At this point, we are going to expose one of the biggest Trinitarian shell games. Not the biggest, which would be reserved for the fact that Trinitarians have a philosophical view of God disguised as the God of the Bible. This one enables the biggest one, but it also enables the one that causes Trinitarians to view the word “word” as a universal principle.

In this shell game, the word “word” is changed to carry all the meanings of the word “Son.”

In other words, in the Trinitarian imagination, for God to speak forth His “word” means the same as it would mean for God to beget a son. The problem is, the words “word” and “son” are not synonymous, neither in the real world, nor in any dictionary, nor in the Bible. Also, as we read in Part Nine, the earlier Christians like Irenaeus still understood “word” as we would think of “word”.

This shell game is what allows Trinitarians to conceive of the “son” of God in terms of eternity instead of in terms of “time.” In this way they can view God as being an eternal “expression” of God, rather than “son” meaning that man named Jesus who was born in Bethlehem.

In this next quote, writing against the Arians, note how the word “Son” in the first sentence becomes synonymous with “Word” in the last sentence…

“…Ye think, that there was once when the Son was not…Why do ye, as the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against his Christ? For no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather ‘always’ and ‘eternal’ and ‘coexistent always with the Father.’ For, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…’” Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 4

Athanasius demonstrates here his lack of shame in lying about the Scriptures. First, there is no Scripture that says, “coexistent always with the Father.” Second, note that Athanasius says, “no holy Scripture has used such language,” regarding a time of the Son’s begetting. This is not so, and we’re going to look at seven. These seven Scriptures will show that the Trinitarian interpretation makes the word of God of no effect in regard to Jesus beginning in Mary’s womb.

Here is the first scripture we will quote regarding the “time” of the beginning of the son of God…

“¹² When your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, I will set up your offspring after you, who will proceed out of your body, and I will establish his kingdom. ¹³ He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. ¹⁴ I will be his father, and he will be my son … ¹⁶ Your house and your kingdom will be made sure forever before you. Your throne will be established forever.” (2 Samuel 7:12–16)

This passage couldn’t be plainer. The Messiah is described as not being in existence, but he would explicitly proceed future tense out of King David’s bowels after David’s death (“When your days are fulfilled”). And then God speaks very significantly, saying, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”

The next four quotes add more insight into time and the Son.

“I will tell of the decree. Yahweh said to me, ‘You are my son. Today I have become your father. Ask of me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance…” (Psalms 2:7–10).

“…God has fulfilled this to us, their children, in that he raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your father’” (Acts 13:33)

“For to which of the angels did He say at any time, ‘You are my Son, Today have I become your father?’ and again, ‘I will be to him a Father, And he will be to me a Son?’” (Hebrews 1:5).

“So also Christ didn’t glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your father’” (Hebrews 5:5).

These are all references to time. Don’t forget that God didn’t make “days” until He was underway with creation. Therefore, to say “today I have become” is a clear statement that the son was not the son until there was a “day” in existence. Also, since the only begotten son was to be begotten at some point in time and on some definite day, the son was neither eternal, nor inherently God.

So far, we have five Scriptures that refute Athanasius’ theory. The theory of an eternal Son is built on nothing but false assumptions. There may not have been a time when the “word” was not (being as God’s words and thoughts are an integral part of His being); however, there certainly was, according to the Scripture, a time when the Son was not.

Now let’s look at how Athanasius’ own words, once again, work against him. Perhaps you aren’t ready to hear my interpretation of the above Scriptures proving that God spoke of the Son in temporal terms. Well then, perhaps you’ll listen to Athanasius’ interpretation of what these terms mean.

“The phrases ‘once was not,’ and ‘before it came to be,’ and ‘when,’ and the like, belong to things originate and creatures, which come out of nothing…” Athanasius, ibid.

So then, in Athanasius’ own words, the phrases regarding time “and the like, belong to things originate and creatures,” that is, finite creation. Athanasius shows that if the Father spoke of the Son with reference to time, then the Son had to have been a “thing originate” that once was not, but had to “come out of nothing.”

The biblical descriptions of the Son of God directly refute Athanasius. The Bible explicitly describes the Son as being born in time. Thus, the sixth passage that assigns time to the Son.

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Galatians 4:4; KJV).

Keep in mind that there is not a single verse of God’s word that says the Son is eternal.

Another pertinent Scripture is John 3:16, which states there is only one Son in whom we are to believe. Galatians 4:4 precisely describes the temporal, created nature of that one and only begotten Son. The biblical Son is the one that was born of a woman. The Trinitarian Son, born sometime in eternity past, is another Jesus that the Bible doesn’t speak of.

Keep in mind that God was married by the law of covenant to Israel; thus Mary was legally a bodily member of God’s “wife.” One may well ask, of what eternal wife was the eternal deific “God the Son” of the Trinitarians “made”? Or of what wife was the Arian preexistent son born? No answer can only mean that the Trinitarian God-the-Son is illegitimate, and so is the motherless Arian one. Either one of those two sons are a bastard. Either one of those were born of nothing more than the illegitimate union of Christianity with pagan philosophy. That either one of these sons is illegitimate enforces the contention that such is ultimately a representation of Ashtoreth’s illegitimate son, Tammuz, whom she claimed was Nimrod reincarnated.

This leads us to our seventh Scripture to assign a clear element of time to the Son.

“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:45–47).

This passage proves that Athanasius’ claim that the elements of time do not apply to the Son is false. Jesus Christ is the last Adam. He specifically wasn’t first; in fact, he was the second man God made directly. And as was shown in Part Six, being “from heaven” means “of God”. Furthermore, the apostle Peter proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost…

“Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).

Please consider this authoritative statement carefully and try to allow yourself not to be influenced by carnal reasoning or traditions of men. Peter, who knew Jesus as well as anyone ever, and was ordained by God to speak these words, said that God, not the Trinity, God, made him, Jesus, God’s son, “Lord and Christ.” Is this saying that “God made himself Lord and Christ”? Is this saying that one member of the Trinity made another member of the Trinity “Lord and Christ”? If Jesus was already “Lord and Christ” why did God have to make him so? Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, and he had told Peter that he would build his assembly on Peter’s confession. Now Peter was speaking under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and establishing the New Covenant foundation by using the keys that Jesus had given him.

The gist is that one simply cannot believe in the Trinity, or Arianism, and also believe the Bible. The Trinitarian Son is altogether a different Son than the Bible explicitly describes. The biblical Son was made in time of a woman. This means the human son is the Messiah, not the theoretical Trinitarian deific Son that is supposedly coequal in substance with the Father, nor the theoretical Arian Son that was made of like-substance as the Father before the rest of creation. The biblical Son generated from Mary is the one and only begotten Son, whom John 3:16 says to believe in; not the Trinitarian, Arian, or Gnostic one made of deific substance. The Trinitarian position of an “eternally begotten” son, founded on Athanasius’ position, is in direct and express denial of the Scriptures.

 Print This Post