2008

The Trinity

Is God Three-in-one?

BY DAVID C. PACK

Does the Bible teach that God is a “Trinity”—three persons in one being? Most professing Christians answer “yes.” Although long the litmus test of traditional Christianity, the triune god is deemed a mystery unable to be understood. Other questions arise: How does the sacrifice of Christ fit with the “three-in-one” god? How did Jesus “extricate” Himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit to die as Savior? And then there is this: If God is not a trinity, what is He? What have scholars, theologians and Bible students missed? Millions assume the trinity doctrine to be true and that Scripture proves it. Yet, God’s Word reveals something very different—and much greater—about the nature of the true God. Here, made plain, are the facts of history—and what the Bible really teaches about what and whom is its author!

Video Introduction from the Author (2:41)

Introduction

The subject of God is mysterious, confusing to almost all. Yet, the single most important knowledge in the universe would be that of the true God. What could be more important than which god one worships? Millions, indeed billions, have asked who and what is God? This all-important question has confounded man for millennia.

He has still not found the answer!

With the explosion of new and different brands of Christianity, this confusion about God has only grown worse in the modern age. And the so-called “great religions” of the world have only added to this confusion. Yet, correctly identifying the true God is the central issue and question towering over everything that is important in life. The answer to this question lies at the very core of all that is true religion. And, for those who believe the God of Creation authored the Bible—Christians!—the question comes into sharper focus. Who and What is the God of the Bible?

Millions of professing Christians believe in, speak of and weekly sing about God as a “trinity”—“Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Acceptance of this god has become perhaps the greatest litmus test of orthodox or traditional Christianity. But is the Bible’s God a trinity—three persons in one being? Can this be proven? Or is God a Family—and can this be proven? If the “trinity god” is false—if it is not the God of the Bible—it must be rejected. In its place must come an understanding of the true God.

Which Is Better?

Consider this question. Which would be better: having correct understanding of every single doctrine in the Bible, but having neither true knowledge of nor contact with the God who inspired it?—or, having absolutely no knowledge of a single Bible truth on any subject except the nature and identity of the true God, and contact with Him?

Let’s consider this further. The Bible is filled with hundreds of distinct, separate doctrinal truths: the gospel, salvation, baptism, identity and location of the true Church, the name of that Church, whether one should keep holy Saturday or Sunday, whether one should observe the annual festivals of Leviticus 23 or various humanly-devised holidays, financial laws, the purpose of marriage, principles of proper childrearing, punishment in the afterlife, the nature of repentance and conversion, the unpardonable sin, dietary laws and health, healing, scores of prophetic truths, the law of God, the role of Christ, and many, many more. I ask again: Would it be more important to understand all of these Bible truths while at the same time lacking the knowledge of who is the true God—or to know nothing of them, but to have direct contact with the God who recorded them?

Think! If one knew and was worshipping the true God, he would automatically be led into all the right knowledge offered by that God, revealed only to those who have a relationship with Him. This would no doubt happen relatively quickly after entering into such contact. The true God would not leave such a one in ignorance about exactly how He was to be worshipped—in other words, knowledge of all the many truths contained in His Word. The knowledge of the true Plan of God, the location of the true Church and Work of God—and every other divinely-revealed point of understanding—flows from being in direct contact with the right God. On the other hand, possessing all of the knowledge about every Bible doctrine would be utterly useless if one was worshipping the WRONG GOD! Mere knowledge of true doctrine would not necessarily, and certainly not automatically, lead such a person to the God who authored it, and thus his religion would be in vain.

God has to reveal Himself to any who come to know Him! He must distinguish Himself from all other supposed gods or deities. Set aside all personal bias and see if He is revealing Himself to you.

Chapter One –

Founded On False Knowledge

Have you ever asked yourself why people believe as they do?—why so many have come to accept the doctrines that they hold as having come from the Bible? Why have you believed and accepted the things that you do? Almost all who consider themselves Christians have carelessly assumed from childhood the answer to the most important question that they could ever address—that is, do they have and are they worshipping the RIGHT GOD?

Many come into adulthood having accepted without question what they repeatedly heard, read or were taught in Sunday school. They have been unwilling to challenge what all their peers have also accepted without question. Strangely, these same people will often vigorously defend their beliefs feeling absolutely no need to examine proof of why they believe what they do—or to consider how they came to such beliefs. Human nature wants to follow the crowd. And this has been the case with virtually every one of the popular church teachings, traditions and practices found in orthodox Christianity—which have been taken almost entirely from paganism, false customs and human reasoning. This is why the masses have followed a god that was conceived and developed entirely outside the pages of the Bible.

Incredibly, I have even seen those who knew the true God become willing to carelessly exchange Him for another god as easily as taking trash to the dumpster. Yes, throughout history, many who have known the true God of the Bible have been willing to blur and even lose altogether the knowledge of who and what He is.

Source of Deception, Confusion

The apostle John described Satan the devil as having “deceived the whole world” (Rev. 12:9). His goal has been to keep man from having a relationship with his Creator. The apostle Paul described Satan as “the god of this world” who “has blinded them that believe not” (II Cor. 4:4). Is it strange to think of Satan as this world’s GOD? Does this seem impossible to believe? Yet, there it is in your Bible. After all, as arch-deceiver, what would the devil most want to deceive—blind—mankind to, other than the identity of the true God? In fact, you will learn that Satan is the author of the trinity doctrine—that this false god is a counterfeit—a substitute deity—designed to deceive millions into unwittingly worshipping him, while thinking they are serving the God of Christianity and the Bible. (This book does not capitalize “trinity,” as is normally done.)

The highly educated of this world ought to know who God is! But they do not, because this is spiritual knowledge, divinely revealed by the very God that these scholars and educators have been unable to discover on their own—and Whom they could never discover on their own.

These modern educators have been steeped in the false understanding of the theory of evolution. Because they have believed this fable, they have taught it to unsuspecting minds, and conditioned them to reject God’s revelation of Himself at the very beginning of Genesis. Then, having rejected the Creation account of Genesis, inspired by the God of the Bible, these have become blinded to the identity of the true God—leaving them utterly unable to find their way out of the maze of confusion in which they have placed themselves. Evolution has taught them self-reliance, and ultimately cut them off from the knowledge that would have freed them from ignorance in all the most important matters of life. There they sit, left without the answers to life’s greatest questions. Because intellectual vanity—plain pride!—would not let them seek a higher power greater than their own minds, these have literally trapped themselves in confusion, with no idea where to turn for light.

The Unknown Book

If the Bible is as it has been called—“The Book that nobody knows”—then the One who authored it is truly the God Whom nobody knows! While this was not what He intended, this God has remained a mystery, concealed from a humanity willing to follow a “mystery god” that cannot be understood.

Some years ago, a world-famous evangelist declared of the trinity, “When I first began to study the Bible years ago, the doctrine of the Trinity was one of the most complex problems I had to encounter. I have never fully resolved it, for it contains an aspect of mystery. Though I do not totally understand it to this day, I accept it as a revelation of God…To explain and illustrate the Trinity is one of the most difficult assignments to a Christian.”

How true! With at least ten recognized versions or definitions—descriptions—of the trinity, no wonder it cannot be understood.

In the world, mystery books are often the bestsellers. Everyone seems to like the proverbial “Whodunit?” Any mystery in which a crime was committed involves several critical elements that must eventually come to light—perpetrator, victim, crime scene, weapon, motive and other evidence. When this happens, there is tremendous satisfaction and excitement. No one would read a mystery book or watch a mystery movie if he knew in advance that the writer or producer of the mystery was not going to solve it in the end.

The mysteries of men’s religions are different, however. They always remain mysteries. In the end, they are never explained—never solved—and followers of these religions are told that they must accept this. This is no truer than when it comes to the concept of a triune god. Why would vast numbers of people be willing to accept, for a lifetime, a mystery about God, when they would not accept this of a mere book or movie?

Yet, they do.

If the trinity represents the true God, we could ask: Why is there such widespread confusion and division—such disagreement—about Him? Why is not the subject of God clear—plain—to the common man? The apostle Paul, under inspiration, recorded that “God is not the author of confusion” (I Cor. 14:33). Confusion is not the way of God. He never wants His servants to be in confusion. Why then have so many been willing to accept without question this disagreement and confusion on the nature of God? So many of these same people readily say, “God just doesn’t seem very real to me.” But they seem willing to let Him remain a mystery to them. Not only do the masses on earth today stand in ignorance of life’s most important knowledge, including both the identity of the true God and correct understanding of the many biblical truths that He teaches, most do not appear to care about any of this. Billions do not even seem to want to know—to want to solve the mysteries of God and His Word. Strangely, in this case, they seem willing to read a mystery book or see a mystery movie, knowing in advance the mystery will not be solved.

All of this said, you may have a certain amount of difficulty understanding some of this book. In a sense, that may actually be good! Remember, the supposed god of the trinity has always been deemed unable to be explained or understood—a permanent mystery. This “god” has never made sense—and has never been the teaching of the Bible. It should not be strange then that the more in-depth parts of this book—those that go deeper inside the idea of the trinity—will be somewhat confusing. After all, this is the core of the problem. Perhaps the best description of the trinity is summed up in the words of the former Prime Minister of Britain Sir Winston Churchill, speaking of Russian actions in 1939 in World War II: “It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”

As you read, you will see that this famous saying almost perfectly defines the orthodox teaching of the trinity.

But all the Bible’s mysteries can—and should—be understood! What would be the point of God recording the many statements about Himself in His inspired Word so that none could ever grasp their meaning—comprehend them? Perhaps more than any other doctrine, God desires His servants to be able to understand and differentiate Him from all other gods. This means they must know how to carefully identify and separate Him—the true God—from the endless array of false gods, devised as part of men’s religions.

You will see the baffling “mystery” of the supposed trinity god solved in this book! It will be proven to be a fiction of men—and no part of the Bible’s teachings.

Coded Book

The Bible is a coded book. It is written as a kind of jigsaw puzzle creating a series of smaller pictures, and then an overall picture, that each only becomes clear in meaning when one properly pieces together all the various passages on a subject. Isaiah 28:10 describes God’s Word as written “here a little, and there a little.” This is the way we will study this subject. Also, we must let the Bible interpret itself, and this will be done throughout the book. Because professing Christianity has not understood these two points, it has remained deceived, seduced by a counterfeit church, led by the counterfeit god of this world, who has substituted himself in place of the true God.

Again, mankind has been deceived about God’s awesome purpose for it. Notice: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love Him” (I Cor. 2:9). Here then is Paul, under inspiration, next explaining how men can understand both the truths and mysteries of God: “But God has revealed them [spiritual things] unto us by his Spirit…” (vs. 10). Take note that spiritual knowledge is not revealed by any supposed third Person of the trinity, called the Holy Spirit. Only “God” can reveal the truth of the Bible to those whom He is calling (John 6:44, 65)—and His Holy Spirit is the agent He uses to do this.

Counterfeit Church

You will learn that the teaching of the triune, “three-in-one” god comes from the great false universal religion, described in Revelation 17:5 as “Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” This “woman church” has used the trinity to infiltrate and deceive all of traditional Christianity. Originally introduced with much controversy, she has been able to successfully use this doctrine to limit the true God to a supposed three persons.

Part of this seduction has been then to necessarily introduce “another Jesus” (II Cor. 11:3-4), who becomes the centerpiece of “another gospel” (same passage), taught as a replacement of the true gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the kingdom of god. All of this deception in turn is derived from and has been impelled by “another spirit” (also same passage)—that of the god of this world—active throughout this world’s “churchianity” in the form of the counterfeit trinity god. The kingdom of God—Christ’s message—offers the only real future for a world otherwise without hope. Only the arrival of Christ’s soon-coming, world-ruling supergovernment will solve humanity’s worst problems, troubles, evils and ills.

Most assume that the word trinity is surely found in the Bible. But even this is not true—the word itself is nowhere in Scripture. The term and its meaning—as are the words triune, three-in-one, etc.—are complete inventions of deceived men. With this cobbled-together god, the universal church has, in fact, been responsible for literally disfellowshipping—excommunicating!—the true God of the Bible from the world of supposed Christianity!

Who and what then is God? Can He be understood? This volume pulls back the veil concealing the true God from mankind and introduces Him to you. It will explain the origin and history of the trinity doctrine—and will cover the principle scriptures often cited to supposedly “prove” it, exposing the logic—actually the illogic—of trinitarian theology. It will explain the nature and role of the Holy Spirit. It will also answer the question, “Who and what was Christ?”—and is the Christ of the Bible the same as the one worshipped in popular Christendom? And it will bring irrefutable contrary proof—the truth—from God’s Word about the real nature of the true God of the Bible and Creation. This will open the door to understanding God’s true plan for mankind.

You will be stunned at what you will learn. The subject is compelling reading and unlike what you might expect on one that appears to be esoteric or only able to be understood by scholars and intellectuals. In fact, you may also find yourself wondering how anyone could possibly believe a doctrine so easily seen to be wrong, and of pagan origin.

The Hardest Thing

The most difficult thing for any person to do is to admit being wrong. Unlearning false knowledge and learning true knowledge in its place is not easy, and it can sometimes be a painful, shattering experience. But, you must put aside all bias when reading this book. If you enter it with an open mind, once the evidence is laid out, you will be able to make a clear choice. This means that you must be willing to confess mistakes about beliefs and convictions, which in this case may have been held for a lifetime.

In the book of Acts, the writer Luke describes those of the Greek city of Berea as “…more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (17:11). These new converts were open-minded—but they wanted proof. In all points, they turned to God’s Word as their sole source of truth on matters of doctrine.

This is why Paul wrote the following instruction to every Bible student regarding every doctrine of the Bible: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21). Nowhere did Paul ever state, “Just trust me.” He wanted people to stand on the firm rock of Scripture on all matters. Further, he told the Romans, “Prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (12:1-2).

Surely all such proof of doctrine would include proving who and what is God. It does! But first the stage must be set, and this will take time.

Chapter Two –

No Other Gods Before Me

Virtually every Bible student is familiar with the term, “The Ten Commandments.” The famous half-century-year-old movie of the same name is rerun every spring in connection with the celebration of the ancient supposed Christian tradition of Easter. Many millions have come to know the Hollywood version of the Bible account of the receiving of the Ten Commandments.

America has been embroiled in a legal battle over whether the constitution—requiring the separation of church and state—allows for the Ten Commandments to be displayed publicly in courts and government buildings. But Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia put it best when he said, “I think 90 percent of Americans believe in the Ten Commandments, but 85 percent probably couldn’t tell you what they are.” And how many could even paraphrase half of them is another question.

Therefore, largely lost in this astounding account in the book of Exodus is the all-important First Commandment, establishing Who it was that gave these laws to ancient Israel in the wilderness. This commandment must be firmly established in your mind from the outset of the book. I repeat: It lies at the heart of all religion.

Moses recorded God’s words: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:3).

Surely, if the Bible is the inspired instruction book of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator God, who was also the only true God in the universe, His first commandment could not have been otherwise. Under no circumstances would that God want other gods worshipped in His place. In fact, in the very next commandment, the Author of these laws describes Himself as “a jealous God.”

Notice this second, longer command: “You shall not make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord your God am a jealous God” (vs. 4-5). This commandment is a very broad, sweeping, explicit prohibition intended to cover every form of false worship involving every other kind of supposed “god,” and representation of such, that human beings with creative human reasoning could devise. Like any parent whose children chose to come home to a different house and to different parents after school, the Parent who made all human beings—His children—would certainly be jealous if they went off after idols and false gods.

Even the Third Commandment is tied directly to the first two. It describes the careful reverence with which God wants His name to be used at all times. Here is that command: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain” (vs. 7). The meaning of this commandment is that when people even reference the true God, they should be very careful how they do it (Psa. 111:9). They should think about the purpose—the reason—for which they mention His most holy name.

The fourth and final commandment that we will examine for our purposes here is also tied directly to the identity of the God of the Bible. Let’s first read this considerably longer command before examining it more closely: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (vs. 8-11).

Although the world has generally discarded observance of the seventh-day Sabbath in place of Sunday, the first day of the week, this is nevertheless an extraordinary command, given for a vital purpose. It also creates a special problem for the evolutionist—even the one who professes to believe in God, including the God of the Bible.

Here is how: God expects all of His servants to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Why? So that they would never forget which God it was Who “in six days” created “heaven and earth,” and who sealed this by resting on “the seventh day.” In this way, the God who authored the Bible directly ties all of the Ten Commandments to the Creation account, which, in turn, leaves no room for His servants to drift into following and worshipping other gods. While one may not otherwise be correctly worshipping God, at least by observing the Sabbath every seven days, the adherent is forced to be cognizant of the sole God of Creation.

The God of the Bible leaves no room for doubt in the first four commandments. He expects to be worshipped as He is, including on the day that He, not man, has selected for this worship. He allows no room for confusion and does not want human opinion added—He accepts no substitution of the false for the true.

The evolutionist has a big problem trying to explain belief in a God who created all life on earth in six days. Having rejected the Creation account of this God, it becomes much easier to go on to the next step—the very rejection of that God, and possibly the idea that there even is a God! Of course, faithful Sabbath observance every seven days would eliminate this problem.

(Though this is a separate element of the subject, you should also take time to prove that, in fact, there IS a God. Consider reading our informative booklet Does God Exist?, as well as our thorough, illustrated brochure Evolution – Facts, Fallacies and Implications. Unlike anything you have read, these help establish a foundation on which to confidently build a right relationship with God. Also take note that a page recommending additional literature is included at the back for the purpose of making the reader aware of material that greatly expands related subjects that cannot be as thoroughly discussed in the book. At other times, helpful literature will be referenced within the text.)

God Most Plain

These commandments are not difficult to understand. The God of the Bible speaks plainly—He says what He means and means what He says! (Note that God repeats for emphasis in Deuteronomy 5 the same Ten Commandments verbatim.)

We might pause at this point and ask: Do these four commands, when understood collectively, sound like the laws of a God who takes lightly those who worship any other but Himself? Do they seem like mere wishful instruction on the part of this God—things that He only hopes His followers will remember to do? Do they sound like the words of a God who is willing to let people worship idols, false gods or even any other wrong form of supposedly who and what He is, as long as the proponent proclaims such to be the true God?

It has been said that the first four commandments describe how to love God and the last six reveal how to love one’s fellow man. Put another way, the first four commandments explain how to establish a relationship with the true God and the last six how to build relationships with human beings.

A relationship with the God of the Bible begins with a recognition, understanding and acceptance of the first four commandments. All other approaches will preclude contact with Him.

Did Israel Remain Faithful?

We must ask whether the nation of Israel lived up to her promises to God made in the book of Exodus. And then we must briefly examine what can be learned from her record and how any lessons can be applied. You will see that the relevance to hundreds of millions alive today will be shocking—and unmistakable.

God intended that the nation of ancient Israel be a model nation that all other nations would copy. This was always His purpose. He expected His people to set an example for these surrounding nations of how happiness, peace, abundance, blessings and protection from enemies would result from obedience to Him. Sadly, despite an early willingness and determination to obey God, starting when the commandments were first given at Sinai, Israel repeatedly found herself copying the nations around her and worshipping their gods, thus achieving the very opposite of God’s purpose! (Recall how quickly Israel fell into worship of the “golden calf” after the Ten Commandments were given—before Moses could even get down from the mountain.) This worship of false gods had repercussions lasting thousands of years.

The long, broken history of Israel is that she turned from the true God and fell into the seductive trap of idolatry and the worship of foreign gods, doing this over and over again. Each time this pattern repeated itself, God sent her back into captivity and slavery. After a time, she would cry out in bondage, offering repentance, and God would raise up a judge and deliver her. But His people would quickly fall right back into the worship of false gods and idols, leading back to captivity, then to later repentance, again followed by God’s merciful deliverance—all of this happening time and again. This cycle, described in the book of Judges and elsewhere, was never broken until ancient Israel and Judah finally went into captivity (for the next-to-last time), with ten of the twelve tribes becoming lost to history. Only the Jews—Judah mixed with one other tribe—have retained their national identity, and this is largely attributed to having continued to observe God’s Sabbath.

Jeremiah and Isaiah Summarize

Here is how God, through the prophet Jeremiah, describes and laments the continual actions of His people—His “nation”: “Has a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But My people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. Be astonished, O you heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be you very desolate, says the Lord. For My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (2:11-13).

The latter phrase in this passage accurately describes all the false gods devised by men and nations over the last 6,000 years. These man-made “gods”—made of wood, stone, metal and false thinking—are truly “broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” Yet, those nations (and religions) cleave to these fictional gods with a faithfulness Israel never showed to the true God.

Jeremiah continues, describing Israel’s approach to gods she had copied and created: “Saying to a stock [of wood—a mere carved idol], You are my father; and to a stone, You have brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto Me, and not their face.” Speaking for God, Jeremiah then says of these gods, “but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. But where are your gods that you have made you? Let them arise, if they can save you in the time of your trouble: for according to the number of your cities are your gods, O Judah” (vs. 27-28).

This is a classic description of what is seen throughout the world in all the modern nations that consider themselves to be based upon Judaeo-Christian roots. Idols, carvings, religious statues and stained-glass windows abound on and in every church in every city, with no one thinking anything of it.

In a later chapter, we will take an in-depth look at the popular “Jesus” worshipped throughout Christendom today. Even as early as the first century, the apostle Paul was warning a congregation of God’s people (the Corinthians)—those of His Church!—of the danger of following “another Jesus,” who is tied to “another gospel” and this, in turn, he revealed is tied to following “another spirit” (II Cor. 11:3-4). You will find this revelation to be positively stunning—shocking you beyond what you can possibly imagine about the traditional “Jesus” taught in almost every church throughout the Western World.

Now continuing with Jeremiah’s account. God had always made Himself available to Israel, easy to find for those who sought Him: “O generation, see you the word of the Lord. Have I been a wilderness unto Israel? A land of darkness? Wherefore say My people, We are lords; we will come no more unto You? Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet My people have forgotten Me days without number” (2:31-32). God has never been “a wilderness” to those who seek Him. The question has always been whether Israel would seek and obey Him.

How many young women would ever permit themselves to dress up for a special occasion, but forget to put on jewelry—her “ornaments”? Surely few. Then, what bride at her wedding could possibly forget to put on her wedding dress—her “attire”? Absolutely none.

Yet, astonishingly, Israel had forgotten THEIR GOD!

Of course, this was only able to happen because she disregarded God’s basic instruction—and commandments!—and got involved with the gods of surrounding nations.

The prophet Isaiah declares this from God about the woeful—and ignorant—state of His people, then and today: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord has spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me. The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel does not know, My people do not consider. Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward” (1:2-4).

Isaiah is describing a nation that had fallen into every conceivable kind of corruption, evil and sin, all of which could be attributed to having forsaken the true God.

The Twin Sins

The entire chapter of Leviticus 26 outlines what God expected of Israel from the very beginning. Early in the chapter, He describes a long list of promises that He would fulfill if she obeyed, but includes an even longer list of punishments that would come upon Israel if she did not keep her part of the bargain. The first three verses of the chapter set the stage and reveal what God considered to be the two greatest “twin sins” that would set in motion the punishment to follow—idolatry and Sabbath-breaking. This warning brings special emphasis from God’s mind to avoiding idolatry at all costs and to always remember the Sabbath Day that points to the God of Creation!

Let’s read these verses: “You shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall you set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God. You shall keep My sabbaths, and reverence My sanctuary: I am the Lord. If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them…”

God knew that if His people committed either of these great offenses, they would lose contact with Him—and every evil, curse and bad effect would result. But commission of these offenses also explains why the entire world is in such confusion, and is plagued by every problem, evil and ill known to man.

Though it is not the subject of this volume, Almighty God will soon intervene in the affairs of all nations. The time of final punishment of the modern nations descended from Israel, which will then involve the final captivity for disobedience, is soon to occur. (You are urged to read our thorough book America and Britain in Prophecy to grasp the bigger picture of who these nations are and all that is at stake for them.)

Worldwide Confusion—Gods and More Gods

The world is filled with gods of every sort. It is as though mankind has reserved the very best of its creative powers for the invention of every conceivable type of god and goddess—whether composed of physical matter or defined by ethereal concepts in the mind. The world’s billions worship literally millions of gods.

The apostle Paul expresses it best as he introduces the true God of the Bible: “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many), but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge…” (I Cor. 8:5-7). (How interesting that Paul references “the Father” and “Jesus Christ,” thus differentiating them from all other “gods” and “lords,” but, missing the perfect opportunity, fails to mention the Holy Spirit, the supposed third member of the trinity. This kind of omission will be explored later in an inset.)

The Romans worshipped and built temples to an almost endless array of gods and goddesses. But it is said that the ancient Greeks worshipped as many as 30,000 gods. Not to be outdone, the Hindus of today are said to have 5 million, including their own trinity consisting of Sheva, Brahma and Vishnu! Of course, the Egyptians, as did other civilizations, also had their own brand of a trinity—Osiris, Horus and Isis. Then there is Tao, Confucius, Buddha, Allah and a host of other gods, goddesses and idols, worshipped today, including totem poles, nature, snakes, animals and fish in the sea, volcanoes and mountains, fire, wind, rocks, sun, moon, planets, stars and even certain human beings who are considered to be divine. Again, then, there are all the different kinds of metaphysical concepts of gods adored and worshipped in the mind—some of which have been depicted by physical symbols and representations rendered by artists. This describes the trinity.

Yet, and most are probably not aware of this, vastly more people believe in the three-in-one god of modern Christianity than any other form of god.

The Unknown God

At this point, we need to look at a fascinating but longer passage that illustrates how superstitious mankind will worship almost anything, including worship of many gods at the same time to avoid possible offense to whatever god they may have overlooked. This account paints an astounding picture. Take careful note of the last sentence. The story from Acts involves Paul in Athens:

“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, You men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions [gods], I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though He needed any thing, seeing He gives to all life, and breath, and all things; and has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent” (17:22-30).

Notice Paul’s reference “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” (also found in capital letters in the King James Bible). God had to reveal Himself to the superstitious Greeks through Paul. They had devised a “catch-all” inscription designed to include any other god missed in their “devotions.” Paul took note of how they had covered themselves in their determination to leave no stone unturned in the worship of every deity. But they had not tried to “seek, feel after” and “find Him.”

King Solomon recorded that there is “no new thing under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9). Truly, the God of the Bible has been unknown to countless millions who have been content to worship a god selected for them by men. Theologians and religionists have sought the opinions of philosophers, scholars and supposed experts, instead of the only important opinion—that of God, found in His Word. We will see that, centuries ago, these religious leaders reported their findings to the masses who were only too willing to swallow what was presented to them without proof.

The God Who Is Alive

Ultimately, we ask, What is the difference between the God of the Bible and all other gods? How does God Himself differentiate who and what He is from all others?

Throughout Scripture, God describes Himself over and over again as “the living God”—the “Eternal”—“I AM THAT I AM” (the name in Exodus 3:14 that Moses was instructed by God to use when representing Him to Pharaoh). In other words, the God of the Bible establishes who He is and separates Himself from all other gods by declaring Himself to be alive!—LIVING!—meaning all other gods are non-existent or, in a sense, “dead.” In effect, put another way, the true God states, “I AM,” meaning other gods “are not”—period.

It is vital that the reader continually ask throughout the book whether he or she is worshipping the one true God—the God who is alive—or something non-existent, inert and “dead,” a god who is not! This question towers over all others presented in this volume.

The Heart of the Problem

Let’s momentarily return to both ancient Israel and to modern theologians, educators and evolutionists. The prophet Hosea summarized Israel’s problem then and that of religionists and supposed “rationalists” of the modern age:

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you shall be no priest to Me: seeing you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children” (4:6). This is the problem that every reader of this book must squarely face. Will you reject vital knowledge offered here about God? Then, will you “seek” and “feel after” the true God?

Paul, in the New Testament, is inspired to further record God’s view of those who have consciously, willingly rejected the truth of Who and What He is, so plainly visible throughout His Creation:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress [Greek: hold back] the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:18-22, NASB).

This passage so fittingly describes the intellectually vain, but foolish, originators of the evolutionary theory, who found the existence of God, as presented by the Bible and theologians, to be so much superstition that they could neither understand nor accept. Yet, God thunders that the facts—the evidence seen throughout His Creation, on earth and in the heavens—leaves them “without excuse.” The ancients knowingly rejected clearly evident knowledge that unmistakably pointed to the existence of a God—and that He was the God of Creation. The same is true today. Why? Because so many will not “honor”—they refuse to obey—Him, when His existence and identity can be known!

A little later in context, verse 28 of Romans 1 describes how God dealt with mankind collectively because it would not admit the Creation proved His existence. Notice: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” The word “reprobate” means “void of judgment.”

Humanity has been void of judgment on virtually all important matters. This is why the problems and troubles of all nations have only multiplied. But has all this led humanity to search out the true God from the false? Later in Romans, Paul answers the question and adds much to the picture of basic human nature when it comes to whether human beings will seek God: “There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way” (3:11-12). These verses reveal that there have been no exceptions in who chooses to seek God and stay in “the way”—His Way.

In his letter to Timothy, the inspired Paul described mankind collectively as “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Tim. 3:7). This has certainly included the knowledge—the truth—of God Himself. God must reveal Himself to individuals or they cannot know Him (John 6:44, 65).

What is written here is spiritual knowledge, unknown to all but a very few, and knowledge that you could not discover on your own. Ask yourself these questions: “Is the true God revealing Himself to me?”—and “Will I treasure this special, all-important knowledge?”

Basic Honesty Required

Let’s return to the problem facing those examining the trinity god, and whether it is the God of the Bible. Some who have accepted evolution have not been willing to turn to outright atheism. But, influenced by evolutionary thinking, modern theologians and religionists have not honestly explored the trinity god in light of the plain facts of history and Scripture. They have professed themselves to be Christians, meaning that they have wanted to appear to be followers of the God of Creation. Again, in the end, these have not been willing to face the facts about their “god.” They have not been willing to come to understanding of the true God—the living God!

Then, in succession, millions of professing Christians, unwilling to explore the facts for themselves, follow such men. They remain duped by dishonest, seductive arguments designed by the god of this world to lead them to worship of himself. This is because, in their vanity (Rom. 1:22), they have foolishly rejected vital knowledge. The result has been that so many have unnecessarily become “darkened”—blinded—to the plain understanding of the true God.

For God to require strict obedience to His first four commandments without explaining who and what He is would be tantamount to cruel and inhuman punishment. If God had given this instruction without carefully equipping His worshippers to be able to distinguish Him from all other gods, He would have been most unfair. This book will fully equip you as God intended.

When confronting the 450 prophets of Baal, who were seeking to lead Israel away from worship of the true God, the true prophet Elijah presented the people with the ultimate question, following it by describing life’s greatest choice—and the choice facing you in this book. Will your response mirror those who heard Elijah?

“And Elijah came unto all the people [the Israelites], and said, How long halt you between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word” (I Kgs. 18:21).

The next chapter presents an extensive look at the history of the trinity doctrine and trinitarian god. Together with the remaining chapters, it will prepare you—actually arm you—to answer what Israel would not.

Chapter Three –

Ancient Roots of the Trinity

You have probably heard it said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. To really unlearn all that is entailed regarding the trinity, one must examine how it developed—its history. This chapter covers the origin of the teaching over many thousands of years, even preceding the time of Christ.

Some sections are written with attention to greater historic detail. This is because a full background is essential to the subject. It will be seen that theologians generally rely on humanly-devised reasoning, because they completely dismiss the crucial facts of history! This book is loaded with these facts, bringing quote after quote from reliable and respected historians.

This detail is presented so that the reader will be unable to miss the big picture here—one that you will see to be truly fascinating. Many of these introductory quotes bring important background about other things happening in the New Testament Church. These are essential to understand first, before examining the period in which the trinity gained acceptance. Put together, you will soon see that they make for absolutely compelling reading.

It is vital that you carefully examine these many sources for the message they contain. The trinity will be seen to have its roots almost entirely in philosophy and abstract metaphysics, based on nothing more than human reasoning. Remember the point made in Chapter One, that elements of this book will be difficult or impossible to understand—and that this may be good. You may find yourself wondering, after just this single chapter, how anyone could possibly believe that the doctrine of the trinity is scriptural!

Long before the Christian era, numerous variations of the three-fold god existed, and they were found in a host of pagan religions and mythologies. As with so many other pre-Christian traditional customs and practices, the revival of this doctrine in the Christian era was predictable. It was essential that followers be able to see Christianity—their “new” religion—in familiar terms.

Triad deities (the worship of a three-in-one god) first appeared in ancient Egypt about three centuries after the Great Flood of Noah’s time. These Egyptian deities came to be worshiped as Osiris, Isis and Horus.

Some facts of very early history: After the destruction of the Tower of Babel, Nimrod and his mother-wife Semiramis, the first rulers of Babylon, fled to Egypt. There, Nimrod (known as Ninus or Athothis, among numerous other names) shared rulership with his father Cush (Menes) in the first dynasty. After Nimrod’s death, Semiramis claimed his son Horus to have been Nimrod reincarnated. These three—Osiris (Nimrod), Isis (Semiramis) and Horus (the son)—came to be exalted as a triad of deities (Exploring Ancient History—The First 2500 Years, Schulz, ch. 11, 24).

In Babylon, these same three were known as Ninas, Ishtar and Tammuz. With the passage of time, this triad became well-known in many nations. Even in ancient Rome, a triad of deities was worshipped—Jupiter, Fortuna and Mercury—bearing similarities with the above-mentioned triads.

Virtually all ancient religions possessed deity “triads.” Notice this astonishing acknowledgment: “Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic; yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south. Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one…applied to the trinities of all heathen religions” (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, James Bonwick, p. 396, emphasis ours throughout).

A fascinating example of this can be found in the ancient roots of Hinduism. After the 6th century B.C., Hinduism featured the three-in-one god (or triad) that became known as the Trimutri. Brahman consisted of (1) Brahma, the creator (2) Vishnu, the preserver and (3) Shiva, the destroyer (What the Great Religions Believe, Joseph Gaer, p. 25).

Orthodox Christianity vs. Apostolic Christianity

But how did the trinity develop within mainstream Christianity? Why were most professing believers receptive to the same schools of philosophy that had been rejected by the faithful Christians of the first century?

After the original apostles had died, contradictions in doctrine began to appear en masse, and Church history became lost. Historian Edward Gibbon, in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, candidly acknowledged, “…the scanty material of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the cloud that hangs over the first age of the church.”

For nearly a century after the events recorded in the book of Acts, we find church history to be virtually blank. In The Story of the Christian Church, Jesse Lyman Hurlbut calls this period the “Age of Shadows.” He writes, “…of all the periods in the church’s history, it is the one about which we know the least…For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.”

From the New Testament, we find ample evidence of an apostasy having occurred, pulling believers away from the truth. Notice the many warnings about false apostles and a false movement that already existed in the first century and was threatening the Church:

II Thessalonians 2:7: “For the mystery of iniquity does already work…”

II Corinthians 11:13-15: “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”

I John 4:1: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

Jude 3: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

At the very end of his life, the apostle John returned from exile and had to confront this growing apostasy (falling away from truth) in the 90s A.D. At that time, false leaders had gained control over congregations of the true Church in Asia Minor. The New Testament preserved the account of one such controversy:

“I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, received us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he did, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church” (III John 9-10).

Such occurrences must have been repeated many times in many congregations late in John’s life. And they continued during the entire ministry of Polycarp, John’s successor.

Many Sources

Secular history also shows how false leaders changed the direction of the Church and cast out the few brethren who remained loyal to the apostles’ original teachings. About A.D. 135, the Jerusalem-Pella congregation came under the control of an Italian “Christian” by the name of Marcus. He persuaded the majority of the congregation to renounce the Ten Commandments, and only those brethren who did this were permitted admittance into Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.

But there were a faithful few who refused to follow Marcus. Notice: “The crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop…In a few years after the return of the church of Jerusalem, it became a matter of doubt and controversy whether a man who sincerely acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, but who still continued to observe the law of Moses, could possibly hope for salvation…[the followers of Marcus] excluded their Judaizing brethren from the hope of salvation…[and from] the common offices of friendship, hospitality, and social life” (The Decline and Fall, Gibbon, ch. 15, p. 149).

The remnant of the apostolic Church—those who were determined to adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles—were accused of “Judaizing.” This derogatory term implied that such a person sought to earn salvation by obeying God’s commandments and keeping His annual Sabbaths.

Prominent theologians, such as Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-167), could not reconcile Christ’s words in Matthew 19:17—“…if you will enter into life, keep the commandments”—with the widespread belief that no works of any kind were required for salvation. Justin Martyr from the beginning embraced another gospel (Gal. 1:6-7), and condemned as heretical everything observed by the Jews.

The church that emerged in the early second century was dramatically different from the original first-century Church. This transformation was succinctly described by Church historian Mosheim: “Christian churches had scarcely been organized when men rose up, who not being contented with the simplicity and purity of that religion which the Apostles taught, attempted innovations, and fashioned religion according to their own liking” (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1).

Yet that apostasy, which was part of an orchestrated movement, was called “orthodox”—while the small, remnant apostolic Church was suppressed, persecuted and forced into hiding.

Robert Robinson, author of The History of Baptism, stated, “Toward the latter end of the second century, most of the churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared; and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves, their children, along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles, came forward and new-modeled the cause” (Eccl. Research, ch. 6, p. 51, 1792).

During the second century, the apostle Polycarp, who had been trained by John, had to confront this apostate movement: “The steady progress of the heretical movement in spite of all opposition was a cause of deep sorrow to Polycarp, so that in the last years of his life the words were constantly on his lips, ‘Oh good God, to what times hast thou spared me, that I must suffer such things!’” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 22, p. 22).

Both Polycarp and his successor, Polycrates, witnessed the wholesale departure of organized Christianity from observing Passover on the 14th of the first month of the sacred calendar, to the observance of Easter, a pagan holiday. The few who held to the original teachings were called Quartodecimani. This faithful minority in Asia Minor, along with the Nazarenes of Syria, were the last holdouts of true Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean area of the Roman Empire (Ibid., vol. 8, pp. 828-829).

Edward Gibbon sheds more light on this apostasy and its opposition to the original apostolic teachings. All of the apostates were steeped in the accepted philosophies of that time—Gnosticism in particular: “The Mosaic account of the creation and the fall of man was treated with profane derision by the Gnostics…The God of Israel was impiously represented by the Gnostics as being liable to passion and to error…”

Gibbon explains the Gnostics’ techniques: “Acknowledging that the literal sense is repugnant to every principle of faith as well as reason, they deem themselves secure and invulnerable behind the ample veil of allegory, which they carefully spread over every tender part of the Mosaic dispensation.”

He continued, “The Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, the most learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name; and that general appellation, which expressed a superiority of knowledge… assumed by their own pride…The Gnostics blended with the faith of Christ many sublime but obscure tenets, which they derived from oriental philosophy…” (Decline and Fall, ch. 15, pp. 150-151). We will examine Gnosticism in greater detail later in this chapter.

While the visible church steadily gained preeminence, and as persecution increased, remnants of the true Church went underground. As a result, the “Christianity” of the second, third and fourth centuries had very little in common with the practices and beliefs of the first century Christians.

The new converts of this “religion in transition” dismissed biblical authority, replacing it with what came to be viewed as “Orthodox” doctrine. They considered Greek philosophy and Gnosticism to be more palatable, more to their liking.

“Christianity”—Or the Bible?

Now let’s look at a short overview of how philosophers and theologians disregarded biblical teaching and authority. It is important to note that the term “Christianity” used in the bullet points below refers to established orthodoxy as recognized in the Roman Empire, as opposed to the teachings of Christ and His apostles:

• Christianity came to accept that the Father was directly involved as the Creator, rather than creating through Christ. The Bible clearly states that Christ (the Word) created all things (John 1:1-14; Col. 1:13-17).
• Christianity came to accept that the Father was the God or Lord of the Old Testament. But the Bible shows that this personage was actually Christ (I Cor. 10:1-4).
• Christianity believed that many people had spoken with the Father (during the Old Testament era). Yet, Christ declared that no man had seen or heard God the Father (John 5:37). And, because the Father was unknown to the world, one of the purposes of Christ’s coming was to reveal Him (John 1:18, Luke 10:22).
• Christianity believes that the Father and the Son are “one” by some form of a mystical hypostasis. However, the Bible says the Father and Son are “one” in the same sense that the Church (Greek: the “called out ones”) are “one” in the spirit of unity and purpose (John 17:11).
• Christianity accepted the premise of Judaism concerning monotheism—that God was one being. Yet, two distinct God Beings are identified in the prologue of the book of John (1:1-2). Likewise, Genesis 1:26 records a conversation between these two God Beings. Notice: “Let Us make man in Our image…” Here, the term “God” derives from the Hebrew Elohim (a plural term—actually a collective noun—similar to kingdom, family or church). Although there is one God Kingdom or Family, Scripture reveals that it currently consists of two Beings.
• The Jewish doctrine of monotheism derives from their misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.” This passage is more accurately translated “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is Lord alone (or Lord only).” The verse is not talking about God as one Being—is not addressing the nature of God—but rather was instruction to Israel to not listen to other gods, but to listen to the true God alone—only! The context of Deuteronomy 6:4 is that it is found immediately after the Ten Commandments were reviewed by Moses to establish both the requirements and the authority of the true God. (A later chapter will discuss this more thoroughly.)
• Rather than the God Family being a closed loop trinity, as accepted by Christianity, this Family is set to expand through the many begotten sons of God yet to be born into it (John 1:11-12; Rom. 8:14, 19; I John 3:1-2). A later chapter will also cover in greater detail the awesome potential of human beings.

Although Orthodox Christianity can and often does contradict the Bible, the Bible does not contradict itself.

Philosophy—The Pillar of Orthodox Christianity

The story of how the trinity became an accepted doctrine among professing Christians is revealing. The Nicene Council of A.D. 325 was the pivotal event that marked its acceptance. Two opposing theologies, or factions, took part in this historic controversy.

Rather than treating God’s Word as direct instruction from the Almighty, the Orthodox Christian movement came to use the Bible to allegorically explain pre-conceived philosophies: “The Old Testament, allegorically explained, became the substitute for the outgrown mythology; intellectual activity revived; the new facts gained predominant influence in philosophy, and in turn were shaped according to its canons” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 6, p. 284).

The result was that the Bible’s literal meaning was dismissed—reduced to a mere starting point for allegorical interpretation: “As in philosophy, so now in theology, the easiest solution of the problem was the denial of one of its factors: and successively these efforts were made, until a solution was found in the doctrine of the Trinity, which satisfied both terms of the equation and became the fundamental creed of the Church” (Ibid.).

The Christian movement hailed the trinity as a solution to various contradictions in their understanding. It seemed to satisfy the requirement of monotheism while acknowledging that Christ was God in the flesh. Notice: “Its moulds of thought are those of Greek philosophy, and into these were run the Jewish teachings. We have thus a peculiar combination—the religious doctrines of the Bible, as culminating in the person of Jesus, run through the forms of an alien philosophy” (Ibid.). (Monotheism, a principle of Judaism, contributed to the Jewish establishment rejecting Christ during His earthly ministry.)

The next quote offers more early insight into the origin of the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity is “not primarily ethical nor even religious, but it is metaphysical. What is the ontological relationship between these three factors [Father, Son and Spirit]? The answer is given in the Nicene formula, which is characteristically Greek” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 6, p. 284).

Notice that the above statement acknowledges that the trinity was “not primarily ethical nor even religious.” At best, it essentially categorizes this doctrine as an unnecessary metaphysical appendage or afterthought!

Now consider a similar—and unusual—admission by Catholic scholars: “We must be willing to admit that should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged…the Christian idea of the incarnation would not have to change at all if there were no Trinity” (The Trinity, Rahner et al., pp.10-11).

In light of this, one must question why the trinity was elevated to such a position of importance in the first place. Its place or “necessity” was under question from the beginning, even by those who imported it into the church. By contrast, we will learn later in the book that the nature of the true God does directly have a bearing on a host of biblical doctrines.

The Trinity—Conceived in Philosophy

Before examining the dominant philosophy of the second to fourth centuries A.D., we must focus on the famous Greek philosopher Plato (427-327 B.C.) and his attempts to define God. Most Greek philosophy was based on Plato’s theories, later developing into Middle Platonism and eventually Neo-Platonism. All other philosophical schools of Greek origin, such as the Pythagoreans, were greatly influenced by Platonism.

Plato is considered the greatest and foremost of all philosophers. He produced many famous works, including The Republic, in which his ideas were presented in the form of dramatic dialogues. His central dogma asserted that the “ideal” forms an absolute and eternal reality, and that this physical world is but an imperfect and transitory reflection. (If this seems difficult to understand, remember, Plato was a philosopher, and such “thinkers” are generally not concerned with or even supposed to be understood by those deemed “uneducated.”)

Since the concept of triad deities permeated all ancient religions, Plato was deeply ingrained with trinitarian thought. He sought to better define the Creator by elevating this Being above the host of other deities in Greek mythology. His definition consisted of: (1) The “first God,” who was the Supreme Being in the universe; (2) the “second God,” whom Plato described as the “soul of the universe”; and (3) the “third God,” defined as the “spirit” (Gods and the One God, Grant, ch. 12).

Ignoring the Bible, men came to regard Plato’s definition as mankind’s best effort to define God.

Philo

Another individual bearing significant influence upon the popular developing trinitarian thought during the second through fourth centuries was Philo, a theologian of Alexandria, Egypt, who lived circa. 20 B.C. to 50 A.D. For centuries to follow, this Jewish philosopher’s influence upon Jewish thought was profound.

Though greatly influenced by Plato, Philo’s version of trinitarian thought was unique. He defined God as: (1) The Father, who created all things (whom Philo calls “the Demiurge”); (2) the Mother, who was the Knowledge that the Maker possessed; and (3) the only beloved Son—this world (Ibid.). In this human-reason-laced definition, the union of Demiurge and Knowledge produced man’s world.

Such is philosophy—but it is this kind of esoteric thinking that bore heavily on the birth and development of the trinity!

This triad differed somewhat from Plato’s version, yet was conceived by Philo’s lifelong focus on Greek philosophy. His blending of Platonism and Stoicism set the course of Christian philosophy, and this is demonstrated in the following overview: “In Greek philosophy …Philo…chiefly follows the Platonic doctrine of Ideas and the Soul of the World, and the Stoic doctrine of God as the…Reason operative in the world. In its Stoic form the latter doctrine was pantheistic, but Philo could adapt it to his purpose simply by drawing a sharper distinction between the Logos and the world” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 21, p. 411).

Alexandria was the source of Hellenistic influence upon the Jews. Note: “For here the Jews began to busy themselves with Greek literature even under their clement [lenient] rulers, the first Ptolemies, and here the law and other Scriptures [Septuagint] were first translated into Greek; here the process of fusion began earliest and proceeded with greatest rapidity; here, therefore, also the Jews first engaged in a scientific study of Greek philosophy and transplanted that philosophy to the soil of Judaism” (Ibid., p. 409).

To appreciate how Greek philosophy influenced Philo, consider: “Philo certainly, to judge by his historical influence, was the greatest of all these Jewish philosophers, and in his case we can follow in detail the methods by which Greek culture was harmonized with Jewish faith…Philo’s closest affinities are with Plato, the later Pythagoreans and the Stoics.”

Also note that “in whole the substance of his philosophy the Jewish point of view is more or less completely modified—sometimes almost extinguished—by what he has learned from the Greeks…their influence on Philo is nowhere more strongly seen than in the detailed development of his doctrine of God” (Ibid., p. 409-410).

Of course, Philo’s monotheism derived from Judaism, although reinforced by Plato. Philo’s common bond to Greek philosophy also made him a significant influence in Christian thought, and thus the development of the trinity.

Gnosticism

All those who contributed to the trinity doctrine were well-versed in traditional philosophy.

But Gnosticism went even further: “Gnosticism [Greek for knowledge], the name generally applied to that spiritual movement existing side by side with genuine Christianity, as it gradually crystallized into the old Catholic Church, which may roughly be defined as a distinct religious syncretism bearing the strong impress of Christian influences” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. 12, p. 152).

Note that Gnosticism was acknowledged to be distinct from true Christianity. Also, regarding the apocryphal writings, which were rejected as spurious by those who faithfully continued in the apostles’ teaching, the above source states, “Generally also much Gnostic matter is contained in the apocryphal histories of the Apostles.”

Irenaeus, once a student of Polycarp, was swayed under the Gnostic influence of Justin Martyr. Irenaeus fell away from the apostolic Church in favor of the counterfeit movement centered in Rome.

Gnosticism also weighed heavily in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, as well as Origen—the most prolific writer of the Christian era. To better understand the appeal of Gnosticism among so many in the Catholic movement, consider the following facts:

“It is a mistake to regard the Gnostics as pre-eminently the representatives of intellect among Christians, and Gnosticism as an intellectual tendency chiefly concerned with philosophical speculation, the reconciliation of religion with philosophy and theology. It is true that when Gnosticism was at its height it numbered amongst its followers both theologians and men of science, but that is not its main characteristic. Among the majority of the followers of the movement ‘Gnosis’ was understood not as meaning ‘knowledge’ or ‘understanding,’ in our sense of the word, but ‘revelation’…Gnostic sects and groups all lived in the conviction that they possessed a secret and mysterious knowledge, in no way accessible to those outside, which was not to be proved or propagated, but believed in by the initiated, and anxiously guarded as a secret” (Ibid.).

Again, however, the Bible teaches its students to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thes. 5:21). In the scriptures, mysteries are unknown areas that are always eventually revealed to the reader who is willing to carefully put together all the scriptures on the matter:

• “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God…” (Mark 4:11)
• “Behold I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed” (I Cor. 15:51)
• “Having made known unto us the mystery…” (Eph. 1:9).
• “Even the mystery which has been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest [obvious]…” (Col. 1:26).

These verses stand in stark contrast to the positions that the Gnostics held. The established Christian movement, especially in the second century, greatly elevated various cryptic metaphysical mysteries: “In Gnosticism as in other mystic religions we find the same contrast of the initiated and the uninitiated, the same loose organization, the same kind of petty sectarianism and mystery mongering” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. 12, p. 153).

Another aspect of Gnosticism shows the strange assortment of mysteries that its followers advocated: “Hence the Gnostic must above all things learn the names of the demons, and equip himself with the sacred formulas and symbols, in order to be certain of a good destiny after death…It was taught that even the redeemer-god, when he once descended on to this earth, to rise from it again, availed himself of these names and formulas on his descent and ascent through the world of demons” (Ibid.).

Such mysteries, central to the doctrines of Gnosticism, influenced and molded the so-called “great minds” who contributed to the development of the trinity. Even the name “Demiurge,” which Philo attributed to the “Father who created all things,” was a term commonly used in Gnosticism, as well as in other schools of Greek philosophy.

Some might consider Gnosticism to be a deviation from Plato’s more “stable” positions. However, both Gnosticism and Plato were deeply immersed in questionable forms of mysticism. Notice this—and ask what it means: “Throughout this mystic religious world it was above all the influence of the late Greek religion, derived from Plato, that also continued to operate; it is filled with the echo of the song, the first note of which was sounded by the Platonists, about the heavenly home of the soul and the homeward journey of the wise to the higher world of light” (Ibid., p. 155).

Plato’s influence in almost every aspect of the movement that replaced first-century Christianity was profound—including mystery religions, the “soul,” and the trinity. Gnosticism’s influence in the established Christian movement, especially in the second and third centuries, should never be understated.

Origen and Other Contributors

During the second century, the trinity was subject to much speculation. For example, Justin Martyr, known for his anti-Semitism and opposition to all things Hebrew, defined the trinity as “the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit” (Apology 61.3). His thinking was influenced by Middle Platonism, Gnosticism, and the writings of Philo and other prominent philosophers of that time, such as Numenius. Irenaeus defined the Godhead as consisting of “the Father, the Word and the Wisdom.” Eventually, the trinity concept became the focus of theologians and philosophers such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Origen (A.D. 185-254) has been described as “the most distinguished and most influential of all the theologians of the ancient church, with the possible exception of Augustine. He is the father of the church’s science; he is the founder of a theology which was brought to perfection in the 4th and 5th centuries, and which still retained the stamp of his genius.”

Continuing, “He could not have been what he was unless two generations before him had labored at the problem of finding an intellectual expression and a philosophic basis for Christianity (Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Pantaenus, Clement). But their attempts, in comparison to his, are like a schoolboy’s essays beside the finished work of a master” (Encyclopedia Britannica 11th ed., vol. 20, p. 270).

Despite such praise, scholars recognized the difficulty of grasping Origen’s philosophical reasoning. Consider: “To us, indeed, his conception of the universe, like that of Philo, seems a strange medley, and one may be at a loss to conceive how he could bring together such heterogeneous elements; but there is no reason to doubt that the harmony of all the essential parts of his system was obvious enough to himself” (Ibid.).

What is this saying? Translated, this diplomatic expression is reduced to the following: “His theories do not make sense to us, but surely, they must make sense to him.”

Origen’s thoughts were considered so profound that “Orthodox theology has never, in any of the confessions, ventured beyond the circle which the mind of Origen first measured out” (Ibid.).

This was true concerning his version of the trinity, which has essentially remained intact as he had molded and fashioned it—“Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Of all who contributed to the concept of the trinity, from definition to extensive commentary, Origen is considered to have far exceeded all the others.

Like Philo, he grew up and spent most of his life in Alexandria, Egypt, under the influence of its “progressive” atmosphere, as well as contributing to it. Here is some background on the Alexandria that influenced Origen: “Alexandria had been, since the days of the Ptolemies, a centre for interchange of ideas between East and West—between Egypt, Syria, Greece and Italy; and, as it had furnished Judaism with an Hellenic philosophy, so it also brought about the alliance of Christianity with Greek philosophy…in Alexandria, Christian ideas were handled in a free and speculative fashion and worked out with the help of Greek philosophy” (Ibid.).

Concerning his writings, it should be pointed out that “Origen is probably the most prolific author of the ancient church. ‘Which of us,’ asks Jerome, ‘can read all that he has written?’ The number of his works was estimated at 6000…” (Ibid., p. 271).

Origen was steeped in asceticism, the doctrine of extreme self-denial and austerity, and the worship of the human will. He slept on cold stone floors and went barefoot most of his life. To curb any future sexual lust and to demonstrate his stoic courage, he actually surgically made himself a eunuch while lecturing to his pupils. Notice this description: “His manner of life was ascetic; the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount and the practical maxims of the Stoics were his guiding stars” (Ibid., p. 270).

Heavily influenced by the wisdom of Plato, Philo and Origen, Christianity became increasingly receptive to Greek philosophy. Following in the tradition of the Gnostics, theologians and philosophers continued to allegorize the scriptures in order to illustrate a higher order of wisdom. In the truest sense, philosophic reasoning became the center of the intellectual universe, with the Word of God orbiting to its beckoning. Traditional “Christianity,” propelled by Greek philosophy, freed itself from submitting to God’s authority and set about to refashion the God of the Bible into the highest form that the “greatest” human minds could envision and devise. This was most realized in the doctrine of the trinity—a mystery even to its creators, but considered the pinnacle of human creativity.

The Early Church Rejected Philosophy

The first-century apostles rejected the idea of using philosophy to interpret Scripture: “None of the early Christian apologists [defenders of the faith] paid any attention to a doctrine like this” (Gods and the One God, Grant, ch. 12).

Note how one source best describes how the apostle Paul viewed philosophical reasoning: “Metaphysics [a branch of philosophy pertaining to origins, etc.] and speculative theories were valueless for Paul; he was conscious of a mighty power transforming his own life and filling him with joy, and that this power was identical with Jesus of Nazareth he knew. In all this Paul is the representative of that which is highest and best in early Christianity. Speculation and hyperspiritualization were ever tending to obscure this religious fact…” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 6, p. 284).

In Colossians 2:8, Paul warns against absorbing philosophy, calling it a vain and worldly deceit: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Paul goes on to condemn asceticism: “Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh” (vs. 20-23).

In I Timothy 6:20-21, Paul is even more direct: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” Here, the Greek word for “science” is Gnosis. Clearly, Paul condemns Gnosticism. And his example reflected the position of the first-century Church in condemning all philosophy in general.

The first chapter of Romans describes the ancient philosophers, including Plato, and how they had rejected the true God and His divine authority, and engaged in vile personal conduct (vs. 18-32). Inspired by God, Paul describes their philosophical conclusions as being as much an abomination as their promiscuous perversions.

Yet, the form of Christianity that came to dominate the religious scene during the third and fourth centuries exalted these philosophers’ opinions. Their human reasoning and speculation were viewed as a pillar of understanding, and were used to interpret Scripture.

The Council of Nicaea

In the early 300s A.D., during the time of the most severe persecutions against all who claimed to be Christian, the Roman armies proclaimed Constantine, their favorite general, as Caesar. Constantine had claimed victory after defeating Licinius in the Battle of Mulvian Bridge outside Rome.

Prior to that battle, Constantine was said to have had a vision: He claimed to have seen the first two letters of Christ’s name (in Greek, chi (X) and rho (P), and that he heard a voice tell him, “By this sign you will conquer.” Taking these as symbolic of God’s favor, Constantine felt indebted to Christianity for his victory—in spite of being a dedicated sun worshipper!

Immediately upon becoming emperor, he issued the Edict of Toleration, which made Christianity legal throughout the empire. This ended ten years of severe persecution against the true Church—but it also paved the way for the Catholic brand of Christianity to rise to preeminence in the Roman Empire (The History of the Church of God, Kelly, part 4).

Constantine recognized the political benefit of aligning with established Christianity. Not only did he credit it for establishing him as emperor, he understood its potential for serving as a means to unify the empire.

Yet, the Christianity of the Western empire was significantly different from that in the east and of the other sects in North Africa. Thus, Emperor Constantine took measures to “standardize” his newfound ally (Ibid.).

The Pivotal Council of Nicaea

The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, was conducted at Constantine’s imperial summer residence in Nicaea of Bithynia, from May 20th until July 25th, A.D. 325. With 318 clergymen in attendance, most of the delegates came from the eastern part of the empire, which was generally more conservative.

There were a number of items on the agenda. One included secular enforcement of codified laws adopted by the church, as promised by Constantine once church unity was established. That unity was to be achieved by healing the growing rift between advocates of the trinity and the Arian movement.

Another issue involving uniformity was setting the date of Easter on the Sunday following the full moon after the vernal equinox. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, p. 7).

One issue of note involved a little known law that would have enacted celibacy in the clergy. The council rejected this law in favor of defending the sanctity of marriage (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 19, pp. 640-642). There were elements within the empire that resisted the innovations that the clergy at Rome advocated. But over time, their influence steadily diminished.

The Council of Nicaea officially “admitted the principle that the state might employ the secular arm to bring the Christian subjects of the Roman world-empire under the newly codified faith” (Ibid., p. 640). Translated, this meant that, as protector of the only recognized and established form of Christianity in the empire, Constantine had the authority to force everyone—pagan and all brands of Christianity—into either conformity or exile.

Now let’s focus on another controversy involving the Council of Nicaea—the nature of God and how the trinity was decreed to be doctrine in the Roman Empire. This controversy flared throughout the debates and continued even after the final decision, which had only come after extensive vacillation through the process. Inroads, though shaky, were made for the approval of a compromised version of the trinity. But it was not until A.D. 381, at the Council of Constantinople, that the Catholic Church finally adopted the Nicene Creed, which officially approved the trinity doctrine.

Opposing Sides

There were two opposing sides of the controversy at Nicaea. One side was represented by Arius, the other by Athanasius. Both men came from the same congregation in Alexandria, Egypt. Arius was the priest, and 45 years older than Athanasius, who was a deacon. Both men were influenced by the same speculative mindset of Greek philosophy, for which Alexandria was known: “Arius (250-336) had received his theological education in the school of the presbyter Lucian of Antioch [in Syria], a learned man, and distinguished especially as a biblical scholar…Lucian…persisted in holding that the Logos became a person in Christ” (Ibid., vol. 2, p. 543).

Lucian—one of the most sound and capable teachers of that time—had compiled what became known as the Received Text, the authentic Greek manuscripts of the canonized New Testament Scriptures. His preservation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek is also significant. Erasmus, the most outstanding Catholic scholar in history, greatly favored Lucian’s texts over Jerome’s spurious Latin translation, also known as the Vulgate (Truth Triumphant, Wilkinson, ch. 5).

During and after the Council of Nicaea, the Catholic position was that all who denied the trinity were effectively denying the divinity of Christ. But Lucian’s teachings proved this to be false. He had strongly advocated (as the Bible teaches) Christ’s divinity prior to His appearing in the flesh—without the philosophical trappings of the trinity.

Arius, who studied under Lucian, compromised. He leaned toward the teachings of Paul of Samosata, who maintained that Christ had to be a created Being and had not been God prior to becoming flesh (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 2, p. 543). Defining Christ as a created Being, Arius deduced that a member of the true Godhead could never dwell among sinful mankind. This became the greatest weakness in his thinking and became the basis for the rejection of his views at Nicaea.

On the other hand, Athanasius (A.D. 295-373) followed the philosophy of Origen. Often considered the greatest scholar of the Catholic Church, Origen was the antithesis of Lucian, since he weighed in heavily as a Platonist and Stoic. Lucian, by contrast, was strictly scriptural. He was considered to be a “Judaizer,” much in the tradition of the original apostles.

By proxy, the Council of Nicaea brought to head the two leading proponents of two opposite extremes: Lucian and his strict and literal biblical interpretation vs. Origen and his philosophic leanings, which colored his interpretation of Scripture. This was one of the few open forums for pure biblical interpretation to confront the thinking of a renowned champion of human reasoning.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, true biblical teaching was not properly represented. Arius had compromised his training and merely represented his own warped version of this teaching. Both sides departed from the Bible, but in different ways. The movement that contributed to Catholic thought, represented by Origen’s vast writings, even more blatantly distorted Scripture. Through the centuries, the proponents of this thinking have remained unswerving from their original foundations—holding to their tradition without deviation. (Remember Jeremiah 2:11-13.)

While Arius had been personally taught by Lucian, Athanasius subscribed to Origen’s teachings indirectly (because Origen had died 40 years before Athanasius was born). Although not a scholar, Athanasius compensated for his lack of formal training by his determined and confrontational approach in defending his convictions. He thrived upon controversy and arguments.

As the theologians gathered for the Council of Nicaea, the opposing sides took weeks to present their views. Some of the abstract terms used to define the mysterious state of the trinity were a source of constant confusion. Consider this example: “However, a great trouble arose, since there are two terms in Greek of historical fame. The first, homos, meaning ‘identical’ and the second, homoios, meaning ‘similar’ or ‘like unto’…The spelling of these words is much alike. The difference in meaning, when applied to the Godhead, is bewildering to simplehearted [sane] believers. Nevertheless, those who would think in terms of homoiousian, or ‘similar,’ instead of homoousian, or ‘identical’ were promptly labeled as heretics and Arians by the clergy. Yet when the emperor, Constantine, in full assembly of the Council of Nicaea, asked Hosius, the presiding bishop, what the difference was between the terms, Hosius replied that they were both alike. At this all but a few bishops broke out into laughter and teased the chairman with heresy” (Truth Triumphant, Wilkinson, p. 92).

Just as there were Arians and Semi-Arians, there were also various factions within the trinity movement. Despite what many might suppose, the trinity was never a simple case of “for or against.” Far from simple to understand even at the time, comprehending what really happened in this era becomes nearly impossible for those studying it today.

For instance, one such group, the Homoiousians, advocated solely the “likeness of nature” of the three parts of the Godhead. They did not buy into the full trinity formula, which they viewed as abstract concepts without merit. Yet, decades later, at the Council at Constantinople, objections faded and allowed the trinity movement to merge into one voice (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. 2, p. 544).

Athanasius’ position centered upon the belief that Christ had formerly been a God Being, having always existed prior to becoming human. But many considered his various philosophical extrapolations taken from Origen to be confusing theory and conjecture, which, of course, they were. The Athanasius faction’s greatest advantage was that Arius tried to defend a position that the majority did not recognize as defensible.

Disagreement Continues

After the opposing views at Nicaea had been presented, both sides continued to lobby and position behind the scenes for a number of weeks. Most of the delegates were not impressed with either argument, both of which were considered somewhat extreme (Ibid., vol. 19, p. 641). Athanasius was opposed by many of the delegates from the east. The Rome-Alexandrian orbit of the Catholic movement leaned more toward Greek philosophy, while the majority of the delegates, still somewhat influenced by remnants of the true Church, were more conservative.

Finally, as the Nicaean Council came to an end, most of the delegates voted in favor of Athanasius. This was not so much a mandate for his beliefs, but rather the lesser of two evils. Most considered both sides to be mutually unacceptable. The outcome is best described here: “In the main they perpetuated the line of Origen” (Ibid., vol. 19, p. 641). The demands of the emperor carried the day. He wanted to go with the decision of the majority—either way—and was determined to enforce it. Sensing where the decision was going, participants made it almost unanimous (300 out of 318) simply because they feared death or exile if they were on the wrong side of the apparent outcome.

Eventual Acceptance

Think carefully. It is incredible that the decision—any “decision”—by men regarding the nature of the God of the Universe was born in such an environment, but it was. It is time for some questions: Does this seem acceptable? Do you think God would do it this way? Do you care? Will you care?

Thus, the council’s decision spelled trouble for Arius and his allies, who were banished for a time. Arians and semi-Arians were temporarily out of favor. Yet, this would change in a few years. The considerable conflict that simmered between the disputing parties would be resolved decades later at the Council of Constantinople. It was then that the trinity would become a central doctrine of the church at Rome.

The only time that Arianism really threatened to return was during the rule of Emperor Valens who had attempted to revive it—but without success. After Valens’ reign, Arianism, which had already been rejected by the Roman church, was officially rejected by the empire.

Yet, the Arian movement “lived to flourish anew among the Germanic tribes at the time of the great migrations [5th century and afterwards]. Goths, Vandals, Suebi, Burgundians and Langobardi embraced it; here to a distinctive national type of Christianity…” (Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 544).

An interesting note of history: While Arianism diminished from view during the middle ages, it was resurrected by Adolph Hitler to promote pride and nationalism in Nazi Germany at the time of World War II. Once again, this “distinctive national type of Christianity” was hailed by Germanic peoples. Under the Nazis, “Arianism” was transformed into “Aryanism”—a racial term proclaiming the superiority of Germanic peoples, more than continuing to represent a doctrine or creed.

The Adopted Creed

When compared to later Catholic writings, Athanasius’ beliefs were not strongly trinitarian. The Nicene Creed (also called Nicaean) devoted little comment to defining the Father, and even less to defining the Spirit. The majority of the Creed explains the exact definition of Christ, refuting what Arius had advocated. Although the Creed was not predominantly trinitarian, it did lay the groundwork for a stronger definition to be made at a later date. Much of the trinitarian language had to be removed from what the council had decided in order to win the delegates’ approval.

The Nicene Creed, principally drawn up in A.D. 325, was essentially a revision of the creed written earlier that year by Eusebius of Caesarea, historian and close confidant of Constantine. Later revisions reflected additions made primarily at the Council of Constantinople.

The Nicene Creed reads:

I. We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible.

II. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came do