In the last article I debunked the TULIP. In this article will deal with the Athanasian Creed which is the most prominent and fully developed statement of Trinitarianism in existence.
Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold the catholic faith.
Wrong. Whoever desires to be saved must believe on Christ through repentance and be baptized in his name after which they will be regenerated by the infilling of the Holy Ghost(see Jhn. 3:5-21; Acts 2:38-39;Rom. 10:6-11). Why? Because Salvation is by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone(see Rom. 3:28;Rom. 5:1;Gal. 2:16) and all faith is unto obedience because faith without works is dead(see Rom. 1:5;James 2:14-26). Other doctrinal views have little to nothing to do with the faith. Also the word Catholic nowhere appears in the Bible however I condemn not this creed for the terminology it uses, I too use terminology that is not necessarily in the Bible, but rather for the concept that that terminology reflects. The problem with the word catholic here is that it reflects the catholic church’s belief that they were the first, and thus the only true, church. However that is not what scripture or history reflects. History shows that they were the first eccuminical, or hierarchial, church but both scripture and history suggest that prior to the catholic church each individual church was atonomous. Also they are using the term faith improperly here. What they mean is religion. Faith on the other hand is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not yet seen(see Heb. 11:1).
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.
Again read my above statement. Only faith in Jesus Christ through confession of him by repentance and through baptism in his name will get you into heaven. What denomination you are and what your view of the Godhead and Christology is don’t matter. These aren’t the basis for being baptized in his name. The basis is that he died for our sins and not anyone else. As long as you believe in the Christian Jesus and not the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or New Ager Jesus you will be fine providing that you confess faith in him through repentance and are baptized in his name and his name alone.
Now this is the catholic faith:
No it is the Catholic Religion. Big difference.
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
Wrong again. We worship one God(see Deut. 6:4) but nothing in the Bible points to any division in his Spirit at all. He is one God in number not in unity.
Neither blending their persons nor dividing their essense.
First off God is not a person, let alone two or more, he is a Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth(see Jhn. 4:24). So all this talk about divine persons is just jiberish until you get to the part about Jesus when it refers to his humanity. Then it properly describes Christ as a person because as a human he is a person but he is the only person in the Godhead. Other than that there is just a Spirit called God. So no we don’t blend the persons, not because we don’t believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are essentially the same at the spiritual level but rather because God isn’t a person to begin with and the only person in the Godhead is Christ, nor do we divide the essense, I already explained this but here it is again his essense is a Spirit so to divide it would be to make multiple gods which is forbidden by Christianity, but we worship one indivisible God who is numerically one and his son who is in reality this indivisible God that is numerically one simply incarnated in the flesh.
For the Person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit is still another.
Wrong. Here we go with more fun stuff. First off as I already explained above God is not a person except in Christ. He is a Spirit. Secondly, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct in the way meant here. Rather the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father in Action, and the Son is the Father incarnate in the flesh(see Acts 2:38;I Pet. 1:11; Eph. 4:4-6). Here we observe that it says that both the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost(also called the Holy Spirit) inhabit the believer’s body and that there is one Spirit. Then it reveals that it is the Father that is in the Believer which can only mean that the Spirit of Christ is both the Father and the Holy Ghost. Thus the Bible makes distinctions but only in the roles that God plays as each.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their Majesty coeternal.
Half-wrong. The divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one because the Father is the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ. However Jesus did say that “My Father is greater than I.”(see Jhn. 14:28). So the Father, which according to Christ is the only true God(see Jhn. 17:3), is greater than Christ. This doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t still God. He is God in so that his Spirit is Divine. That is that the Holy Ghost is Christ’s spirit as recorded in I Pet. 1:11. So no their glory is not equal. Christ, while he accepted the praises of men who worshipped him as God, always and without qualification exalted his divinity far above his humanity. Thus their glory is not equal but rather Christ prayed that God would give him the glory that they had together in the beginning(see Jhn. 17:5). That is that as a human he had no glory except what his divinity granted to him. The glory that he had before the world was refers to the fact that he is not only God in the flesh but according to Jhn. 1:1-14 he is also a personification of aspects, attributes, or characteristics of God and that was the manner of his existence before the world. Thus he wished to be returned to the glory that that pre-flesh state had contained but with the flesh intact.
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
False. The Father is omniscient(see Job 37:16;Job 28:24; Psa. 147:5; I Sam. 2:3; Isa. 55:9; I Jhn. 3:19-20; Heb. 4:13; Isa. 46:9) but Jesus isn’t(see Matt. 24:36). Thus the Son does not have the same qualities as the Father. Now the Holy Ghost does because he is the Father(see Matt.1:18;Luke 1:31-35;Jhn. 1:14) but Christ or the Son as he is called here does not. He has limited knowledge due to his humanity. As God he is all knowing but as God he is not the son he is the Father and/or the Holy Ghost.
The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
Of course this is true because the Father and the Holy Ghost have always existed and the Son was begotten which is totally different from creation. Creation means that God said that you should exist so you just appear. Begotten refers to the fact that a sexual act, except that in this case it wasn’t sexual because God being God simply jump started the process, resulted in the conception of a baby. But conception is not creation. All the necessary elements for conception already exist. It is a matter of genetics. The only thing that God creates at conception is the spirit of the baby. Everything else comes as a result of this process. Since Christ’s spirit is God himself then God did not create a spirit with Jesus so Jesus by definition was not created but begotten.
The Father is immeasurable, the Son is immeasurable, the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
Once again this is only partially true. God is immeasurable. But remember that the term Son doesn’t refer to the divinity of Christ by itself. It refers to Christ’s humanity. Thus the Son is measurable as a man.
The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal.
Finally something that is one hundred percent true. They are all three eternal. Unlike the previous statements this is one time that this creed says something that is equally true about the Father and Holy Ghost as well as the Son or Christ.
And yet there are not three eternal beings but one eternal being.
And more jiberish. This time it isn’t jiberish because it is false but because if everything I said before this point was written into this creed then there wouldn’t be any reason for this clause.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings; there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Once again more jiberish. And for the same reason as the previous statements.
Similarly, the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty. Yet there are not three almighty beings; there is but one almighty being.
The only objection here is the same as the one about them being equal in glory. Jesus said that “My Father is greater than I.” Other than that I have no objections to this statement except to say that it is just more of the same jiberish as are found in the previous two parts. There is no need for this.
Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God.
Once again they are completely right here. There is but one God(see Deut. 6:4). But this is still pointless because I have already addressed almost every issue that makes this even necessary.
Thus the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord. Yet there are not three lords; there is but one Lord.
Read my previous comment.
Just as the Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or three lords.
Here they err. The Christian truth is Jesus Christ(see Jhn. 14:6) and the only thing he compels us to confess is that there is One God and that he, Jesus, is Lord(see Matt. 22:37; Rom. 10:9). And it is the Christian religion that forbids us to say that there are three gods or three lords(see Deut. 6:4). Although finally they got it right and instead of saying the word faith, which they used incorrectly, the use the word religion which they use properly.
The Father was neither made nor created or begotten from anyone.
True. There is really no need to address this since I already have by now.
The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone.
True and False. He was neither made nor created but instead was begotten however it was not by the Father alone but since the Father is the Holy Ghost then it was by the Holy Ghost as well.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
This is completely unbiblical. The Bible nowhere makes a distinction between the Father and the Holy Ghost after this manner. Instead it makes a distinction in roles of God. God is a Spirit. God is Holy. Therefore God is the Holy Spirit. Besides which we have already dealt with the fact that the Father is the only true God. So no the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father and the Son but rather he is the Father and is the Spirit of Christ who is the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father is one Father, not three fathers; there is one Son, not three sons; Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. Nothing in this trinity is before or after, Nothing is greater or smaller; In their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other.
Part of this is biblically correct though pointless. Of course there aren’t three Holy Spirits, three Fathers, or three sons because there aren’t three gods. The only reason this is necessary is because some high minded philosophical people decided to read neoplatonic philosophy into the biblical text. I am simply tearing down every high thing that exalts itself against God(see II Cor. 10:4-5). On the other hand the rest of this is a duzy. First off the Father(Holy Spirit) is before the Son because the Son didn’t exist before God became incarnate in the flesh. Nothing before the New Testament mentions a begotten son of God except in prophetic terms and even then it doesn’t say those words. However the first place that the term only begotten of the Father is mentioned(correct me if I am wrong) is in Jhn. 1:14. So yes the Father who is the Holy Ghost was before the Son who is Jesus Christ because Christ didn’t exist as Christ before the virgin birth. Before that time he was the Logos(word, reason, self expression, or communication of God)(see Jhn. 1:1). None of these things can be separate persons in the Godhead since they are obviously aspects or characteristics of God himself thus meaning that Jhn. 1:1-14 identifies Jesus as a personification of aspects of God rather than as these things in a literal since. That is that before Jesus was in the flesh he was God who communicated to man in various ways. When God took on the flesh and became Jesus it was as if Jesus was the personification of the Logos itself. The Logos being God’s Word, reason, self expression, communication, etc. rather than literally being the Logos. If you don’t believe me it also compares Jesus to Light and Life. I am sure that Jesus isn’t literally Life incarnate or Light incarnate. These words sound instead more like what a lover or close intimate friend would right about a person they cared about very much who had died. And no I don’t mean that John was Jesus lover, that would be sick, nor do I mean intimate in a sexual way. Now Jesus is described as the resurrection elsewhere in the Bible. But he isn’t literally the resurrection. Rather without him the resurrection wouldn’t happen. Secondly the Father is greater than the Son. Jesus said that “The Father is Greater than I”(see Jhn. 14:28). Thus the Father is Greater than the Son. He is also before the Son. Thirdly they are not both Coequal and Coeternal. Only the Father knows when Jesus is going to return(see Matt. 24:36). Thus Jesus cannot be coequal with the Father because he isn’t omniscient but the Father is. Jesus also isn’t coeternal. Eternal is the quality of having no beginning or end but Jesus had a beginning(see Jhn. 1:14). The Father doesn’t have a beginning or ending. But the Son does. He was begotten. To beget refers to the sexual act, or in the case of this divine begetting whatever God did to get Mary’s body to form an embryo without a sperm cell and then insert his spirit and personality into it, that leads to conception and subsequent birth. That Jesus was begotten in time shows that he had a beginning and that beginning was nine months before Bethlehem when Mary became pregnant of the Holy Ghost. So they are not Coequal or Coeternal. The Holy Ghost is the Father who is God. God is Eternal. Equality is jiberish since there is nobody to be equal to. And Jesus, the Son of God, who is fully God and is thus the Father absent his flesh is very much in the flesh and alive and well in heaven right now. Since this is the case then Jesus is not coeternal or coequal with God because flesh is not eternal and it can never be equal to spirit.
So in everything, as was said earlier, we must worship their trinity in their unity and their unity in their trinity. Anyone then who desires to be saved should think thus about the trinity.
Wrong again. The Trinity is false as I have already demonstrated many times up to this point. Thus this part about worshipping trinity in unity and visa versa is total nonsense and jiberish. Secondly the Trinity is not only not found in the Bible but even if it was it wouldn’t be a requirement to be saved because there is only one requirement to be saved and that is recorded in Acts 2:38. No creedal belief in a fairytale triune deity that was invented by Greek philosophers and antisemites will get you into heaven nor will it ban you outright from heaven. Repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus aren’t conclusions reached because of oneness, though they typically do go hand in hand, but rather people should be baptized in the name of Jesus because it was Jesus who died for our sins(see Rom. 6:3-4). Otherwise baptismal formula would be meaningless. But because Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost ordered people to be baptized in the name of Jesus for the above mentioned reason then repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus effects salvation. So sorry but your view of God doesn’t affect your eternity. Rather your obedience to Acts 2:38 does.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation that one also believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully. Now this is the true faith:
Once again I have already explained that nothing more is necessary for Salvation then to follow Acts 2:38. Yes you should believe in the one God in Christ(see Col. 2:9). But that is not a necessary component of Acts 2:38 salvation. Even a Unitarian can receive Acts 2:38 salvation without giving up his Unitarianism. As long as you confess Christ through repentance and baptism in his name all other revelations will follow. The Holy Ghost will guide you to these revelations through the pages of the Bible. And once again we have them misusing the word faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not yet seen(see Heb. 11:1). The word they meant was religion.
That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and human, equally.
Finally a statement that is entirely true. It has plenty of evidences through Scripture which show the divine and human will in Christ. What is it to be human? A human is a sentient being that is composed of flesh and has a mind and a spirit. Jesus is a sentient being that is composed of flesh and has a mind and a spirit. Jesus has a human flesh. A mind that is half divine and half human. And a divine spirit known as the Holy Ghost which in I Pet. 1:11 is called the Spirit of Christ.
He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time;
Okay I am going to take this a little bit at a time because this is complex and if I go to fast you are going to miss what it is that they are trying to fool you with here. I am going to break it down for you so you don’t get fooled into thinking that I am saying the same thing as the above text.
“He is God from the essence of the Father,”
Yes and no. This is tricky so watch out. What they are saying seems very compatible with oneness and thus the Bible and it almost is but watch out for this word essence. The concept of a divine essence as presented here is another philosophical concept developed from philosophers like Plato. The Greeks were always obsessed with the nature of things and much of their philosophies deal with such concepts as substances and essenses and so on. What they are saying here is not that Jesus has the same spirit as the Father. Or even that he is the Father in the flesh. Either of which would be oneness or at the very least modalist. What they are saying is that Jesus contains the same nature as God or in other words is made of the same stuff as God and this stuff was derived from the Father’s own entity and thus Jesus was begotten of the Father in the sense that he derives his divine nature from the Father. They don’t mean that he and the Father share the same spirit known as the Holy Ghost but rather that they share a mysterious divine essence. This is a false concept found nowhere in scripture. It is found in scripture where Jesus has the same spirit as God(see Acts 2:38; Eph. 4:4-6; I Pet. 1:11) and even where he is a personification or image of God(see Jhn. 1:1-14; Col. 1:15) but never where he merely shares the same divine “essence” with the Father. That is Platonic philosophy all the way to the core.
“Begotten before time”
Now this isn’t as tricky. In fact it should be obvious. I have already pointed out that the term begotten refers to a singular act in time and that that act is clearly recorded or described in the Bible as a divine act of God in Mary’s womb, though the mechanism of that divine act is unknown, and it is recorded in Matt. 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38, and Jhn. 1:14. What they are trying to pull here is more platonic philosophy and what it boils down to is the idea that Jesus in order to be of the same essence as God had to have been begotten before time even existed. The problem with this reasoning is that before time even existed there was nothing to beget Jesus by and thus Jesus couldn’t have been begotten before time. He had to have been begotten nine months before his birth in Bethlehem. That is the only thing that makes biblical or logical sense.
“He is human from the essence of his Mother”
Once again more philosophy about essence but that is okay because this demonstrates nicely what I mean by their view of essence. By essence they mean whatever makes up Mary as a human being makes up Jesus as a human being. Well for Christ’s humanity that is obviously true. But earlier they were trying to equate the same principle to his divinity which is false. Thus the trinity is deceptive because though in theory they still believe in one God in reality they believe in three. Though they don’t speak of the essence of the Holy Spirit they believe pretty much the same thing about the Holy Spirit that they think about Christ. Thus to them these three people are one in essence in the same way that me and you are one in our humanity.
“born in time”
This part is actually true however it is interesting that they are so quick to admit that Christ’s birth was in time but his begetting, which must logically then have also been in time and which was according to scripture, didn’t because it happened sometime before time began.
Completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity.
They are actually correct at this point. But they are not correct in the way that they meant it. They meant that he is completely God in the same way that I am completely human. Yet I am not one with you in the way that Jesus is one with God. They do not believe, however, that Jesus is one with God in the way that the Bible means it. They mean that he is one with God in the same way that I as a human am one with every human around me: in his divine essence as I am with the rest of mankind through my human essence. However the statement is none the less correct even if it is not correct in the way that they meant it. That is Jesus, as God, is completely equal to the Father insofar that he contains the same Holy Spirit as the Father or in other words absent the flesh he is precisely equal to the Father in number and that before the incarnation God is rarely referred to as the Father but often referred to as holy and a spirit and God and also the Holy Spirit. Thus Jesus as God is numerically equal to the Father and numerically one with the Father absent the flesh. He does have a rational soul and human flesh. The Bible describes those who deny otherwise as antichrist(see I Jhn. 4:1-4). Such a belief that Jesus doesn’t have flesh is called docetism, was practiced by the Gnostics who were the first heretics, and was condemned both here and in the Bible. It is the only view of Jesus that will negate Acts 2:38 salvation because you cannot be antichrist and be born again at the same time. And yes he is less than his Father in regards to his humanity. Once again here they are right though they mean it in a completely different way. They mean that he is less than the divine essence of the Father in regards to his humanity. I mean that his humanity is a voluntary limitation which God took on himself and it is that humanity that separates Father and Son from being numerically the same as each other.
Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God’s taking humanity to himself.
Once again nothing to complain about except that the only reason for the whole “one Christ not two” nonsense is because with the way they explain his divine and human essence it could give the impression that such was the case. But of course he is not a human who became divine(Dynamic Monarchianism, Arianism, Unitarianism). God was the one who took on flesh. Really the only point of this statement is to deter people from drawing wrong conclusions based off of bad explenations.
He is one, certainly not by blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human.
This one is actually correct and has a legitimate purpose that wasn’t made necessary by their lousy explanation. Other than the subtle reference to the philosophical concept of essence this serves to deter monophysitism(belief that Christ’s human nature was replaced with his divine nature) and monothelytism(belief that Christ’s human mind was replaced by his divine mind). Because since this part of the explanation is actually biblically consistent, with the exception of the reference to essence, there were people who held the biblical view who also held one or both of those two unbiblical views. It wasn’t the result of bad theology in this case but of bad understanding of good theology.
He suffered for our salvation; he descended to hell; he rose from the dead; he ascended to heaven; He is seated at the Father’s right hand; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people will arise bodily and give and accounting of their own deeds.
Everything in this statement is Biblical. Although it must be noted here that it isn’t literally the Father’s right hand because God doesn’t have hands or feet. He is a spirit. The right hand is a symbol of power(see Gen. 48:14-19). To illustrate that this is the case remember that when Stephen was martyred and looked up into heaven to pray before he died it says he saw the Glory of God and Jesus sitting on God’s right hand(see Acts 7:59-60). Now if the Trinitarian interpretation of the right hand is correct then it should read that he addressed the Father and closed the prayer with Jesus’ name, addmitedly there is nothing wrong with such a prayer, however he called out only to Jesus. He never once said Father. If the Trinitarian reading is correct then he also saw the Father. But jump back to verse 56 and you will see that Stephen clearly only saw Jesus. He saw Jesus standing on God’s right hand but all he saw was Jesus. So what did he see? He saw Jesus illuminated with God’s power and glory. He never once saw a literal right hand. The Jews understood the reference to God’s right hand. They had long held that all such references referred to God’s power and glory. Stephen was a devout practicing Jew. All of his understandings were Pharisee in nature. So when he said that he saw Jesus on God’s right hand he meant so in the Jewish sense of the word. In other words it really means that Jesus is sitting or standing in God’s power and glory. Why? Because he is God incarnate in the flesh. In Isaiah 48:11 God declares that he won’t give his glory to another. Trinitarianism teaches that he did give his glory to another, to the deity Jesus Christ, and that contradicts the Bible. Thus the trinitarian reading of God’s right hand has to be incorrect.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life, and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
Let me take this line by line as before.
“Those who have done good will enter eternal life”
Wrong. Those who have completed Acts 2:38 and remain repentant will enter eternal life. All have fallen short of God’s glory(see Rom. 3:23). There are no works that we can do to enter eternal life(see Eph. 2:8-9). We don’t receive salvation because of anything that we have done but because of the work that Christ does in us. It was his death on the cross that paid the price for our sins. Should we live moral lives? Yes. As a matter of fact the new testament’s standard is harsher than that of the old testament. Why? Because the old testament attacked the sin, ignoring the spirit behind it, and thus people could find other ways to fulfill the lusts of their flesh without transgressing God’s laws. But the new testament condemns, not the sin, but the spirit of sin which is in the flesh. In other words not only now is the sin wrong but to imagine the sin or to commit another act, though it not be specifically commanded against, to fulfill the same desire as is attached to that sin is also wrong. This is why we can never get to heaven by good works. With mankind good works are only superficial. We attach so much importance to written law that we assume that strict adherence to written law makes us righteous when in fact our conscience still damns us. Jesus said that we damn ourselves(see Jhn. 3:17-18).
“and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire”
Once again all have fallen short of the glory of God(see Rom. 3:23). Your sins from the time you are a child that has just began to comprehend the difference between right and wrong condemn you to hell. It is only by God’s grace and mercy that you will be spared from hell fire(see Eph. 2:8-9). Thus it is not just those who have done evil, by evil they are referring to mortal sins which in Catholic doctrine immediately merit hell fire, but rather everyone who has sinned or entertained the spirit of sin will go to hell without Christ. It is not enough that you do good works for the good you do doesn’t cancel out the bad. Only Christ can pay your debts and all you have to do is obey Acts 2:38 and remain repentant.
“This is the Catholic faith:”
Once again they are using faith in the wrong way here. What they mean is this is the catholic religion. Secondly the word Catholic means universal. They are saying that this is the universal or only religion. That is a lie. As a matter of fact as I have already demonstrated almost this entire creed is one big lie from top to bottom.
“one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully”
No actually this is wrong. As I have pointed out for the six billionth time it is only Acts 2:38 that will save you and set you free of sin and that only because of the work of the cross. Nothing else will save you. And the rest of your beliefs won’t save you else the warden and his family wouldn’t have been saved even by Acts 2:38(see Acts 16:30-34). The keeper of the prison or warden as we would call him today didn’t understand everything about God and Jesus. Paul didn’t give him some big sermon about the nature of God. He simply told him the short hand for what he needed to do, the man and his family were baptized, and it says his whole house believed God. They were born again in the same moment and they were probably Romans who understood nothing about the Jewish God. But Paul told them what had to be done and they did it and now they’re in heaven. They didn’t confess any creedal formula about the Godhead and Christology. They simply believed and received. Did they eventually come to a proper understanding on these other issues? I’m sure they did. But if that understanding is a requirement for salvation then that is like say that their belief did them no good until they understood it. If that is the case then the Catholic church should cease to hand out last rites especially to those who don’t understand the Trinity because no matter what such a person confesses they are still going to hell. This is very simple. It is the simplest salvation plan in the world. No other god makes it that easy. But our God does.
Validity of My Critique
First off someone might ask why I used the Athanasian Creed to debunk the Trinity rather than the Nicene Creed. The answer is very simple. While it is true that the Nicene Creed also contains the idea of the Trinity, and while I may yet tackle that monstrous biblical heresy known as the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed contains the most extensive statement of Trinitarianism out of all the Creeds and thus it the one most worthy of writing a critical piece against. But most importantly because this Creed contains the concept of divine essence or substance in the full philosophical meaning. Thus the Creed, while it is a statement of Trinitarianism, reads a Tritheist rather than a Trinitarian interpretation of the Godhead. Whether this blunder was intentional on the part of the formulators of this Creed or whether it was simply a brain fart on their part I neither know nor care. It is true that Trinitarians actively worship one God. But their statement or formulation of the Trinity clearly expresses Tritheism or the belief in three gods. Of course they may have realized the implications and put in the bits about not dividing the substance in order to avoid the logical conclusion of what they had written. However such a statement is still pointless because you cannot escape this logical conclusion. No trinitarians don’t worship three gods. Anyone who says they do is a fool. But their Creed expresses a belief in three gods that is surprisingly ignored by the vast majority of the Churches today. If most Christians understood the terminology and concepts used in this creed they would be abhorred by it.
Second off some people might criticize what I have written here outright. They may say that I have proven nothing. Oh, they may agree with me that the people who wrote this creed were sloppy and ignorant but they would insist that my objections were simple slips of the pen. That the Bible still clearly expresses the idea of the Trinity even though this particular formula is messy. Below I have compiled a biblical proof that will explain that the Trinity is not anywhere found in the Bible.
- In Acts 2:38 The Holy Ghost is said to be the one that the believer receives or in other words it is what indwells us. But I Pet. 1:11 states that it is the Spirit of Christ that is in us. Now how can this be if these two are two separate persons in the Godhead? Do we receive two Spirits? Or is Christ simply transmitted by the Holy Ghost? Actually the answer is very simple and it is found in Ephesians 4:4-6 which reads “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” The one body here is obviously the body of believers or the Church. The one Spirit is obviously the Spirit that indwells the believer. According to Acts 2:38 that is the Holy Ghost but according to I Pet. 1:11 it is the Spirit of Christ. Which is it? The answer is simple. The answer is that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ. But for those of you who still doubt keep reading. It says that there is “One Lord”. Now I know that this isn’t Hebrew but Greek and thus this is a different word but the word used here contains the same concept as the Hebrew word that I am going to use, since I’m not too good on my Greek or Hebrew, the word here is Adonai. Adonai is of course the Hebrew that means the same thing. Adonai in the old testament was only ever used to address God. Paul is a Jew. For him to address anyone but God as Adonai is blasphemy. Thus since both Jesus and God are addressed as Adonai it is necessary that Jesus be God in the flesh. So there is one Adonai Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh. Still having trouble? Read further. It says, “One God and Father of all, who is…in you all”. So we have One God who is our Father and he is in us all. Note the pattern here. One body, one Spirit, One Lord, One God and Father. All of these items are numerically labeled one. Now question is God a Spirit? Yes(see Jhn. 4:24). Now another question is God Holy? Yes. Again the answer is yes(see Levi 20:7). Therefore God is a holy spirit. Now are there two holy spirits in scripture? No. Only one Holy Spirit who is also called the Holy Ghost is ever listed in the entirety of Scripture. So God just is the Holy Ghost. Now is God a Father? Yes he is both Christ’s Father in a literal sense and our Father in the adoptive sense. Thus the Holy Ghost is the Father(see Matt. 1:18-20; Luke 1:26-32; Jhn. 1:14). So if the Holy Ghost is the Father then the Holy Ghost and the Father are numerically the same. Now watch this. If they are numerically the same then if one dwells in us the other does also correct? Correct. So the Scripture is not contradictory here. Why? Because the Father just is the Holy Ghost. What about the Spirit of Christ? Well the Spirit of Christ just is the Holy Ghost and if you don’t believe me see Colossians 2:9. It says plainly that all of God is in Christ. So the Spirit of Christ just is the Holy Ghost. If it is not then it contradicts Ephesians 4:4 and the Bible doesn’t contain contradictions unless we read the contradictions into scripture.
- God said that he alone would save(see Isa. 43:10-11;Isa. 45:21-22) and that he will not give his glory to another(see Isa. 48:11). Now wouldn’t you agree that the act of salvation in itself constitutes glory to God? Well of course it does. So how could Jesus be another person in the Godhead? Wouldn’t that constitute giving his glory to another? Yes it would. So Jesus just is the one God in Flesh.
- 6:4 states “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”. So there is one God. Now some have used the Hebrew words here to argue that God isn’t numerically one. They specifically use the word for one and God. So let me write the scripture out once more but this time with all of the prevalent Hebrew words in parenthesis. “Hear(Shema), O Israel: The LORD(YHWH) our God(Elohim) is one(echad) LORD(YHWH):”. Hear we have the following words: Shema, YHWH, Elohim, and echad. The word Shema means to hear and obey. It is a command in nature. Hear and obey what? We’ll get to that. Put the question aside for now and let’s move on. YHWH is the Hebrew name for God. It is pronounced Yahweh in the Greek Septuagint which is a Greek rendering of the entire Hebrew language. We don’t know how YHWH was originally pronounced as that has been lost so Yahweh will have to suffice. Yahweh means “I am that I am”. Yahweh in the King James version is translated in two ways: first as you have already seen with four English letters, one for each of the four original Hebrew letters, which renders YHWH in English as LORD in all caps. The second is the Latinized version of Yahweh which translates Jehovah in English. YHWH is singular in nature and denies all possibility of plurality. What about Elohim? Elohim is a plural form of EL which in Hebrew means god. This is where we get into objections to oneness. Trinitarians will claim that since Elohim entails plurality and it is linked to YHWH then it adds plurality to God. However that isn’t the case. Instead YHWH, being first in this statement, actually modifies Elohim. You see normally Elohim would refer to a plurality of entities. But there are two forms of plural. Majestic and literal. When a singular word modifies and plural word the plural word, which may otherwise have been a literal plural, becomes a majestic plural. Thus Elohim in this case is a Majestic Plural as it is in the rest of the Bible since this verse sets the tone of the entire Bible because Jesus said it was the greatest commandment. Echad is the next area of conflict. You see echad may indicate either a singular numerical one or a compound one. Trinitarians favor the compound definition here. However that just doesn’t match up. Let me give you an example. The English one is the same as echad. So I’ll simply use the English one. If I give you the following sentence: John my mailman is one mailman. Would that sentence imply a compound one or a numerical one? Of course it implies a numerical one. That sentence is structured the exact same way as Deut. 6:4. So do the rules of grammer change from my sentence to the one in question just because it is about God? No. The rules of grammer are the same regardless of whether I say “John my mailman is one mailman” or if I say “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”. You see it is basically the same sentence. Yet no trinitarian would defend the illogical position that John is a plurality of mailmen. Even though the word one can mean a compound one it clearly doesn’t. Yet they want to change the rules to reflect their own bias in Deut. 6:4. But that doesn’t mean that their change in the rules are valid. The rules are constant as long as both instances remain close enough that if you switched the word between them it would be exactly the same sentence. That is what we have here. If you replace LORD with John, and God with mailman you have the exact same sentence that I wrote out with a few additions. It reads slightly different but it is the same sentence. So therefore God must just be numerically one. Now back to the first question. Hear and obey what? Hear and obey the fact that God is numerically one and obey the next verse which reads “And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” And if you think this might have changed in the new testament please refer to Mark 12:29 where Jesus reaffirmed this as the Greatest commandment. Thus it didn’t change. God is still numerically one and he is still on the throne.
- 33:22 states “the LORD is our King”. Now it didn’t say that he is a king or that he is a coruler partnered with our king but that he is our King as in the only King. Yet Rev. 19:16 calls Christ the “King of Kings”. Note it also doesn’t say a king of kings or a coruler who rules over kings but that he is The KING OF KINGS. This literally means that he is the King of all other Kings in existence. Cyrus the Great was a king of kings. He ruled all the kings in the Persian empire. But he wasn’t the king over all kings in existence. He simply sat over the other kings from the provinces that he had conquered. He had no power over kings outside of his empire. But Jesus is the King of every King in existence, and yes that includes historical kings like Cyrus, so if God is King and Jesus is the King of all Kings and they are not numerically the same then Jesus is higher than God. In other words the logical conclusion of Trinitarianism is that the Father and the Holy Ghost don’t matter because Jesus is higher than them. Now that is straight up blasphemy and I think that every Trinitarian would be outraged at the idea that anything could be higher than the Father. Yet that must be true for their belief to hold. Oneness resolves this issue. Instead of saying that Jesus is a distinct person in the Godhead as Trinitarianism does Oneness tells us that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. In other words of course nobody is higher than the Father because Jesus just is numerically the same as the Father in his Spirit. It is only his flesh that differentiates the two. Absent the flesh Jesus wouldn’t exist because he would be the Father and there wouldn’t be a term such as the Father because God is the Holy Ghost and before Christ was referred to in that and various other ways besides Father. Thus Jesus just is numerically one with God.
Thirdly there are some who, being Catholic or Orthodox, will read this criticism and claim that nothing I have said here matters because the Church is the final authority on matters of doctrine so that even if the Bible says contrary it doesn’t matter because the Trinity is still true. The following are a few problems with that argument.
- The Catholic/Orthodox churches were not the first churches in existence. They were the first ecumenical churches. In other words they were the first churches to be organized past the local level and have regular councils that effected everyone in the Christian religion. Before that all of the churches were loosely organized with very few ecumenical councils, as a matter of fact the Jerusalem council recorded in the book of acts is the only one known from that time period, and very loose ties to the apostles. The apostles provided a moral compass to the local churches. Nothing more and nothing less. Therefore this doctrine that the church is the sole authority on matters of doctrine was the opinion of one local church in particular, the church at Rome, and thus has no weight in reference to other churches from the same time period. Thus the Catholic and Orthodox churches are of no more importance than any other Church. Also even if such an idea was true with all of the Churches being autonomous prior to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that would make every difference in doctrine equally valid. But in Revelations John records Jesus condemning some doctrines(see Rev. 2:15). If the church has the authority on doctrine then Jesus should have endorsed every doctrine equally because such authority belongs to the church and Jesus has never intruded on that which pertains solely to man.
- Secondly the Bible was written by Prophets and Apostles. Thus anything it says must have weight on matters of doctrine. Paul himself declared that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”(II Tim. 3:16). Notice he said that “All scripture is given by the inspiration of God” and furthermore that it is “profitable for doctrine”. The first thing in that list of what it is profitable for is doctrine. So if scripture is profitable for writing doctrine then why should I ever consider a doctrine which can’t be backed by scripture alone. I have no reason to consider such a doctrine. The doctrine of Papal infallibility and the eastern orthodox doctrine of Church authority have no foundation in the Bible and thus have no weight on any other doctrines. Paul warns us against doctrines of devils(see I Tim. 4:1) and those two doctrines are such. If you are a Christian and have legitimate faith in God then you won’t try to debate the truth of this statement because the statement is self evident in every page of the Bible. If however you are of the synagogue of Satan you will ignore this statement and try to argue with the Bible. If you don’t accept the Bible as the only authority on doctrine then there is nothing I can do to change where your soul is going. I can’t get you to repent and be baptized in Jesus name because you don’t accept the Bible as authoritative. If you don’t accept it as authoritative then there is nothing that I can do to convince you of its truth. I have shown you where your doctrine which says that the Church, and in the case of Catholics the Pope, is the final authority on doctrine is illogical from a historical stand point and where it is outright heresy against the word of God. If you doubt what I have said then you lack all logic as well as all reverence for the word of God. As such you are totally unreachable. All other Trinitarians are reachable by this biblical truth because they accept the Bible as the final authority on doctrine. Thus they can be convince and they can be born again. You on the other hand cannot because you listen to devils and not to God. You refuse to take his word at face value and insist that your Pope has some kind of hidden knowledge from God or divine insight into the things of God. As long as you insist on such a thing there is no recourse that can save your soul from hell. Note that it is not this doctrine that will send you to hell but rather this doctrine which you hold bars you from the truth of God’s word. If you are barred from the truth of God’s word then you can’t possibly accept Acts 2:38 and be saved. Thus you will burn in hell as long as you hold such a doctrine for that reason. It is not out of hatred that I write this. Rather it is out of fear for your soul. I have but one hatred in writing this and that not directed against you but rather against the institution that keeps you from the truth and at the devil which empowers that institution. Such is my single hatred in this matter. Note that those who don’t have God’s Holy Spirit will have to go into the tribulation and they will miss the rapture. Also note that those who don’t have the Holy Ghost will go to hell when they die. For the Bible states that the “dead in Christ shall rise first”(see I Thess. 4:16). Now we know that is the Spirit of Christ which we receive(see I Pet. 1:11) and that the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Ghost(see Acts 2:38; Eph. 4:4-6) so that “if any man be in Christ he is a new creature”(see II Cor. 5:17). We also know that “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us”(see Rom. 5:8). Thus it is that if any man is in Christ he has the Holy Ghost “whereby we cry Abba Father”(see Rom. 8:15). And if we have the Holy Ghost in us then we shall surely rise in the rapture. But if we have it not we are not born again and will go through the Tribulation. Thus if you don’t discard this doctrine of yours and follow the commandment given in Acts 2:38 then you shall perish and burn in hell or else you shall live and go through the tribulation.
You know everything above to be true. I have not lied to you. I pray that you will come to the truth.
The following is what this creed would look like if the above statement were true:
This is the Christian religion.
If any man wishes to be saved he must be born again through repentance and water baptism in Jesus name.
After repentance and water baptism in Jesus’ name he shall receive the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost shall regenerate his soul into eternal life.
For the Bible tells us that such is the nature of Salvation and such is the Christian Truth which is Jesus Christ.
That God is a Spirit indivisibly and numerically one.
That God is Holy and righteous in all of his ways.
For the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus Christ of whom it is also his Spirit.
That Jesus is all but equal with the Father for Jesus, due to his flesh, is not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.
But in his Spirit he is all three for he is God.
God is numerically one and of this fact we are certain that God in his love for us robed himself in humanity and died for our sins.
If any man wishes to be saved he must therefore repent and be baptized in the name of the one who died for him.
This is the Christian truth. There is none other.
The truth is that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
Fully God by the Holy Spirit of his Father, by which he was begotten in time. And fully man from the flesh of his mother, by which he was born in time.
He was crucified, buried, rose again, and is seated in the right hand of God in glory and power.
From there he will judge the living and the dead,
He will bring up the rapture,
He will defeat Satan and establish God’s kingdom.
If any man repents and is baptized in the name of Jesus he shall be saved,
If any man repents not he shall be damned.
This is the Christian Truth: Jesus Christ; and the Christian salvation: Repentance and baptism.
Without which nobody shall see the glory of God. Amen.