicity of Christ that the apostle warned us not to be moved from. However, this is the pagan philosophical source of “persons” in the godhead. This is where the concept of the Trinity actually came from: pagan philosophy. But you don’t have to take our word for it; one of the main defenders of the Nicene Trinity admitted they got the idea of “persons” in the godhead from Greek philosophy:

…The mystery [meaning the Trinity]… is separate as to personality yet is not divided as to subject matter. For, in personality, the Spirit is one thing and the Word another, and yet again that from which the Word and Spirit is [i.e., the Father is], another [person]. But… the one First Cause is not split and cut up into differing Godships, neither does the statement harmonize with the Jewish dogma, but the truth passes in the mean between these two [Greek and Jewish] conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word, and by the belief in the Spirit; while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the Nature… While yet again, of the Jewish conception, let the unity of the Nature stand; and of the [pagan/Greek] Hellenistic, only the distinction as to persons… Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 1, 3.

Here we have one of the champions of Trinitarianism openly admitting that they had destroyed Jewish monotheism. This is how the Trinity dogma destroys the Jewish view of God. When a man-made idol is worshiped in the place of God, it is called idolatry. That is what Gregory has created: an idol. Such a blatant rejection of the Jew’s understanding of what God is, as we see here, is exactly the opposite of the position held by Jesus when he said, “we worship that which we know” in John 4:22.

Just by its complexity we can see the similarity the Trinity has with philosophy, which is also certainly not the simplicity of Christ. The main point is that Gregory of Nyssa said that the concept of the “persons” in the Trinitarian godhead came from pagan philosophy: “accepting what is useful from each… of the Hellenistic… the distinction as to persons…” That is a confession that they got the concept of persons in the godhead from pagan, Greek, Hellenistic philosophy! So once again, no, the Trinitarians were not merely crystallizing what earlier Christians always believed. In actuality, they were purposely interpreting the Bible through their philosophic lenses and imposing those ideas on biblical expressions, thereby replacing biblical truth with a source that is outside of the “faith once delivered to the saints.”

By adopting the pagan idea that the Son was an “emanation of the substance of the Father” (as the sun emanates a ray), the Trinitarians enabled themselves to openly deny that the actual son was made of flesh and made of his mother, Mary. This is according to explicit statements from Athanasius, the champion of Nicene Trinitarianism:

…nor, as man from man, has the Son been begotten… ‘Son’ is nothing else than what is generated from the Father. Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 5, par. 14.

…We are driven to say that what is from the essence of the Father, and proper to him, is entirely the Son… that which is begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed essence . Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of his own essence; nor do we imply affection or division of God’s essence, when we speak of ‘Son’ and ‘Offspring’; but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe. Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 5, par. 16.

Considering what John wrote in his epistles about people who deny Christ coming in the flesh, this admission that the Trinitarian son is of no other essence than that of the Father ought to be a shocking revelation indeed! But instead, Trinitarians are all too willing to be duped into accepting this antichristian view!

This is how Trinitarianism denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. They do so by claiming belief in a son who is of no other substance than deific substance. That means flesh is excluded. John told us that to deny that Jesus came in the flesh (that is, was made of flesh) is to be antichrist. Trinitarianism explicitly rejects the biblical one and only begotten Son of God, who is the one that God swore to David would be the offspring of David. From this point, any claim that Trinitarians believe in a human son should be regarded as lip service.

That’s because, when Trinitarians say they believe in the Son, they aren’t necessarily saying they believe in the Son who was made of a woman, made under the law. They are saying the Son they actually confess only appeared to be human, temporarily. While inwardly and consciously, in their view, he always remained “God” being made of no other substance than that of God.

In assuming that “son” can only mean an offspring of a father’s essence, Trinitarians are guilty of forgetting how often the Bible uses figures of speech. For example, in Genesis 4:20 we are told “Jabal… was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock,” and then in verse 21 we are told “Jubal… was the father of all who handle the harp and pipe.” Think how foolish someone would appear if they were to claim that these verses absolutely prove that only people who are the genetic offspring of Jabal dwell in tents and have livestock, and only those who are descendants of Jubal play musical instruments. This is a case of demanding the literal when the intention was figurative.

Another clear example of this particular idiom is found in Romans 4:11, which says that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might also be accounted to them.” Are we to take this literally, that only those who are the biological offspring of Abraham will ever have faith? No, obviously not; in fact the following verse explains that Abraham was “the father of circumcision to those who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncircumcision” (Romans 4:12). It is in just such a way that the Bible explains that the word father can be used for the first person to set an example which other people follow.

In John 8 we have yet another clear example explaining this very principle:

³⁸I say the things which I have seen with my Father; and you also do the things which you have seen with your father. ³⁹They answered him, “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. ⁴⁰But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham didn’t do this. ⁴¹You do the works of your father.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father, God.” ⁴²Therefore Jesus said to them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven’t come of myself, but he sent me. ⁴³Why don’t you understand my speech? Because you can’t hear my word. ⁴⁴You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:38–44

Think about this: did Jesus just claim that these Jews had seen the devil? Well, that’s what Jesus said, but that isn’t what he literally meant. It is ironic that people will say Jesus must be God because he claims to have seen the Father, but they have no problem seeing that these Jews didn’t literally have to have seen the devil for Jesus to claim they had. Yet Jesus said they saw their father, the devil, in the same way he had seen and thereby followed his father. This is how Jesus explains the manner in which God is his Father. Out of all human-kind, only Jesus can make this claim: that he alone has unwaveringly said and done the things shown and taught to him by the Father. That is what God foresaw and what God foreordained regarding His son.

Jesus went on to explain that if they were Abraham’s children in truth (meaning in a way that truly fits the figurative speech describing Abraham as their example), then they would have done the works of Abraham. That is, they would have followed in Abraham’s example. Yet they kept insisting, belligerently, on a literal, natural interpretation. This is what Trinitarians do when they claim Jesus had to be an offspring of the Father’s essence to truly be the Son of God. But that isn’t what the Bible explains. What the Bible explains is that those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God:

¹⁴For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are children of God. ¹⁵For you didn’t receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” ¹⁶The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. (Romans 8:14–16)

Beloved, now we are children [sons] of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that, when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is. (1 John 3:2)

¹⁴Do all things without murmurings and disputes, ¹⁵that you may become blameless and harmless, children [sons] of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you are seen as lights in the world. (Philippians 2:14–15)

We are sons of God by our actions, not by our essence. Now look how silly it sounds to insist that being a son of God necessarily means being the offspring of God’s essence. If that is the case, then none of us have any hope of ever being God’s children. Fortunately, that isn’t the case, and those who deny it are simply mistaken because they insist on interpreting everything carnally rather than really hearing what the Bible explains. And so it is with their view of Jesus as the Son of God. Rather than hearing the scripture where God promised David that his offspring would be God’s Son, they insist on an unbiblical, pagan, gnostic view that Jesus could only be the Son of God if he is indeed an offspring of God’s very essence. This is what the gnostic “light-from-light” doctrine is really all about: exchanging the biblical Son of God for the antichristian abomination.

Athanasius Said, If The Son Isn’t Deific Substance Then There is No Trinity

As if all of this weren’t enough to expose the Trinity as neo-Gnostic heresy, Athanasius himself tells us that if the Son is made of flesh, then there can be no Trinity doctrine. He declares that if the Son is made of anything else but the “Father’s essence” (which necessarily excludes his mother Mary’s essence), then there is not and never was a Trinity. He can be so candid because he is writing against the Arians, who do believe in a Trinity but a different type of Trinity than Athanasius believes in. The circumstance doesn’t change the fact that Athanasius bluntly stated: if the Son was made of humanity, in the process of time, then the Trinity is no Trinity because these concepts are incompatible.

… And further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father’s essence, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the Triad consists, and once there was not a Triad, but a Monad; and a Triad once with deficiency, and then complete; deficient, before the Son was originated, complete when he had come to be; and henceforth a thing originated is reckoned with the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and glory with him who was ever. Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Chapter 6, par. 17.

With these words Athanasius rejected the biblical, prophetic promise of a human savior. The son didn’t “come of nothing,” the son “came of Mary.” Athanasius absolutely denied the scriptural human son, born and made of the seed of Eve, Abraham, and David, according to the flesh. He denied the Son that God Himself said He would be a Father to in a future tense. Athanasius stated that if the Son the Bible describes is true, then there is no such thing as a Trinity. Athanasius further denied the true humanity of the Son in the following statement:

…Things originate, being from nothing, and not being before their origination, because, in truth, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to his essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself. Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 10, par. 36.

All things that are created originated from nothing, including the entire human race. According to Athanasius, Jesus could not be a member of the human race and also their deific savior. This is why he had to envision Jesus as emanated from “no other than” the father’s essence or substance. This is why they adopted the pagan “light from light” doctrine. Because, they reasoned, if Jesus was truly God, then he couldn’t be partially God (and the Father couldn’t be partially God either by sharing His deity with the Son). Thus they created two gods, with the understanding that those two retained “one substance” and therefore (they supposed) weren’t polytheistic deities. The pagan and Gnostic “light from light” doctrine enabled Athanasius and his ilk to think like this.

If you will notice, in the “light from light” graphic, there are now two flames; that is how they made God into two and three Gods. This illustrates their reasoning that, since it is the same substance, they were still retaining the concept of “one God” that the Bible demands. That was the big issue in the debates in the fourth century: Arians believed the Son was made of a “similar” substance, but the Athanasians insisted the Son had to be the exact same substance if he were truly to be fully God. However, they were all just deceiving themselves. There is no Scripture explaining any of this, and it was in fact an idea that came to them straight from paganism.

Athanasius was also just restating Gnostic doctrine. The Gnostics taught that the Son took nothing from the woman who bore him, but passed through her without being changed. The Scriptures described the Son completely differently than the Gnostics and their Trinitarian descendants. The Bible (Hebrews 2:14–18) says that the Son had to be made like his brothers in all things, so that he could be our advocate. The Bible also says that the Son learned obedience by, and was perfected through, suffering. In other words, contrary to Athanasius, the Son did have to undergo a change in order to be perfected. The son the Bible describes is a different son than Trinitarians believe in.

He… though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered. Having been made perfect, he became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation. (Hebrews 5:7–9)

The Trinitarians made this passage into a lie by saying the Son’s humanity added nothing. If the Son did not change, then he was simply not made flesh. He could have remained in heaven and not have gone through all the suffering he did. But the truth is the opposite of the Gnostic and Trinitarian position. In truth, the Son was purely human in his essence, or substance. The Bible says the Son was born of the seed of David according to the flesh and manifested (made known) the attitudes of God through that humanity.

Biblically, the Messiah’s substance was human, and that same humanity revealed the character and personality of God.

This is what we mean by addressing coincidences versus influence. By no means is the Trinity simply coincidental to pagan triads; rather, Trinitarians purposely adopted their Trinity from paganism because they were heavily influenced by pagan philosophy.

But most importantly, recall that Gregory admitted that the Trinitarian view does not harmonize with the Jewish belief in one God; in fact, the Trinity destroyed it. It isn’t just an issue of coincidence or influence; it is a matter of the Trinity doctrine negating the true doctrine of the one God of the Bible! The rejection of the God of the Jews is simply a fact of the Trinity doctrine. They try to hide this inconvenient truth by claiming that the Jews didn’t understand who they worshiped, but that is contrary to what Jesus said.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. (John 4:22, KJV)

Trinitarians are more concerned with justifying and defending their man-made tradition than they are in hearing, receiving, and being conformed by the truth of Jesus’ words!

Don’t think for a minute that Gregory was alone in admitting that the concept of the Trinity comes from pagan philosophy. This next quoted author is in the middle of explaining his view that modern theologians should use twentieth century logic to help make the Trinity less mysterious. In doing so, note his admission about the source of the concepts of “three persons in one substance”:

Rather than presenting at this point some formulations from the Fathers, I will first go back to the fountainhead of substance metaphysics, Aristotle, from whom the Fathers inherited the concepts in terms of which they set out their substantialist formulations.William P. Alston, “Substance and the Trinity,” in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, eds. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 180.

Here we see that Trinitarians do admit that the “fathers” of the Trinity did inherit concepts (not just words) from the substance metaphysics of the pagan philosopher Aristotle. This is a contemporary admission that the actual source of the Trinity is pagan philosophy. Truly an exchange was made with the acceptance of the Trinity: the pagan view was adopted and the biblical view was rejected. What is the Trinity, then, but going after the gods round about them? This is precisely what Paul warned against when he said not to be spoiled by philosophy after the rudiments of the world (Colossians 2:8, 20). Paul also explicitly said that he taught things through words that the Holy Spirit teaches, in contrast to the words of men (1 Corinthians 2:13). Trinitarians reverse the way Paul taught and have adopted philosophy, with only very slight modifications, in order to view, explain, and understand God as a Trinity. This position is the exact opposite of using the OT as the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

Now let’s look at the proof, from his own words, that Tertullian did not believe in the Nicene version of the Trinity.

Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existedwith Him, northe Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 3.18.

What Tertullian just described is absolutely repugnant to post-Nicene, coequalist, coeternalist Trinitarians; in fact, this is the major reason why they had the battles in the fourth century in which the Council of Nicaea played such a huge role. This absolutely proves that the Trinitarians of the fourth century were not at all just crystallizing what earlier Trinitarians had always believed, making our Trinitarian author a liar, plain and simple. It was roughly a century after Tertullian that this exact belief caused the Nicene Trinitarians to “develop” their one-substance, coequal, coeternal doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly, the bishop of Alexandria and his disciple Athanasius argued that if the Son were truly God, then there could not have been a time when he was not. And yet, that is exactly what earlier Trinitarians such as Tertullian believed. But earlier Christians than Tertullian, such as Irenaeus, didn’t believe in a pre-human birthing of Christ at all (with the exceptions of the antichristian Gnostics)!

Here, then, is a summary of how the Trinity evolved: The antichristian Gnostics were the first to attempt harmonizing Christianity with certain teachings from paganism, both philosophy and mysticism. Some of those teachings were the Trinity and the idea of one God birthing another God before the rest of creation. These Gnostics harmfully influenced a lot of nominal Christians. At one time Valentinus was one of the men being considered for the bishopric of the city of Rome. Fortunately, he lost the vote, but that shows how much influence he had and indicates there were quite a number of Gnostics. Irenaeus is credited with being one of the main contributors in exposing the errors of the antichristian Gnostics. However, Gnostic teachings had already crept in and begun their corruptive influence on many. Tertullian was among those who were corrupted with some of Gnosticism’s ideas, and he repackaged some of those ideas (such as the projection of one God out of another) into a form of the Trinity in such a way as to make them seem reasonable. Tertullian’s form of the Trinity has been called Subordinationism, which refers to his belief that the Son was not eternal and was not coequal with the Father but instead was subordinate. Other theologians also did a lot of damage by purposely merging Christian thought with pagan philosophy. Among these were Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and many others. These Philosopher-Christians are the ones the Trinitarians call their Church “Fathers” (even though they lived hundreds of years after the apostles). It was Origen (who lived around 184–254) who first taught the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. This was the doctrine that led to the full-blown Nicene Trinity (coequal/coeternal persons) being developed. Arius actually maintained the older Subordinationist Trinitarianism, and Alexander and Athanasius, who came after and were thus disciples of Origen’s eternally begotten doctrine, believed they were championing the ancient position. But both the Arians and the Nicenes were wrong; neither of their positions was the faith once delivered. All forms of Trinitarianism used words and concepts adopted from pagan philosophy and antichristian Gnosticism. All the Trinitarian “Fathers” of the fourth century accomplished was to have hammered out a new way of understanding and talking about God so that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could all be coequal in deific authority and coeternal in existence, and thus the full-blown Trinity was formed. That dogma was then thrust upon the Christian world through the secular, legal authority of the Roman Emperors.

Did you note that I said, “hammered out”? It is quite true. Trinitarians even admit it. Look at this:

The formula ‘one ousia in three hypostaseis’ was crafted on the workbench of theologians… In standard Greek, and in Christian theological usage for much of the fourth century, the words ousia and hypostasis were synonyms. The history of the formula is the history of the growth of a distinction in meaning between them, and the fact that the Cappadocians had to struggle to explain the distinction shows that it was anything but obvious.Joseph T. Lienhard, “Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’,” in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, 103.

This is yet another Trinitarian confession. The doctrine of the Trinity was “ crafted on the workbench of theologians.” This is a confession that says, in simpler words, they made it. They went to their workshop, and—with a hammer and chisel—they hammered out their god. If you can imagine such a scene in OT days, with the theologians literally sitting down at their workbenches and hammering out the gods they would worship, then you will have grasped just how idolatrous the Trinity doctrine really is. And they admit it. Did you ever wonder, in reading the OT, how the idolaters could be so open about what they were doing? Well here it is in a Christian setting. In fact, the Trinitarian I first quoted made the same confession, although it is, perhaps, a bit more “veiled,” when he wrote: “…It should be understood that the men who sat in the various councils… forged the creeds adopted there…” This is what spiritual idolatry looks like.

In light of these historic facts, let’s now return to the quote from our Trinitarian author, Brumbach, and show how his words fit the pattern of the left-handed circle method. He said,

The Trinity was developed… It was ‘implicitly held by the apostles and other NT writers in their declaration with regard to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, even though they did not formulate it as a precise doctrine. They held it, as it were, in solution; only time, reflection, and the shock of controversy and opposition caused it to crystallize into definite and dogmatic form.’ (A.H. Strong)… It should be understood that the men… [who] forged the creeds… were only attempting to place in theological terminology that which they believed to be biblical teaching. Brumbach, 20–21.

This whole defense would belong in the left-most segment of the left circle if we could fit it all in. Alas, we’ll have to abbreviate it. For his “proof text,” of course, he is referring to such Scriptures as Matthew 28:19 and the like. Now notice in particular his words, “it was implicitly held” and “they held it, as it were, in solution.” These are his “plausibility” statements that allow him to believe that his jumped-to conclusion is within the circle of biblical conformity. This is his way of drawing the left-hand circle around his conclusion and his proof texts, to try to contain them each as parts of one whole. Now, if all we had were such Trinitarian-like verses, that might be true. If the devil had quoted Psalm 91 to Jesus and there were no commandment not to tempt the Lord, then it might be true that Jesus could have jumped off the pinnacle and expected to come out unscathed in accordance with God’s promise. The problem is, there are “it is written again” Scriptures that constrain, and thus absolutely negate, the jumped-to conclusions of the author quoted above.

For that, in the far right segment of the right circle, we have two sets of biblical commandments.

The first set contains the commandment that we are to “teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). Doctrine simply means that which can be taught. Biblical doctrines are teachings, therefore, that are not hidden wisdom (unlike Gnostic wisdom or “implied” teachings), because these teachings are written for all to see. Rather, doctrine is by definition thoughts and ideas that can be taught to others. Everything the apostles taught can be found in the Scriptures. This is what 2 Timothy 3:15–17 clearly says:

From infancy, you have known the sacred writings which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15–17)

Now we’re ready to examine Brumbach’s statement within our circles of discernment:

The mere mention in Scriptures of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a long, long way from the Scriptures clearly teaching, let alone intending, that there are three coequal, coeternal persons in the godhead, or that the term “one God” means “one nature” and not “one personal individual.” This should be as clear and evident as the truth that just because God promised he would charge his angels to keep you, doesn’t mean you can conclude that it will be okay to tempt God. Anyone who is truly honest with the Scriptures ought to be able to recognize each of these simple truths.

The second set of Scriptures explicitly warns against being spoiled by pagan philosophy.

Now this I say that no one may delude you with persuasiveness of speech… As therefore you received Christ Jesus, the Lord, walk in him, rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, even as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving. Be careful that you don’t let anyone rob [KJV= spoil] you through (the) philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ. For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily… (Colossians 2:4–9)

Take note of what one Bible dictionary says about the word variously translated as rob (WEB), cheat (NKJV), or spoil (KJV) in this verse. It means, “of the carrying off of truth into the slavery of error”! Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990). In other words, those who allow themselves to be persuaded by philosophy have allowed themselves to be robbed of the truth. Is it any wonder, then, that those who have been “spoiled” by philosophy can’t seem to “see” the truth?

The apostle admonishes Christians to adhere to what has already been taught and established regarding the faith of Christ and God. It is noteworthy that philosophy is specified as an area of concern. Such Scriptures seem to be of little interest to Trinitarians, who easily belittle them in one way or another. So we can diagram their position in this way:

Somehow, Trinitarians ignore the commandment not to be “carried off into slavery” by philosophy. Instead, they find it important to look to philosophy because that is where they can find the concepts and words with which to explain what they believe about God. They certainly can’t find the concepts or words in the Bible to explain the Trinity in the way they want the Trinity to be believed.

Again, this is what Jesus called “setting aside the commandment of God, and holding tightly to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). The apostles taught that the Scriptures are profitable for teaching and that they thoroughly furnish us all good works. Why then do people who call themselves Christians hold on so “tightly” to their extrabiblical traditions? Did our Lord Jesus Christ not make himself very, very clear that man-made traditions can ruin truth? Could it be because people think that they are doing God a service? Is that what the Pharisees thought they were doing? Or were they just being obstinate against the possibility of losing their coveted position as leaders and experts on God’s word? Either way, one thing is clear, not yielding to the whole counsel of God, but laying aside part of God’s word to overemphasize another to the point of negating God’s word, was obviously the attitude of the devil and is not acceptable behavior for Christians.

In addition to presenting the positive behaviors we are to walk in, the Scriptures also denounce evil works, and one of those works denounced in the Bible, clearly, is being robbed through philosophy. Would Christians take up adultery to learn how to show Christian love? Would they take up armed robbery in order to learn Christian hospitality? If not, then why would they take up pagan philosophy in order to describe the relationship between God and Christ in a way that Scripture never does? What the Trinitarians are really saying is that the Scriptures are insufficient for teaching doctrines. Are we exaggerating? Not one little bit! One Trinitarian put it this way:

…The church, in developing the doctrine of the Trinity, had recourse to certain thought forms already present in the philosophical and religious environment, in order that, with the help of these, it might give its own faith clear intellectual expression… As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity. This does not mean very much, however, for generally speaking the New Testament is less intent upon setting forth certain doctrines than it is upon proclaiming the kingdom of God… At the same time, however, there are in the New Testament the rudiments of a concept of God that was susceptible of further development and clarification, along doctrinal lines… http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-pagan.htm , accessed 8/10/2017.

Recall that Paul said not to be moved away from the Jesus they preached, which meant the one the apostles openly proclaimed and declared. Yet Trinitarians admit they had to go to pagan religions for help with words and concepts with which to “express” what they believe. This is how they openly reject the Jesus whom the apostles preached: by redefining him in pagan terms and concepts.

This statement also exposes the Trinitarian attitude toward the Scriptures as far as the doctrine of the godhead: it “does not mean very much” to them that the Trinity isn’t taught in the Scriptures. Isn’t this just another way of saying the Scriptures are insufficient for them? Since what they want to see is not in the Scriptures, they take this as permission to reinterpret Scripture until it fits their fancy. That is the real reason it took them so long to “develop” the doctrine: they were trying to get all the puzzle pieces to fit! They didn’t fit very easily, so they got out their hammers and pounded and chiseled until they seemed to fit in!

In other words, what we are calling “gray areas” of Scripture, they call “rudiments of a concept… susceptible of further development.”

In the bigger picture, this writer is really just playing a shell game. He or she only maintains that doctrine doesn’t mean much when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet the Trinity is apparently the only teaching that the author doesn’t require to be spelled out in the Bible. For all other teachings, biblical doctrines are vitally important to this (presumably) very same author:

In the Bible, the doctrine of Christ includes his virgin birth, his miracles, his death, burial and resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of God. However, there are other things that are important which are in the doctrine of Christ. They include his church, worship, repentance, baptism, the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s Supper, right living, and his second comingas well as others…

Yes.—doctrine is important, especially if it is the doctrine of Christ as revealed in the Bible. Is Doctrine Important?, accessed 8/10/2017, http://www.bible.ca/d-doctrine-important.htm

We wholeheartedly agree that doctrine is important, especially if it is the doctrine of Christ that is revealed in the Bible! That’s the point of this book! But do you see how this writer contradicts himself? Now he is saying that doctrine revealed in the Bible is important, especially regarding the doctrine of Christ, but doctrine didn’t mean very much when he spoke in reference to the Trinity! Shouldn’t that be a clear indication that the apostles, at the very least, didn’t put any emphasis on the Trinity? Are we really to believe that such a monumental change to Jewish Monotheism blew through their theological belfries without so much as a curtain being rustled? Are we simply to swallow the idea, without so much as a gag, that after all these centuries of God telling His people He is one and alone, and not to go after the gods round about them, now we’re to believe that pagan philosophy is the best place to go to find among those very same forbidden heathen the words, terms, “concepts,” and “thought forms” to express what God hid from His chosen people? No, much rather, it is highly likely that this is exactly the type of “leaven of the Pharisees” that Jesus warned us against, which he also went on to liken to swallowing camels and straining at gnats! All we can say is somebody must be wearing some powerfully tinted dark glasses if they really can’t see the bright light of this scriptural truth: don’t be robbed by philosophy!

Let’s try to put these two opposite views from the same writer in perspective with the other teachings he claims are important. Imagine this same author saying that we shouldn’t be concerned if the Bible doesn’t teach those other truths either. Here is what that might look like in this mock quote:

In developing the doctrines of Christ’s virgin birth, or his death, burial and resurrection, the church had recourse to certain thought forms already present in the philosophical and religious environment, in order that, with the help of these, it might give its own faith clear intellectual expression.

If the Bible didn’t teach these doctrines, but pagan philosophers did, and we practiced what those pagan philosophers did instead of what the Bible taught, would we be legitimate in calling ourselves “Biblical Christians?” Or would we be “pagan philosophers?” Apparently for Trinitarians, all the other things that are spelled out in the Bible are important teachings, but the fact that the Trinity isn’t spelled out in the Bible isn’t important, and only the teaching about “what God is” in the Scriptures doesn’t mean much.

We beg to differ. The problem isn’t just that the Trinity isn’t in the Bible, but that a) the Bible does spell out quite clearly, consistently, and constantly a truth that is the polar opposite of the Trinity, and b) the elements of the Trinity are and were spelled out in pagan philosophy! That is the real reason why Trinitarians had to resort to pagan words and concepts to describe their view. The Trinity isn’t merely “coincidentally” like pagan triads. The Trinity is an outright adoption of them.

For us, what God is and what Christ’s true relationship to God is, are actually even more important than the other biblical teachings on the “church, worship, repentance, baptism, the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s Supper, right living, and his second coming as well as others.” That’s because the truth of who Christ is in relationship to the Father is what makes these other teachings important and even possible! These other things are not what makes anyone a Christian without knowing who and what God and His Christ truly are! After all this is why the first commandment is the first commandment!

Before wrapping up our look at the Trinity in this chapter, there is one additional area that shows just how disobedient the Trinitarians are to the Scriptures. We will let our Trinitarian author, and those that he quotes, spell out their position in that area:

The Hebrews employed the plural form of the name of God in the sense of the singular. They never understood this to indicate anything but absolute unity: they had no idea of plurality of persons in the Godhead. The plural was used by them, in this as in other cases, intensively. Elohim means simply, ‘the supreme God.’ Brumbach, 37–38.

If you recall the words of Gregory of Nyssa, quoted earlier in this chapter, he said that the development of the Trinity did not harmonize with Jewish monotheism, and, through the formulation of the Trinity, the Jewish heresy had been destroyed: “neither does the statement [i.e., Trinitarian confession] harmonize with the Jewish dogma, but the truth passes in the mean between these two [pagan and Jewish] conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word.” Not only did Gregory of Nyssa claim that Jewish monotheism had been destroyed, but he actually called it a heresy equal to pagan polytheism! This is simply outrageous, and anyone who holds Jesus Christ dear ought to be appalled at this kind of talk. Why? Because, as was pointed out earlier and bears repeating, here’s what the Lord Jesus Christ said about the matter: “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22, KJV).

When Jesus said “we,” he purposely, unmistakably, and unalterably associated himself with the Jewish understanding of their monotheistic God. Jesus didn’t even refer in this case to the Scriptures, oh no. He was talking only about the truth that the Jews knew what they worshiped. Thus, Jesus spoke explicitly against any view that claims the Jews did not understand what they worshiped. There is simply no getting around this extremely clear and simple declaration of the Lord Jesus Christ’s! Jesus said, in Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and don’t do the things which I say?” Mark 9:6 and Luke 9:35 recorded how God the Father spoke from heaven, saying, “this is my beloved son, hear him.”

Are the testimonies of the Father and son enough proof for somebody to decide to really hear Jesus? Is someone ready to accept that maybe the doctrines of pagan philosophers and antichristian Gnostic theologians don’t really provide better words and concepts for describing a bigger and better understanding of “what” God is than Jesus Christ himself clearly testified to? Is someone ready to admit that the early Trinitarians were wrong for calling exactly what Jesus believed “a heresy” and thus relegating it to the same level of rubbish as pagan polytheism as to destroy it? How much more wrong would the early Trinitarians have to be before people who say they “love the Lord Jesus Christ” realize they can’t believe both the Trinity and Jesus at the same time? Was Jesus wrong for criticizing the developing of traditions and teachings of men (Matthew 15 and Mark 7) when he should have known all along that is exactly what it was going to take to define, declare, and defend a doctrine as huge and important as Trinitarians believe the Trinity is, but that Jesus and his apostles never spelled out?

Are we exaggerating a bit here? Well, let’s consider what Moses had to say about that which the Apostles reiterated. Let’s let them tell us, and then let the reader decide:

For Moses indeed said to the fathers, ‘The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him in all things whatever he says to you. It will be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ (Acts 3:22–23)

I don’t know how you read this verse, but it sure seems to be clear that there is no salvation if we do not listen to Jesus in all things. It seems very hard to believe that anyone would try to make a case that being utterly destroyed from among the people is equal to salvation. But then again, the serpent taught Eve to believe eating the forbidden fruit would be a good thing, so it’s possible someone will try. We certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone risking his or her soul over it.

Having made our case in words, now let’s look at how this idea of the Trinitarians graphically fits in our circles of discernment:

The simple truth is that the position of the Trinitarians is opposite to that of Jesus. Are we to believe that Jesus was mistaken? Or that he could learn something about the multiple persons in the godhead from the Trinitarians? That is what Trinitarians imply.

You may have noticed we’ve removed the gray area from the graphic. It seemed to border on blasphemy to think or even imply that the first and greatest of all commandments of both the Old and New Testaments, as attested by none other than our Lord, King, and Master, Jesus Christ, is or could somehow be viewed as a “gray area!” Oh no, dear reader, it is not a gray area! It is only by a sleight of hand that Trinitarians even try to make it appear “gray” in the first place—so they can reinterpret it!

To anyone for whom the commandments are “not grievous,” the first commandment of all is more plain, clear, and straightforward than any other sentence of words in any given language on earth… that is, except when viewed through the darkened lenses of man’s traditions, philosophies, and rudiments of the world. This is precisely what the apostle meant when he warned us not to be robbed by philosophy and vain deceit. The first commandment is not a gray area…

¹¹For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. ¹²It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? ¹³Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? ¹⁴But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. ¹⁵Behold, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; ¹⁶in that I command you this day to love YHWH your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, that you may live… ¹⁷But if your heart turn away, and you will not hear, but shall be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; ¹⁸I denounce to you this day, that you shall surely perish…¹⁹I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed; ²⁰to love YHWH your God, to obey his voice, and to cleave to him; for he is your life. (Deuteronomy 30:11–20)

It sounds pretty clear that God and Moses felt the commandments of God were pretty clear. How much more so the very first and most important one?

What our circles of discernment have shown is that Trinitarians have effectively negated and made of no effect certain very real biblical concepts… and commandments! This they did by moving those qualifying, “it is written again,” biblically stated truths outside of the circle of their understanding and belief system. This is what our circles show: that the Trinitarians laid aside certain commandments of God in order to take up their man-made idol to worship. In doing so, they have effectively moved those, and many, many other Scriptures right out of their reckoning…

As this graphic demonstrates, by rejecting and distancing themselves from Jesus’ words on the right, Trinitarians have effectively set themselves apart from Jesus’ form of worship, which employs every word of God. Obviously, laying aside some verses of Scripture to keep jumped-to conclusions based on other verses is not a “Christ-like” attitude; it is by nature, therefore, non-Christian.

If you have ever wondered what the word “sect” (Gr. hairesis) in the Bible means (or “heresy,” which is derived from the same Greek word), here we have it graphically described. Sects are those that sect-ion themselves off from certain truths in the Word of God, only to emphasize others beyond their originally intended scope so as to make them untruths. Trinitarianism makes Jesus’ words into just such an untruth.

We will have more to say about the Trinity as we proceed through this book. But remember, the scope of this book isn’t primarily intended for addressing the Trinity, but rather, for presenting the true Christ in contrast to Onenessianism. Thus far, we have put forward our position against the Trinity primarily for the purpose of finding common ground with Onenessians. We expect that Onenessians will completely agree with us in the way we have shown how unbiblical and disobedient Trinitarianism is. Now here’s the kicker: we are going to use the same methods to address Onenessian jumped-to, unbiblical conclusions, and thereby show that Onenessians stoop to the same false methods as the Trinitarians they disagree with. If they agree with the techniques we’ve used so far against our common rival, they should recognize how legitimate and appropriate it is to use those same techniques to examine their own beliefs. Likewise, if we can show that Onenessians use the same false methods of adopting extrabiblical and even antichristian ideas as the Trinitarians, then they should also be able to see that their Oneness doctrine is no more scriptural than is the Trinity.

Our goal in the following chapters will be, as before, to reestablish the simplicity of the biblical Jesus and to expose exactly how unscriptural teachings have been imposed on biblical ones and caused the truth to be hidden from view and understanding. This attention is most necessary regarding the following three groups of opposite topics:

• • Foreknowledge vs. Preexistence
  • Made of the Seed of David vs. Dual Natures
  • Man approved by God vs. God come down in the likeness of men

Each of the first items in the list is biblical and refutes Onenessianism (and Trinitarianism). Each of the opposing ideas is of pagan origin and contrary to the biblical ones, but has been adopted by Onenessianism in order to “describe” the Onenessian viewpoint. That is, they are not mere coincidences because a) the Bible does not spell them out (expressly), and b) we can see the point in history when these ideas were adopted into Christianity. They were thus not “truths” contained in the apostle’s “faith once delivered.”

In other words, just as with those who support the Trinity doctrine, those who believe in Onenessianism, after they have seen the evidence we are about to share, to be honest and biblical, should concede that paganism and antichristian Gnosticism have provided better definitions, expressions, and statements of their belief system than their Bibles. And that is why, just as with Trinitarianism, Onenessianism has been left with no other option than to adopt pagan and antichristian perspectives in order to express their view.

More on the Gnostic Trinity

The following modern quote asserts that the Gnostics were pioneers in developing the Trinity. In particular, the writer refers to various early second century Gnostics represented in Irenaeus’ writing, Against Heresies (I, 29–30). These Gnostics were the ones, this writer argues, who “profoundly influenced Valentinianism,” which Gnostics also, in turn, as we’ve briefly shown, influenced Tertullian, who in turn influenced Trinitarianism, which in turn influenced modalistic monarchianism, which is the same as Onenessianism today:

…About… the two related myths of Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.29 and 30… their ideas profoundly influenced Valentinianism…

…These Christian Gnostics… constructed a myth of primal Father, Mother and Son as an alternative myth of origins to Genesis… these Gnostics, along with those of (Irenaeus’) 1.30, may with justice be seen as the pioneers in developing an understanding of God as triadic or Trinitarian… both develop alternative Trinitarian schemes… The system in 1.29… develops a triad of Father, Mother and Son, splitting the Mother into a higher and lower Sophia (wisdom), that latter of whom it identifies with the Holy Spirit.

The system in 1.30, on the other hand… can best be interpreted as an attempt to develop a triad of (male) Father, (male/female) Son and (female) Spirit, generating Christ as the Only-Begotten Son… Whereas the system of 1.29 identifies Christ as the Son within the Trinity, the system of 1.30 has Christ outside of the Trinity, ascending to it. This reference to emanation indicates another major characteristic of the underlying Gnostic myth… the pervading influence of Platonic/Pythagorean ideas, hinted at in Basilides, even more obvious in Valentinus. All three share, according to Irenaeus’ account, a concern with the ineffable, nameless, unoriginate Father, his self-revelation by a process of emanations,of which the first or supreme male is Nous and a later is Logos. -Alastair H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 29, 32–33.

This same author reiterates that the Gnostics derived their method of interpretation from pagan philosophy, which implies philosophy’s forms and ideas.

Indeed it could be suggested that the Gnostics were among the first Christians to be influenced by Platonism… To detect a (later) Platonization is slightly misleading: the Gnostics were Platonists from the first! They developed their Platonism in dialogue with the evolving Platonic tradition, perhaps even anticipating Neoplatonism in some respects. Ibid., 34.

Gnosticism and Neoplatonism were developing at the same time in the second century. Neoplatonists like Numenius may have gotten the idea to assign personality to the platonic logos in dialogue, or in conversation, with Gnostics. That doesn’t mean they were entirely in agreement. It just means they were selectively picking up certain of each other’s points as they contended with each other.

This insight adds significantly to the drama of Gregory of Nyssa’s confession that Trinitarians got their “thought forms” for the idea of “persons” in the godhead from Hellenist philosophers. What this author is saying is, those “Hellenist Philosophers” were, more precisely, the antichristian Gnostics who were “Platonists from the first,” just as they were always Trinitarians. The source of Trinitarianism (as contrasted with actual pagan tri-theism) is actually antichristian Gnosticism.

The Bottom line is this:

But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:13)

The Trinity doctrine is one of those doctrines made worse and worse. Trinitarians feel as if they have just gotten better and more sophisticated in explaining the Trinity. In fact, they have just been perfecting their craft of robbing the truth through their philosophy and vain deceit.

 Print This Post