 |
|
From the book: The Challenge of the Christian Theology and more...
of Ewald Frank |
|
|
The testimony of historians
about Trinity
It is significant that secular writers hit the target,
reporting more precisely than their religious counterparts.
Those who defend the Trinity doctrine should do as others,
and use books from neutral and independent sources rather
than just from their own denominations. Ultimately they
should regard the Bible as the only valid word. It is
unanimous. Each encyclopædia, which deals with the Trinity
states that no such doctrine is found in the Old Testament,
New Testament, or in the documents of the first two
centuries. The christological dispute became a state
council, after the last general persecution of Christians
under Cæsar Diocletian (302-312) ended. It was Constantine I
who especially for that purpose called the Council of Nicaea
(325). He as a politician had the interest of his kingdom
remaining united. Agreement was not reached at all between
the two leaders Athanasius and Arius or the more than 250
others present, which represented different factions. Other
councils followed. There was dispute, disagreement and
fighting in formulating the Godhead more and more after
man’s own concepts.
Many have desired to know the Truth, some of which were
excellent theologians. Unfortunately they did it without
forsaking wrong thoughts and concepts that they had learned.
You cannot have the Word and the interpretation, the right
and the wrong cannot coexist, one via revelation the other
from the mind. If the point of origin is not right and does
not spring forth from the Bible, how can the result be right
and merge into oneness with the origin?
Professor Emil Brunner has dedicated a whole chapter to this
theme under the title »The triune God«. From his book,
chapter 16, pg. 208-244, we take the following statements.
»Judaism, Islam and rational theism are Unitarian. Otherwise
we must be honest and confess that the Trinity was never in
the early New Testament Christian theme or proclamation nor
was it a central point of content but has crept into the
faith of the church at another time. Therefore: The Center
of Christian theology but not of the Christian faith. Is
such a discrepancy between theology and faith possible? Or
is it owing to a wrong development of the whole doctrinal
structure of the church?«
»The early Christian Church lives by the fact that through
the Son, she has the Father and is connected with the Father
and the Son by the Holy Spirit.«
»As the prophet was the one who made known the Word of God,
which came to him, and he brought it to validity, so now it
is Jesus Himself Who came.«
»He, Who is the true image of God, is the One who transforms
us into that image of God.«
»The Son is the revelation of the Father. Inasmuch as we
call upon Jesus as the Lord, we call upon Him Who is from
eternity and Lord alone, Whom we only came to know in Jesus
as He would be known and have Him as He has given Himself
unto us.«
»That was the point, that in the Son and only in Him do we
have the Father, that through the Son and only through Him
do we receive the Holy Spirit, that only through the Son do
we know the Father and become partakers of the Holy Spirit.«
»The concept of a ›triune God‹ does not belong to the
testimony or proclamation of the original Church.«
»In Jesus Christ the holy merciful God revealed Himself to
us, self-revealing, reconciling, redeeming. By His Holy
Spirit He makes the historical fact an inward experience,
even in this He does the work, and draws us.«
»Only if it is true that God Himself was in Christ, is it
true that He reconciled us with Himself.«
»Only the self-speaking, self-acting, personal Presence of
God is the complete revelation and reconciliation, and this
has happened in Jesus Christ.«
»A Son exists only from the time of incarnation. This one is
truly God. Therefore Christ is a kind of theophany and God
Himself, the Father, stepped into the sufferings of death.«
Most certainly Professor Brunner must have known about the
testimony of Paul, »God was in Christ reconciling the world
unto himself« (2 Cor.
5: 19). Such wonderful application originates with a
professor of theology, who belongs to the Trinity camp!
Please allow me a few more historical publications from
which I shall quote, in reference to this theme. Please
reflect for they will be helpful, possibly even taking
someone out of self-assurance and lead them into divine
assurance. In the history book »The Paganism in Our
Christianity«, we find the BOLD statement: »The origin of
the Trinity is entirely pagan.«
In the Encyclopedia of Religion we read the following,
»Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible
does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity. … Theologians
agree that the New Testament also does not contain an
explicit doctrine of the Trinity.«
The Jesuit Edmund Fortman states in his book »The Triune
God«, »The New Testament writers … give us no formal or
formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching
that in one God there are three coequal divine persons …
There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected
the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead.«
The New Encyclopædia Britannica writes, »Neither the word
Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New
Testament.«
In the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics the writer
states, »At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian …
It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as
reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian
writings.«
In the New Catholic Encyclopedia it is written, »The
formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly
established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian
life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the
4th century.«
In the Encyclopedia Americana we find the following
statement, »Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect
accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of
God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this
teaching.«
Many centuries before Christ, there were triads, or
trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The
French Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology notes one such
triad in the Mesopotamian area: »The universe was divided
into three regions; each of which became the domain of a god
… the triad of the Great Gods.«
The historian Will Durant makes the following remark,
»Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it … From
Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.«
The book » Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals« states,
regarding a Hindu Trinity that existed centuries before
Christ: »Shiva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said
to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma,
the god of creation, and Vishnu, the god of maintenance …«
The writings of »The Church of the First Three Centuries«
carry the following statement: »The doctrine of the Trinity
was of gradual and comparatively late formation; … it had
its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the
Jewish and Christian Scriptures; … it grew up, and was
engrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the
Platonizing Fathers.«
The New Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
confirms this: »The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity
received their shape from Greek Fathers, who … were much
influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic
philosophy.«
What an overwhelming testimony these sources have given! May
such statements compel everyone to consider the subject.
History confirms it
One can hardly comprehend it, but history and secular
writers truly confirm the Bible to be correct, not the
interpretations of theologians.
The various sources about the subject in question agree and
comply with the Bible. We can no longer avoid such
statements, at least not with a good conscience. We must be
allowed to ask what dealings a Christian has with the images
and concepts of the Godhead, which came from ancient
heathenism where knowledge redeems, instead of the
sacrifice. This should be our concern. In the Mithras cult
wherein the triune doctrine is being taught we have the
following thesis , »In a second creation the ›Father of
Greatness‹ has begotten the living Spirit. The ›Father of
Greatness‹ has sent a third one who conquers the demons.« (Chronik
der Menschheit). By looking at the multiple pictures of the
trinity, especially in a book titled »Die dreiköpfige
Gottheit« (=»The three-headed Godhead«), written by
Willibald Kirfel, one finds many similarities with the
trinity doctrine within Christianity. From the Catholic
oriented Herder Lexikon we only illustrate one page. These
photos show different Trinitarian pictures and should alarm
us. We see from the actual developments that God let not
only fall Himself into the hands of men as Immanuel, but
also His Word has fallen into human hands.
Hands off God! We don’t shape Him; He shapes us! He is not
as we portray Him; He is as presented and introduced to us
by Himself!
Not only theologians and historians but other high-ranking
personalities have something to declare about the Trinity.
In our country we have a list of prominent men from Moses
Mendelssohn right to the ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt. M.
Mendelssohn wrote, »I cannot trust a testimony that
according to my conviction is against a set, unmovable
truth. According to the teachings of the New Testament (at
least as it is found in official books and explained in
their teachings) I must believe 1) in a Trinity in the
Divine Being, 2) in the coming into humanity of a God of the
Godhead, 3) in the suffering of one person of the Godhead
which has relinquished Himself of the Divine Majesty, 4) in
the satisfaction and gratification of the first person in
the Godhead through the sufferings and the death of the
humiliated second person, and many more such similar things:
I reject them even if I will loose eternal salvation. If I
found these teachings in the Old Testament, I would have to
reject also the Old Testament. Although a worker of miracles
would try to confirm them before my very eyes and would
raise all the dead which have been buried for centuries, I
would say, ›The worker of miracles has raised the dead, but
his teaching I cannot accept.‹« (H. -J. Gamm, »Das Judentum«
— »The Judaism«). Helmut Schmidt said in an interview, »I
believe that God is the Lord of history, but why He should
be triune has not become clear to Me.« (ACP Magazin 4/1997).
Clarity can only come from truth. Whatever is false will
remain unclear. God contradicts all »Trinity« doctrines by
the apostolic word: »Now a mediator is not a mediator of
one, but God is one.« (Gal. 3: 20). It is a fact: not a
single time in the Bible do we find it written that He is
tri-une. That may shock some, because until now that is all
they have heard. The word Trinity is the most frequent word
used in the »mother church« and the »daughter churches« as
well; it is the holiest of their theologies. But in the
expressions of God it doesn’t even exist and is directed
against Him.
Dealing with the subject of the Godhead we must be aware of
the fact, that we are stepping on holy ground, called
»revelation«. This subject is not within reach of the mind,
it remains hidden. Of all the different schools of doctrine
within Christianity each make reference to the Bible.
Referring to God’s Word is utterly important. But if it is
done with a mind lost in thought, whereby Bible quotes are
taken out of context and placed into one’s own realm of
concepts, it is equivalent with what the enemy did in the
garden of Eden with the words spoken by God.
The Word of the Lord was very clear, »Of every tree of the
garden thou mayest freely eat …« The enemy turned it around
adding one word to it, »Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat
of every tree of the garden?« The enemy always remains with
the subject, but never in Truth. It also reminds us of Satan
speaking to our Lord during the temptation. He said, »It is
written!« but it was incorrectly applied and taken out of
context, to cause Jesus to fall. Jesus answered him, »It is
also written …« That is so very important. We must never use
Bible verses for empty decoration. Those who merely
emphasise certain verses do this. Everyone should find
passages in the Scriptures, which they try to avoid, and
then the picture will become complete.
Not a single word, or even one utterance in the Bible can be
exchanged and taken out of context. Everything belongs where
it is and must remain as it is. For instance, if it is
written »God« one cannot replace it with »Lord«, it must
remain the way it was written. If there is »Father«, you
cannot replace it with »Son«, because »Father« belongs in
that context. And the same for »Son« etc. The Father didn’t
die for us, but the Son, Who is also the Lord.
But we are not children of the Lord or of the Son, we are
children of God and have the privilege to call Him, »Abba«
»Father«. The same applies to the »Son of man«, »Son of
God«, »Son of David« and all other titles or names: They
should remain as they are. Whoever does not respect this
divine order does not yet comprehend that God has placed
everything in His Word as He intended it to be. To take it
out of this order and design will only result in confusion.
Sooner or later everyone is confronted with the subject of
God. Especially theologians, trying to comprehend and
explain Him. But theologians are not prophets and apologists
are not apostles. They have the letter of the Word and try
to master it with their intellect. But it remains for ever,
just as Paul wrote concerning mysteries, »… God hath
revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.« (1 Cor.
2: 10). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
