Father, Son and Spirit are not names and therefore
God has only one
"name" as source of authority. That name is Jesus or
Joshua or
Jehovah-Saves (speaking in English).
Why,
Stone muses, should
there be any doubt when:
This doctrine is also
contained in the
creeds of every
sect of Christians with
whom I am acquainted.
"There is but
one only
living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection,
without body, parts or passions." Conf. Fth. chap. 2, sec. 1st.
There is
but one
living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts. Meth. Dis.
chap. 1, sec. 2.
If then all agree, that
there is but
one only
living and true God; all must agree that there are not two or three such Gods.
If all agree that this one
only God
is an infinite
spirit without
parts;
all must agree that this infinite spirit is
not a compound of two or three spirits, beings, or Gods.
These things are abundantly evident, concerning
which there can be no dispute.
The word Trinity is not found in the Bible.
This is acknowledged by the celebrated Calvin, who
calls the Trinity
"a popish God, or idol, a mere human invention, a barbarous,
insipid,
and profane word; and he utterly condemns that prayer in the
litany--O holy, glorious, and blessed Trinity, etc. as unknown to the
prophets and apostles, and grounded upon no testimony of God's holy Word." Admon. 1st. ad
Polonos--Cardale's true Doct.--The
language, like the man, I confess is too severe.
The doctrine of Trinity has
long been a subject
of endless
controversy
among theologists. I have thought the contest a war of
words, while the combatants believed the same thing; seeing they all
maintain the divine unity.
On this doctrine many
things are
said, which are dark, unintelligible,
unscriptural, and too mysterious for
comprehension.
Many of these expressions
we have rejected; and
for this reason we are [52] charged with denying the doctrine itself.
I shall state the doctrine, as generally stated and defended by our
brethren, who oppose us, and give my reasons why I cannot receive it.
Before
allowing Stone to state
his views note that at the end of this section we have added the
views of Cleland who was Stone's severest critic. However, after
stumbling all over the mystery which has created untold iniquity,
Cleland totally agrees with what Stone is about to say: God is not
made up of three independant "persons" or people and so say all
ancient church Fathers we have consulted.
It is commonly stated, that
there are
three persons
in one God, of
one substance, power and eternity. To me it is
evident that they, who maintain this proposition, do not--cannot
believe,
that these three persons
are three
distinct
spirits, beings or Gods,
each possessed of the personal properties of
intelligence, will and power;
for this would not only
contradict
the Scriptures,
but also those sections of their creeds just
quoted, which declare that there is but one
only living and true
God, without parts.
They must understand the
term persons in God, not in the
proper and common sense of the word person; but in such a qualified
sense as to
exclude the notion of three
distinct spirits or beings.
What this qualified sense
should be, has long
puzzled divines; and in no proposition are they more divided. The
cause of this perplexity is obvious,
because no idea of it is
to be
found in revelation, nor reason.
Revelation no where
declares that there are
three persons of the same substance in the one only God; and
it is
universally acknowledged to be above
reason.
Imagination has been set
afloat, taking
different courses in different men, and wandering through the unknown
fields of eternity, infinity and incomprehensibility. Their labors
have been great; but after all their vast excursions, they have ended
in mystery.
Some think,
that by the three persons in the one God, is intended his
power,
wisdom and
love,
personified. This is mere supposition, and wants the authority of
Scripture. But should this be admitted, we should never know where to
stop in forming persons [53] in the one God. With equal propriety we
might personify every perfection of the Almighty. The most rigid
Unitarians believe that power, wisdom and love are in the one God;
but they object to the notion of calling them three persons in
God.
God's OWN power, wisdom, love, word
and Spirit of Mind (1 Cor 3) are NOT persons as our being "Body, soul
and spirit" does not speak of three persons.
Others, by
three persons in God, seem to signify that the three persons are
three offices in the one God, as Creator, Redeemer and
Sanctifier. If
this be granted, then upon the same principle we may multiply persons
in Deity; for he sustains many other offices as king, judge,
lawgiver, etc.
The doctrine, that there are
three persons in
one God, is principally founded on I
John v: 7.
"There are three that bear
record
in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three
are one."
From reading the context,
it is plain, that the
matter testified of, is that Jesus is the son of God. The Father
testified this, when he spake from heaven, "This is my beloved Son,
hear ye him." The Word or Son, testified the same by the many wonders
he performed when incarnate. This also the Holy Ghost witnessed by
the many miracles wrought thro' the apostles.
These three are one. They
are one, or agree in
their testimony; as, in the next verse, the three witnesses on earth
agree in one. To say these three are one God, would contradict the
original; for the word hen, translated one,
is in the neuter gender, and cannot agree with the word God.
Nor is it correct to say,
these three are
one being; for
Paul and Apollos are said to be one. 1 Cor. iii: 8. "Now he that
planteth and he that watereth are (hen)
one."
No one imagines that they
were one
being; but agree, that they were two distinct men engaged in one
work, in one spirit.
Our blessed Saviour prays
the Father, that [54]
all believers might be (hen) one, even as he and
the Father were (hen) one.
Now as all believers are
not one substance nor
one being;
and as they are all one, even as the Father and Son are one; we must
then conclude,
that the Father and Son
are not one substance,
nor one being.
This is farther evident
from John x, 30, "I and
my Father are (hen) one," says Jesus. Yet in the same Evangelist he
said, "My Father is greater than I." John xiv: 28. If they were one
substance, or one being, there could be no comparison; as one cannot
be greater or less than itself. The fact is, all believers are one in
spirit, purpose, and mind--and this is the oneness which our Lord
prayed they might have; this was the oneness of Paul and Apollos.This
appears to me to be the oneness of the Father and the Son.
The text, 1 John, v: 7, the
cause of so much
altercation, has long been disputed, as being of divine authority. It
is not found in Griesbach's Greek Testament, reckoned to be the most
correct. It is not found in the Syrian Christian's Bible, which Dr.
Buchanan examined in the East. Many learned men reject it, and even
Dr. Doddridge doubts its divine authority. After all, I am unwilling
to reject it; but am confident it cannot establish the notion of
three persons in one God.
The doctrine of a plurality
of persons in the
one God, is argued from the plural termination of the Hebrew word
Elohim, translated God. As great stress is laid on this argument, I
will particularly examine it. Here it will be necessary to introduce
the rule in the Hebrew Grammar, by which we shall determine the
point.
"Pluralis pro
singulari positus, denotat magnitudinem, et
excellentiam"--which,
literally
translated, [55]is,
"A plural put for a
singular
denotes greatness and excellency."--Robertson's Heb. Gram., p.
240.
Now, according to this rule,
Elohim, God, is put in
the plural; because the word expresses dignity and majesty. For the
same reason, the Lord said unto Moses, "See, I have made
thee Elohim, a God unto Pharaoh"--Exod. vii: 1. No one
supposes,
that because Moses was called Elohim in the plural, there must
have been a
plurality of persons in him; but he was so called because of his
dignity and greatness. For the same reason Aaron called the molten
calf he made Elohim--Exod. xxxii: 4, 8--wishing, by expressing it in
the plural, to attach dignity and majesty to it, and by this means to
excite reverence in the minds of its worshipers.
John Chrysostom:
See how hard they were to
tear away from the customs of Egypt! What sayest thou?
What, not wait for him that
brought thee out, but flee the benefit, and deny the Benefactor? And
mark how insulting they are:
"For as for
this Moses," they say:-"which brought us out of the land of Egypt"
nowhere the name of
God: instead of
that,
they ascribed all to Moses. Where
Editor's Note
5: !Enqa men
euxaristein edei, A, B, C. D. F., but N. and Cat. axaristein.-E. Kai
enfa men autouj axaristein hn. Edd. eux.
they ought to give thanks
(to God), they bring
Moses forward: where it was, to do as the Law bade them, they no
longer make account of Moses. "We know not what is become of him."
And yet he told them that he was going up to receive the Law: and
they had not patience to wait forty days. "Make
us gods"-
Editor's Note 6:
This clause, omitted by
A. b.c., is preserved by N. and the Catena. The calf
was one, yet they called it Gods: on which St. Chrys.
remarks elsewhere, that they
added polytheism to
idolatry.-The next
sentence may perhaps be completed thus: "that they did not even know
that there is One God."-Edd. from E.F.D.
"So frantic are
they, that they know not what they say." Note 7 in this document.
For the same reason, the
Israelites called
their idol
Baal-berith,
their Elohim, God--Judg. ix:
33.--And the Philistines called their idol Dagon, in the plural,
Elohim,
God--Judg. xvi: 22, 24. Also the idol Ashteroth, Chemosh, Milcom,
Baalzebub, Nisroch, etc. though each is in the singular; yet each is
called Elohim, God, in the plural--1 Kings, xi: 32; 2 Kings,
i::2,
& xix: 37. No doubt that those idol worshipers expressed their
particular idol in the plural, because of its supposed dignity,
majesty and excellence.
Again, we will apply the
same rule to the
plural word Adonim, master, "And the servant put his hand under the
thigh of Abraham, his master," his Adonim in the plural--Gen.
xxiv:, 9, 10, 51. So Potiphar is called Joseph's Adonim, master--Gen.
xxxix: 2, 3, 7, 8, 16, 19, 20. So the captain of a guard was called
in the plural Adonim, lord--Gen. xl: 7. So Joseph, the ruler of
Egypt, was
called Adonim, a lord--Gen.xlii: 30, 33, & xliv: 8.
In all these
places the plural is [56] used for the singular, according to the
well known rule; because the word expresses dominion, dignity and
greatness.
It would be unnecessary to
multiply quotations.
These surely are sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind, that
the plural word, put for a singular, does not imply a plurality of
persons. If it does, then there was a plurality of persons in
Moses--in Aaron's calf--in each of the idols I have named--in
Abraham--in Potiphar--in Joseph--and in the captain of Pharaoh's
guard. There are surely none who will affirm it. If not, why, or how
can they affirm, that there is a plurality of persons in the one God,
because he is called Elohim?
Another argument, considered
of great weight to
establish the notion of a plurality of persons in the One God, is the
use of the pronouns us and our, when applied to him. "Let us make man
in our image"--Gen. i: 26. This and similar texts I shall hereafter
explain, as addressed by the Father to the Son, "By whom he created
all things." I therefore, for the present, wave the farther
consideration of it.
That the Scriptures speak of
the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, is believed and admitted by Christians of every
name; and that these three are one in some sense, I think, none will
deny. My view of this oneness I have expressed a few pages back. If
they are one in any other sense, I shall rejoice to know it.
It is possible that some,
more attached to the
unintelligible language of their ancestors than to the simple
expressions of Scripture, may retain notions or words contrary to
what I have stated. They may so darken the doctrine by words without
knowledge, as to bewilder and lose themselves, and then resolve it
all [57] into mystery; and lampoon and bite their fellow Christians
for not receiving their own inventions. But brethren, I hope "You
have not so learned Christ, it so be ye have heard him, and have been
taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus."
Others, with whom bigotry
outweighs a thousand
good arguments, may be deterred from receiving this view of trinity
by being told that it savors of Arianism, Socinianism, or some other
reputed heresy. These and such like names have driven many into
opposite extremes, and kept them from that happy medium, where truth
commonly lies. I know not what the real sentiments of Arius were,
having never seen his writings; nor have I seen his sentiments, but
through the coloring of his enemies. They, who will put themselves to
the trouble of reading this address, will clearly see whose
doctrines, mine or those of my brethren who oppose us, most savor of
those just mentioned.
Others, who have labored
through mazy volumes
of scholastic learning on this doctrine, may be disposed to reject my
view of it, because of its simplicity. They have been long taught
that the doctrine was a high, incomprehensible mystery.
However
mysterious it may be, the Scriptures never call it a mystery. It is a
term attached to it by man. The explanation of this doctrine, as
given by some, is truly an incomprehensible mystery.
They have said,
"The Father is of none,
neither
begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father; and the Holy Ghost eternally
proceeding from
the Father and the
Son."
A part of this
explanation is indeed a mystery, not found in
revelation nor reason. We are told by some, that it is an evidence of
an humble heart to believe it. Can any man believe it, whether he be
humble or not? [58]
They, who profess to believe
nothing without
testimony, cannot; because the two last propositions are not in the
Bible. They who profess to believe nothing before they understand it,
cannot. Therefore it is as incredible as it is incomprehensible. So
it appears to me. But if others receive it as an article of their
faith, I judge them not, nor reject them from the arms of
charity.
But to make it a term of
Christian fellowship I think unwarrantable
from the word of God. A person of a fruitful mind
may form a very
mysterious doctrine:
For instance--He might
affirm that the third
person of trinity, the Holy Ghost, was an uncompounded
compound of
"seven spirits," or seven persons, all co-equal,
co-essential, and
co-eternal.
To make this mystery pass
for truth, he might run through
heaven and earth to shew how many other mysteries exist. He might
find a mystery in the existence, the eternity, and infinity of
God--in the connexion of soul and body, etc. These mysteries, he
might argue, are believed; and why not his mysterious doctrine
too?--
The answer is, because these
are revealed but his doctrine is
not;--these, though above reason, are not contrary to it; but
his is
both above and contrary to reason. If a doctrine be revealed, however
mysterious it may be, I will humbly receive it. My reason shall ever
bow to revelation; but it shall never be prostrated to human
contradictions and inventions.--Pious and good men have received such
doctrines. God loves and pities them; and so will I.
Speaking on the Son of God Stone wrote:
I again ask: Did not the Father send a real being, his own Son, from
heaven into our world to save sinners?
If a
real being was
sent from heaven, this being was either eternal or not--
if
eternal, it argues two eternal Gods;
or that the same one God was
sending and sent at the same instant--
was
active in sending and passive in being sent; which is impossible.
The Presbyterians ordained Barton W. Stone when he did not
believe in the Trinity: the only issue with the Presbyterians was over
the nature of the SON OF GOD.
Thomas
Cleland Letters to Barton W.
Stone (1822)
We are not afraid to
acknowledge that "the word
Trinity is not found in the Bible." But we fearlessly avow that the
truth conveyed by that term is to be found there.
The Greek word Trias, or Trinity, was introduced
into the church in the second century, to express the threefold
personality, or triune appellation of the
Godhead.
This and the terms before
mentioned were
employed by the fathers of the church in
opposition to various heretics for a clearer or more full and
definite expression of their doctrines.
This
is a fact: many
authorities acknowledge that the idea of a trinity was constructed as
a myth. A myth is often needed when frail mortals need to define that
which cannot be defined. In opposition to Arius who held that Christ
was a created "son" the trinity seemed to explain the deity of Jesus.
However, in time the myths or parables are taken as actual fact and
the underlying mystery is lost.
Thomas
Cleland went to great
pains to describe the trinity as existing in three different
locations at the same time. However, in the final confession of faith
all trinitarians who understand the nature of God confess as did
Cleland that:
By the word persons, when
applied to the Godhead,
we do
not
understand, some
separate
existences of a
different
nature;
but united personal
distinctions in the same nature.
In our contemplations on
this great subject,
the distinction between a human and a
divine person ought to be particularly attended to, as it
would in
some measure free the mind from perplexity, and save a great deal of
time and unnecessary debate.
Peter, James and
John, were three
persons, but they were
separated from
each other; they
had only the same kind
of nature, which is generally called a common specific nature,
but not the same individual nature with another person.
They were likewise as many beings as they were persons, each one having his own proper being,
separate and
distinct from all other persons or beings of human kind.
But none of these
things are applicable to
the divine persons
in the Godhead; for
they, however distinguished by their personal characters, and
properties, are
never
separated, as
having the same divine
essence or nature.
And moreover, this nature is the same individual
nature of the persons in the Godhead, and because the Divine Being or essence is but
one,
therefore the Godhead of
the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is the very same; and this is what we
understand when we say, there are three persons in the Godhead of the
same substance, equal in power and glory, and do constitute the only
living and true God.
But why should we be
obliged to explain
ourselves so often on this subject? We repeat it again, that we use
the word person and such like terms, merely from the poverty of language;
merely to designate our
belief of a
real distinction in the Godhead, and not to describe or explain how
three are one and one three,
Alexander
Campbell
and other Restoration Movement leaders agreed with this statement
while not accepting Stone's views of the Son.
The
"fathers" did
not use the word "person" but "personae." That is, the One God
reveals Himself in three different ways. It was this poverty of
language which led the Catholics to concoct the trinity by an appeal
to the triad common in all pagan religions and as an appeal to the
pagans in a "seeker-friendly" marriage of paganism and
Christianity.
We
need not shrink from
admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly
employed in pagan worship and in the rites paid to the dead. But the
Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as
she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed
proper to enhance the splendour of religious ceremonial. We must not
forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights,
perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens,
bells, vestments, etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult
in particular; they were common to almost all cults. They are, in
fact, part of the natural language of mystical expression, and such
things belong quite as much to secular ceremonial as they do to
religion. Catholic Encyclopedia on Candles.
The
following quotations
represents a common view of the catholic trinity which surfaced
within the 20th century.
Our
commentary refuting these views may be seen by clicking
here.
Because "loose lips sink
ships" and all
words convey meaning and can teach error, we have taken the liberty
of inserting synonyms for the words chosen to teach what amounts to
tritheism or polytheism. Most contemporary Restoration Movement books
simply parrot H. Leo
Boles whose views are expressed
as:
Our
Restoration Movement Pages
Home
Page
E-Mail
Comments or Curses
11.19.08 11.04.11 780
