Subject: Binitarian: One God, Two Beings from the Beginning: Binitarianism
From: <Saved by Microsoft Internet Explorer 5>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:31:48 +1000

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning

By Cogwriter

Abstract on Binitarianism: Some erroneously claim that unitarianism
or trinitarianism was the original view of the New Testament Church. But the
Bible clearly teaches from the beginning that God is one, yet currently composed
of two members. This was also the view of the immediate post-New Testament
Church and binitarian beliefs have been clearly held throughout Church history.
Although some might prefer to use the term Ditheist or Dualist instead of
Binitarian, those terms suggests that God is not one (yet God is one family). I
chose to use the term binitarian or binitarianism to describe the correct belief
about the Godhead as it has been historically used and is clearer than
Semi-Arian (or Semi-Arianism) which, though also historically used (by critics),
would not be at all understood by most today.

The Living Church of God teaches, "The Father and the Son comprise the
"Godhead." There is one God (1 Corinthians 8:4 and Deuteronomy 6:4). Scripture
shows that God is a divine Family which began with two, God the Father and the
Word" (Official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. Living Church of God, March
2004).

Is this correct? Since the heresy in the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), many
have became trinitarians and others some form of traditional unitarians. What
does the Bible teach?

The Old Testament

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

The word translated as 'God' is 'elohim'. Strong's defines it "OT:430
'elohiym (el-o-heem'); plural of OT:433; gods in the ordinary sense; but
specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the
supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and
sometimes as a superlative" (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and
Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft
and International Bible Translators, Inc.).

So the first time God is mentioned in the Bible, God is mentioned as
plural.

To make sure the plurality of God was known, Genesis 1:26 states, "Then God
said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the
cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the
earth" (NKJV throughout, unless otherwise noted). This verse shows that 'elohim
referred to self as Us. Us is also plural.

Thus, there is no doubt that from the beginning, the plurality of God was
shown.

However, one unitarian assertion is, "There is no doubt that the elohim are a
plural structure and that they are the messengers in the Bible texts referred to
as angels and that Christ himself was the Angel of the Presence or the Angel of
YHVH. It is thus absurd to suggest that no angel was referred to as creator when
Christ was admitted to be creator and was also the Angel of YHVH. Moreover,
there is no indication that the plural terms involving creators were confined to
two Beings which were God and Christ. This is an unsupported assumption that is
contrary to the Bible. It is, moreover, a basic assertion of Binitarianism,
which is logically absurd and conveys within its structure the logical
inevitability of Trinitarianism. This error entered the Church some 30-40 years
ago and some people cannot divest themselves of their paradigm" (Binitarianism
and Trinitarianism (No. 76) (Edition 3.0 19941112-20001202). Copyright 1994,
2000 Wade Cox. Christian Churches of God).

Colossians 1:15-17, which will be quoted later, makes clear that God created
all things through Jesus, hence the idea of God and Christ as the only two
beings being involved in the creation is not a recent concept as they are the
two mentioned in scripture. Similarly, Hebrews 1:1-4 states, "God, who at
various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the
prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed
heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the
brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all
things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat
down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than
the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than
they"--Jesus, while He was a messenger for the Father, is NOT what is commonly
called an angel. Furthermore, the implication of one or more angels being part
of Elohim in Genesis 1 suggests that one or more angels, and not necessarily
God, created all things and that humans are in the image of angels. Yet Ezekiel
10:14 describes what that the portion of angels called cherubim, at least, look
like, "Each one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, the
second face the face of a man, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the
face of an eagle"--since they have four faces and humans have only one, it does
not appear that Genesis 1:26 is referring to humans being made in the angel
image.

While it is true that elohim can refer to beings other than the Father and
the Son, it is also true that the word translated as 'god' (in both the Hebrew
and the Greek) is sometimes used of pagan gods and humans. Yet the Father and
the Son still are 'god'.

Genesis 2:24 teaches, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and
be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh". This verse clearly
shows that there are ways that two different beings can be considered one by
God. Thus, the idea of two beings being part of one entity is not in any way a
new concept.
Showing the duality of God, David wrote "The LORD said to my
Lord, "Sit at My right hand" (Psalm 110:1). When Jesus commented about this He
stated, "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" (Matthew 22:45), He
was showing that He was that 'Lord' and thus that there were two.

Daniel makes this point fairly clear, "I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came
to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was
given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass
away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14).

There were two. The Ancient of Days, who is in the New Testament called the
Father (Matthew 6:9) and the one like the Son of Man which is a term that Jesus
referred to Himself as (Matthew 20:18). (Note: Jesus is specifically referred to
twice in the New Testament as "One like the Son of Man", Revelation 1:13;14:14).
Also, the New Testament shows that the dominion (Jude 25) and kingdom are given
to Christ and that all peoples should serve Him (Revelation 11:15; 19:13-16). A
son becomes the same species its father. Jesus is God.

While it is true that the Old Testament states, " Hear, O Israel: The LORD
our God, the LORD is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4), the term God here is also the
plural term 'elohim. This verse shows that there is a one-ness about this
plurality that did not exist among pagan deities.

Isaiah 45:22

One espousing a unitarian perspective who objected to this paper wrote,
""Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and
there is none else." (Isaiah 45:22) Are you going to try to tell us that "me" is
"us?" Should we, imperfect human beings, tell God, The Perfect Being, that He is
mistaken?"

He also alleged that I intentionally left this verse out of the first version
of this paper, because he felt it disproved the binitarian position. It does
not. Nor was it intentionally omitted (this paper was not intended to counter
every trinitarian or unitarian argument, but simply to show from the Bible and
history that binitarianism is the proper position).

Specifically, he also stated, "In fact, your draft article does not consider
Isaiah 45 either. Why not? For one thing, it will not support your theory of
"One God, Began with Two Beings." Nor does united's "Who Is God?" booklet
expound on Isaiah 45, because God's Word does not support their theory of
"...tow {sic} great personages, two uncreated, eternal Beings..." ".

Is he correct?

Let's look at Isaiah 45:22, with the Strong's Greek number above each
word, per the Interlinear Transliterated Bible (Copyright (c) 1994 by
Biblesoft) :

6437.... 413........... 3467............ 3605.......657............ 776.....
3588... 589.. 9999... 410............369............5750
Look..unto me,.
and be ye saved,.. all...... the ends of..
the earth:... for...... I ......am ...God,..
and there is none...else.

Now, what are the Hebrew words Strong's 413 and Strong's 589
and what do they actually mean?

"OT:413 'el (ale); (but only used in the shortened constructive form 'el
(el)); a primitive particle; properly, denoting motion towards, but occasionally
used of a quiescent position, i.e. near, with or among; often in general, to:
KJV - about, according to after, against, among, as for, at, because (-fore,
-side), both ... and, by, concerning, for, from, X hath, in (-to), near, (out)
of, over, through, to (-ward), under, unto, upon, whether, with (-in).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded
Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible
Translators, Inc.)."

"OT:589 'aniy (an-ee'); contracted from OT:595; I: KJV - I, (as for) me,
mine, myself, we, X which, X who. (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers
and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994,
Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)"

So we see that Strong's 413 does not at all mean 'me'. And that
Strong's 589 can mean we--it does not necessarily have to mean 'I' (it
can mean 'I', but it is context related). And that 'am' is not in the original
Hebrew (which means that 'are' could be inserted for English grammar)--for that
is what #9999 represents.

Therefore, Isaiah 45:22 could literally be translated as: Look near,
and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for we
are God, and there is none else.

Thus, Isaiah 45:22 does not in any way prove the unitarian position.

The New Testament

In the New Testament, John begins by making the duality of God clear when he
wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and
without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:1-3). Thus the Word was God
and was with God. And the Word, Jesus, is a lot like God the Father, "And the
Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). It should
probably be mentioned that those with a unitarian view believe this should be
translated differently, but that does not change the totality of the scriptures
on this subject. John never refers to the Holy Spirit as God.

Paul makes the duality of God clear in every book of the Bible he wrote. All,
except the Book of Hebrews, have a version of this in the introduction (the
third verse in most books), "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:7). In Hebrews he words it quite differently, but
still shows the duality of God in the introduction, "God, who at various times
and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in
these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all
things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His
glory and the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:1-3). Paul, never, of
course, included the Holy Spirit in these introductions, as it is not God.

Like Paul, Peter also made the duality of God clear in the introduction of
his two books (I Peter 1:3; II Peter 1:2), where he too left out the Holy
Spirit. Peter confirmed that he knew that Jesus was part of the God Family when
he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew
16:16). Peter also confirms that the Holy Spirit is not a person when in Acts
2:17-18 he quotes Joel about God pouring out His Spirit (one does not pour out a
person).

Jesus

Traditionally, unitarians taught that the one called the Father is God and
that is how God is one. The trinitarians traditionally teach God is one who
shows Himself in three modes (or 'hypostases'), Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all
of the same substance.

Jesus taught, " I and My Father are one" (John 10:30), which totally
contradicts the unitarian position that Jesus is not God (so does John 1, but
that is another issue which they tend to dispute). Matthew, who quoted Isaiah
7:14, also made Jesus' deity clear, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and
bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God
with us" " (Matthew 1:23)--Jesus thus has to be God or He would not be named
"God with us"! After the resurrection, Paul specifically stated, "For in Him
dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). Jesus clearly
believed He was equal with God the Father as Paul points out, "Christ Jesus,
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God"
(Philippians 2:5b-6).

Paul also taught, "But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever
and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom" (Hebrews
1:8). Hence Paul says that the Son is God. Also, since Paul is quoting from
Psalm 45, it is clear then, that this duality and Christ's deity was also taught
in the Old Testament (Psalm 45:6-7).

Some traditional unitarians teach that Jesus did not exist prior to His human
birth. One such example is this by Wayne Atcheson, "The Biblical Confession Is
That Christ Did Not Preexist" (Atcheson, Wayne. The Confession of 1 John 4:2 Is
That Christ Did Not Preexist. Association for Christian Development's The One
God Seminar. Tyler, Texas July 25–27, 2003), yet Paul strongly disputed this
when he was inspired to write, "He is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in
heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and
for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" (Colossians
1:15-17).

Jesus also denied this unitarian assertion when He stated, "What then if you
should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?" (John 6:62), as heaven is
where He came from (3:13).

One unitarian response to these verses is to suggest that they may not be
reliable as they were written after Jesus' resurrection, "But no Gospels, no
epistles, and no Apocalypse were penned until decades after Jesus was taken up
into the clouds. This fact is not debated. This point can be important when
confronting the very few scriptures in the NT that seem to reference the
preexistence of a glorified Christ" (Westby, Kenneth. Two Thrones, Two Lords,
Two Saviors, One God. Association for Christian Development's The One God
Seminar. Tyler, Texas July 25–27, 2003).

Apparently he forgot that Jesus taught, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John
10:35). Since Paul wrote, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for
every good work" (II Timothy 3:16-17), those that believe the Bible will accept
its teachings over those who have reasons to not wish to believe it.

Jesus, Himself, made His prior existence clear, while others were upset to
learn that, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was
glad." Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You
seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham
was, I AM." Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and
went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by" (John
8:56-59). Paul referred to Jesus' pre-existence when he wrote, "For you know the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He
became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich" (II Corinthians
8:9) because the Bible does not record that Jesus was rich in His physical life
on Earth (this verse is also consistent with Philippians 2:5-7, which will be
quoted later)--thus it was prior to His human existence that He was rich. Paul
also referred to Jesus' pre-existence when he wrote, "Moreover, brethren, I do
not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed
through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all
ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they
drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But
with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in
the wilderness. Now these things became our examples" (I Corinthians
10:1-6)--hence since Christ was the Rock in the wilderness during the time of
Moses, He clearly existed prior to His human birth.

Trinitarian History

The trinity is a doctrine that was not originally taught by the Christian
Church. It was originally developed by a famous Gnostic heretic named Valentinus
in the mid-2nd Century.

Here is what it is recorded that a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus
of Ancyra wrote on the nature of God around the middle of the fourth century,
"Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of
God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first
invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'.  For he was
the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato."
(Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church':
Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9.  Journal of Theological
Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

Valentinus may have written, 'On the Three Natures', after he wrote this in
the heretical 'Gospel of Truth', "The Father uncovers his bosom, which is the Holy Spirit, revealing his secret. His secret is his
Son! " (Valentinus.  Gospel of Truth.  Verse 17.  English
translation by Patterson Brown).

The position of the Roman Catholic Church is that the term 'trinity' (from
the Latin trinitas) was developed 85 years after the last book of the
Bible was written, "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the
Three Divine Persons are denoted together...The word trias (of which the
Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch
about A.D. 180...Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in
Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi)" (The Blessed Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume XV Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright ©
2003 by K. Knight ). Interestingly even the Roman Catholics admit, "That "the
Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves,
which are mutually exclusive" (Ibid)--this admission is more supportive of the
binitarian position than the trinitarian position they now hold.

The trinity was not formally adopted until after 325 A.D. the Council of
Nicea and finally the 381 Council--though many in the Roman and Orthodox Church
believed it prior to this. They now consider it to be so important that The
Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The Trinity is the term employed to signify
the central doctrine of the Christian religion" (The Blessed Trinity, 1912).

A bishop of the Orthodox Church wrote, "the councils defined once and for all
the Church's teaching upon the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith --
the Trinity and the Incarnation. All Christians agree in regarding these things
as 'mysteries' which lie beyond human understanding and language...the first
two, held in the fourth century...formulated the doctrine of the Trinity...The
work of Nicea was taken up by the second Ecumenical Council, held in
Constantinople in 381. This council expanded and adapted the Nicene Creed,
developing in particular that teaching upon the Holy Spirit, whom it affirmed to
be God even as the Father and the Son are God...It was the supreme acheivement
of St. Athanasius of Alexandria to draw out the full implications of the key
word in the Nicene Cred: homoousios, one in essence or substance,
consubstantial. Complementary to his work was that of the three Cappadocian
Fathers, Saints...(died 394). While Athanasius emphasized the unity of God --
Father and Son are one in essence (ousia) - the Cappadocians stressed
God's threeness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons
(hypostasis)" (Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London,
1997, pp. 20-23).

If this doctrine were originally part of the true Christian Church, it would
seem that this would be a charge laid against true Christians (such as Stephen,
Peter, and Paul in the Book of Acts)--but it never was. And of course, as even
most Roman and Orthodox Catholics admit, the term trinity is not mentioned in
the Bible.

If this doctrine were originally part of the Christian Church, it would seem
that Paul would have mentioned three members of the Godhead in his letters to
the churches--he never does. Paul mentions the Father and Jesus in every
introduction of every book he wrote (Rom 1:7;I Cor 1:3;II Cor 1:2;Gal
1:3;Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2;Col 1:2;I The 1:1;II Thes 1:2;I Tim 1:2;II Tim 1:2;Ti
1:1;Phi 1:3;Heb 1:1-2;), but he never mentions the Holy Spirit. If the
Holy Spirit was a co-equal member of the trinity, could this possibly be
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-29)?

Part of the problem of the trinitarian view of one God who manifests Himself
in three modes is that it demands that God could not have different wills. Yet
Jesus taught, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done" (Luke 22:42). Jesus is clearly
stating that on this point He had a different will than the Father. If Jesus was
part of the trinity, He could not have a different will than the Father, but
since He did have a different will (see also John 5:30;7:16) and would speak
different words (John 14:24), He could not be part of the traditionally taught
trinity.

(This may be a good time to remind everyone that although the NIV gets I John
5:7-8 right, in the KJV and NKJV I John 5:7-8 includes words not in the original
text. On page 1918, The Ryrie Study Bible reminds everyone "Verse 7
should end with the word witness. The remainder of v. 7 and part of v. 8
are not in any ancient Greek manuscript...". In other words the words "in
heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And
there are three that bear witness on earth" are not inspired and are not
supposed to be in the Bible).

Perhaps it should be mentioned here that the reason that the Bible teaches,
"baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
(Matthew 28:19) is that through being begotten by the Holy Spirit through
baptism (Luke 3:16), we will ultimately be born in the family of God.

Romans 8:28-29 states, "And we know that all things work together for good to
those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For
whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,
that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." By showing the Jesus was to
be the firstborn among many brethren, Paul is teaching that we will be in the
same family of God that Jesus is in.

We Are to Be One With the Father and the Son

Jesus also taught, "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who
will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father,
are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may
believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them,
that they may be one just as We are one" (John 17:20-23). Jesus is one with God
the Father as He expects His people to be one. As His people are made up of
different individuals, so therefore is God. Jesus continually emphasized the
family relationship between Himself as Son and the Father. Furthermore, Jesus'
statement makes it clear that those called will be part of God's family as
well--how else will true Christians attain the same glory as Jesus? Paul
essentially reiterates this in Romans 8:28-29 (which will be quoted later).

Matthew recorded, "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that
He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one
flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew
19:4-6). "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his
wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). The New Testament, thus,
also clearly shows that two can be one!

Interestingly, Paul brings both concepts together in Ephesians when he
writes, "For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. For this
reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the
two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about
Christ and the church" (Ephesians 5:30-32).

Thus Paul shows that two are one flesh and that the marital relationship
pictures Christ being one with the Church.

Which is part of what Jesus was talking about in John 17--that there is a
oneness and two-ness in the relationship between He and the Father and that
there will be a oneness between Him and Church--which is composed on many (not
just two) members. Paul also made this clear, "For as we have many members in
one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being
many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another" (Romans
12:4-6).

Although many have attempted to portray the English word 'one' to mean there
are not multiple beings in the God Family, both the Old Testament (which was
written in Hebrew) and the New Testament (which was written in Greek) show that
while God is also one, the Godhead (the term 'Godhead' could probably also be
translated as 'divinity') is currently shared by two, including Jesus
(Colossians 2:9;Romans 1:20).

It is the lack of understanding of these concepts by the traditional
unitarians and trinitarians that can blind them to the plan of God. And that we
are to be one with God as the God Family (now consisting of the Father and the
Son) now is one!

Binitarianism is Not a New Concept

Some, who have chosen to misinterpret these scriptures have claimed that the
idea that God existed in the binitarian or trinitarian concept from the
beginning have suggested the idea of God consisting of two beings is a
relatively recent invention. However, "Earliest Christian worship specifies two
figures, God and Jesus, as recipients" (Hurtado Larry. ABSTRACT: "THE BINITARIAN
SHAPE OF EARLY CHRISTIAN WORSHIP". INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE HISTORICAL
ORIGINS OF THE WORSHIP OF JESUS 13-17 June 1998). Perhaps it should be added
here that Professor Hurtado also believed that the Israelite religion was (or at
least had been) binitarian. Furthermore, "The argument that Christianity is not
binitarian but trinitarian, hence could not be perceived as a two-powers heresy,
ignores the fact that it is not so much what Christianity thought of itself that
counts but how it appeared to its rabbinic critics. And there we see clearly
that it was often described as binitarian or dualistic rather than trinitarian"
(Summary of response by Alan F. Segal. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE
HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE WORSHIP OF JESUS 13-17 June 1998). Hence, the early
Jewish rabbis recognized early Christianity as binitarian, not trinitarian or
unitarian. But this observation is not limited to critics of the Christian
religion.

Another scholar has noted, "While Paul engages in a great deal of
legitimation for his view of Torah, there is no indication that he felt the need
to defend himself against charges of ‘two powers’ heresy. Paul's view of the
exalted Christ's investiture with the divine name (Phil.2:9-11) must be viewed
in relation to non-Christian Jewish texts such as the Apocalypse of Abraham.
This work refers to an exalted angel, Yahoel, who bears the divine name
(Apoc.Abr.10:3,8). There is simply no evidence that belief in a supreme mediator
or agent of God, one that might later be called a ‘second power,’ was
controversial at any point during the first century CE. This is not to be
explained by the lack of any universally recognized authority which could speak
for Jewish ‘orthodoxy’ in this period. Even within the context of first century
Jewish diversity, parties in conflict with one another took seriously the
objections of their opponents and sought to respond to them. In the case of
Paul's claims about the exalted Christ and of Philo's view of the Logos as a
second god, there is nothing to indicate that their contemporaries found them to
be heretical or controversial...the Tosefta contains several references to
Christians as minim (‘heretics’). The lack of explicit reference to ‘two powers’
cannot be explained as a lack of interest in Christianity, since the rabbis who
composed the Tosefta took the trouble to polemicize against Christians. So, if
Christian belief in ‘two powers in heaven’ was an issue at that time, it is
quite surprising that the Mishnah and the Tosefta do not mention it" (James
McGrath (Alliance Theological Seminary) with Jerry Truex (Tabor College). TWO
POWERS’ AND EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM
http://www.iwu.edu/~religion/ejcm/McGrath_SBL2001_TwoPowers.htm 9/18/04). This
writing, thus suggests, that certain binitarian ideas were not necessarily
foreign to the Jewish religion at that time.

Furthermore, look at these verses, "And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My
Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have
believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" " (John
20:28-29). Not only did Thomas call Jesus God, Jesus' statements confirmed the
correctness of Thomas' assertion.

Early, Post New Testament, Writers

Many of us in the true Church of God believe that the churches in Revelation
2 and 3 show the succession of the dominant true church throughout history
(click here for the article Why the
Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Matter). As shown earlier in this article,
it is clear that the New Testament Church, the one called Ephesus in Revelation
2, was binitarian. (More information on the early church can be found in the
article Location of the Early
Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome).

The next church in Revelation 2, following Ephesus, was Smyrna. Polycarp was
known as the Bishop of Smyrna and probably the first physical head (under Jesus
Christ) of the era when Smyrna dominated. He was neither trinitarian nor
unitarian according to various historical documents. The following quote
attributed to him shows that he (and thus by inference the rest of Smyrna) was
not unitarian, "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
eternal High-priest Himself, the [Son of] God Jesus Christ, build you up in
faith and truth, and in all gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath and in
forbearance and long suffering and in patient endurance and in purity; and may
He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints, and to us with you, and to
all that are under heaven, who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ
and on His Father" (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians in APOSTOLIC
FATHERS (as translated by J.B. LIGHTFOOT) 12:6,7).

It probably should be noted that Dr. Lightfoot left out "Son of" in his
translation, which is in the Latin. It should also be pointed out that I am
aware of another translation of
this section by Roberts and Donaldson in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol, 1
which omitted the term "God" before Jesus Christ, but I verified that the
term "deum" is in the Latin version of this epistle {the original Greek versions
did not survive pass chapter 10}. Dr. Lightfoot's translation "our Lord and God
Jesus Christ" is a literal translation of the Latin "dominum nostrum et deum
Iesum Christum". The University of Notre Dame Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid
states "deus -i m. [a god , deity]". The term "deum" is the masculine accusatory
form of the word "deus". Since traditional unitarians do not call Jesus God, it
appears clear that Polycarp clearly was not one of them. Furthermore, he did not
ever call the Holy Spirit God.

Also, Ignatius, who was
known by Polycarp (and praised in this same Polycarp epistle) wrote around
80-110 A.D., "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with
God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit. He
was born and baptized so that by His submission He might purify the water"
(Ignatius of Antioch, Letters to the Ephesians 18,2--note this is translated the
same by at least three separate translations as done by Dr. Lightfoot, J.H.
Srawley, and Roberts & Donaldson). Hence, Ignatius (who apparently lived in
the times dominated by both the Ephesus and Smyrna eras of the Church), who
received Polycarp's praise, also recognized Jesus as God, and thus could not
have been a traditional unitarian.

Ignatius also stated, "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath
been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath
been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable
glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of
Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy
of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy"
(Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians, Verse 0. In Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot
& Harmer, 1891 translation). He also stated something similar to the
Smyrnaeans, "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God the Father
and of Jesus Christ the Beloved, which hath been mercifully endowed with every
grace, being filled with faith and love and lacking in no grace, most reverend
and bearing holy treasures; to the church which is in Smyrna of Asia, in a
blameless spirit and in the word of God abundant greeting. I give glory to Jesus
Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you" (Ignatius' Letter to the
Symrnaeans, Verses 0-1.1. In Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891
translation). It is important to note that Ignatius referred to both the Father
and the Son as God in both places (and I verified that it is in the original
Greek), but he never called the Holy Spirit 'God'.

Around 157 AD it is alleged that Montanus "believed that God had sent Him to
reform Catholicism. He believed in and taught the Binitarian or Semi-Arian or
two-unequal-god doctrine of the godhead" (The Charismatic Movement, Hamilton, pg
64
http://doctrinesofchrist.com/A%20Historical%20Record%20Of%20Speaking%20In%20Tongues.htm#_edn15,
7/14/04) (I say alleged because I am still seeking confirmation in other
sources).

Near the end of the second century, Melito of Sardis (whom Catholics and
others consider to be a saint) wrote, "No eye can see Him, nor thought apprehend
Him, nor language describe Him; and those who love Him speak of Him thus:
`Father, and God of Truth" (A Discourse Which Was in the Presence of Antoninus
Caesar). Melito also wrote, "For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and
especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity
hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise...He
concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before
all ages" (Melito. On the Nature of Christ. From Roberts and Donaldson). This
clearly shows that Melito considered Christ to be God, as well as the Father.
There is no indication in any of the surviving writings of Melito that he
considered that the Holy Spirit was also God, hence he seemed to hold a
binitarian view.

Interestingly, a trinitarian critic of the Church of God, Tertullian (who
allegedly was originally binitarian and a Montanist, therefore confirming the
general intent of the quote attributed to Montanus), around 213 A.D. wrote,
"Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created,
at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are
declared" (Against Praxeas 13:1). Thus from Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito,
Tertullian, and possibly Montanus (who, with his followers, apparently became
party to many later heresies), we have strong indication that the binitarian
view was held during the time of Smyrna.

In Emperor Constantine's time, Pergamos (the next church in Revelation 2)
began to become predominant. Many were known as 'Paulicians', 'Bogomils',
'Cathars', and 'Patarenes', with those towards to end sometimes known as
'Albigensians' (although not all referred by those names were in the true
Church). The Nationmaster Encyclopedia states, "The Albigensians and
other Bogomil heretics were apparently believers in Dualism and denied the third
person of the Holy Trinity." I would have preferred the term 'binitarianism',
but even the term 'Dualism' and the denial of the trinity shows a binitarian
continuity of the true Church of God.

Semi-Arians

The true Church of God opposed the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church at
this time to become strictly trinitarian and, shortly after the Council of
Nicea, most had to go into exile. Historical records at the time show that some
version of binitarianism was a belief held by many professing Christians then
(including many not actually in the Church of God). Some who are unitarians
believe they have conflicting evidence, but part of the problem is that while it
is true that Dr. Arius (and his followers, known as the Arians) held a version
of the unitarian position (which appears different from certain current
traditional unitarians), it is also true that the binitarians were considered to
be 'semi-Arians' (even though there were different definitions of semi-Arians as
well). The Catholics wanted to get the semi-Arians back and that is part of why
they convened the Council of Constantinople in May of 381 (First Council of
Constantinople. Catholic Encyclopedia). Yet, the Council of Constantinople so
offended the semi-Arians that they walked out. Here is how one author defined
"Semi Arianism...They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and
had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they
accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was "of one substance
(homoousios) with the Father." Semi Arians taught that Christ was similar (
homoios) to the Father, or of like substance ( homoiousios), but still
subordinate" (Pfandl, Gerhard. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AMONG ADVENTISTS.
Biblical Research Institute Silver Spring, MD June 1999,
http://www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/trinity.html,
7/12/04)--this consistent with Jesus' statements about Himself and that He was
subordinate to the Father (John 14:28; Luke 4:43) as well as Paul's statements
(I Corinthians 15:27-28).

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Semi-Arians this way, "A name
frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth
century...showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance".
Thus it is clear that many held the binitarian view at that time (including no
doubt, many who were not true Christians).

Although Catholic writers have had many definitions of "Semi-Arians" (most of
which disagree with the COG position), one that somewhat defines the COG view
taken in this article would possibly be this one from Epiphanius in the mid-4th
Century, "Semi-Arians...hold the truly orthodox view of the Son, that he was
forever with the Father...but has been begotten without beginning and not in
time...But...the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the
Father and the Son" (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II
and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 1,1 and 1,3.
Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp.471-472).

Around 600 A.D. some true, non-trinitarian, Christians were known as
Paulicians by their opponents and since they believed "Christ came down from
heaven" (Herzog, “Paulicians,” Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or
Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn,
Vol. 2. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894.
pp.1776-1777, http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/h_paul.html, 7/14/04), it appears
they at least accepted the pre-existence of Christ and most likely were also
binitarian.

Continuing Throughout History

The next church in succession in Revelation 2 was Thyatira. Documents
throughout its predominate time show that it was not trinitarian. "A heresy
during the middle ages that developed in the town Albi in Southern France. This
error taught that there were two gods...The Albigenses taught that Jesus was God
but that He only appeared as a man while on earth" (Albigenes. CHRISTIAN
APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY. http://www.carm.org/heresy/albigensis.htm
9/03/05). Note: Most Albigenses were not in the COG, though some COG critics
called COG members Albigenses at that time..

It should be pointed out that there are differences in opinion of what
happened to this era, as many who may have been associated with it apparently
became unitarians--the fact that many have historically left the true church for
other doctrines does not make the other doctrines correct (the Seventh Day
Adventists would be a somewhat more recent example of this--in the 1800s,
although they remained Sabbatarians, they rejected the name 'Church of God', and
adopted non-COG doctrines--the trinity became doctrine when Ellen White
published a pamphlet in 1897 declaring the Holy Spirit "the third person of the
Godhead"--Andrews University suggests the SDAs were binitarians before this). It
seems that some remnant of Thyatira remained in the Transcarpathian mountain
regions, and at least some of them (in the Ukraine portion at least, who are
affiliated with the United Church of God) are (and probably were previously)
binitarian.

The next church in succession, beginning with the first verse of Revelation
3, was Sardis--later essentially incorporated as the Church of God, Seventh Day
(CG7). It seems to have come from the binitarian portion of the Anabaptist
movement--which traced itself back to the Paulicians (Lee. F. The Anabaptists
and their Stepchildren.
http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_002.html, 7/14/04) .

Although some of CG7's current leadership is apparently leaning towards
trinitarianism, it was (and officially to some degree, still is) binitarian. It
acknowledges the deity of both the Father and the Son, but specifically has
taught against the divinity of the Holy Spirit (Dugger A.N., Todd C.O. A History
of True Religion). Actually one of the earlier published statement under a
section titled False Doctrines is "About the year 379 the apostate church
began to seek Scriptures to teach the erroneous doctrine of the deity of the
Holy Ghost" (Ibid, p.87)--so the trend in CG7 to be more accepting of the
trinity is not only disturbing, it absolutely conflicts with its past
teachings.

The next church in succession in Revelation 3 was Philadelphia. Most outside
of the Sardis era of the Church of God, who believe in Church eras, believe that
this was what was once known as the Radio Church of God, and for most, the
Worldwide Church of God (WCG) under Herbert W. Armstrong. A major portion of the
remnant of this era became the old Global Church of God and then the current
Living Church of God (LCG). As the beginning of this article has pointed out,
LCG is clearly binitarian as was the Radio Church of God and the old WCG. In the
letter to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, Jesus states, "you have not
denied my name" (Revelation 3:8). And while this also has something to do with
governance, this may also be distinguishing the fact that the true portion of
the Philadelphia church never denies Jesus' deity (perhaps, unlike some who
might be part of other eras).

The last church in succession in Revelation 3 is Laodicea. This is to be the
predominate church at the time of the end. While its major branches, splinters,
and independents are binitarian, it may be possible that it may contain some
confused unitarians, though this may be doubtful (see Acts 4:12).

The fact is that the duality of the Family of God was made clear in the Bible
from the beginning. Moses wrote about it, David wrote about it, Daniel wrote
about it, John wrote about it, Jesus declared it, and Paul and others wrote
about it. The true Church of God still declares it.

Only God Can Be Worshipped

While traditional unitarians teach that Jesus was somehow special, they deny
He was God. However, only God is supposed to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10;
Revelation 19:10,22:8-9). And although He emptied Himself of His divinity on
Earth and in that respect was a man (as indicated in Acts 2:22), Jesus still
allowed Himself to be worshipped (Matthew 8:2;9:18;.14:33;15:25;28:8,17; Mark
5:6; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). Jesus specifically taught, "all should honor the
Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor
the Father who sent Him" (John 5:23). Since the Father is honored as God, so
the Son should be also--this statement from Jesus conclusively proves that
Christ is God as the Father is God.

The Bible records that the Apostle Peter (Acts 10:25) would not allow himself
to be worshipped because he was a man (note the same Greek word for worship,
proskuneo, is in all the previously cited verses). Paul and Barnabas had
a similar incident as well (Acts 14:11-18) were they had to stop the worship
through sacrifices to themselves. Angels, also, are not allowed to be worshiped
(Matthew 4:9-10;Colossians 2:18; Revelation 19:10,22:8-9).

Thus, while Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity, He still was representing
God as He allowed Himself to be worshipped.

What Difference Does it Make?

Some will decide that they do not think this issue is of sufficient
importance to care about. Others have taken a different view.

Wade Cox, who claims to be a traditional unitarian alleges, "If you are a
Binitarian or a Trinitarian you are not in the first resurrection"
(Binitarianism and Trinitarianism (No. 76) (Edition 3.0 19941112-20001202).
Copyright 1994, 2000 Wade Cox. Christian Churches of God).

The Tkach-era WCG had a booklet called God Is which essentially took
the trinitarian position that you can never understand the nature of God, but
that God was one being with three hypostases.

Traditional Roman Catholics' teach, "And, after the Incarnation, all men, in
order to be saved, “are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the
Trinity.””[v] We see, therefore, that explicit faith in the articles of the
Creed is necessary for salvation." (The Roman Catholics also teach that the
trinity cannot be fully understood.)

And Protestants? "Luther called the Athansen Creed the grandest production of
the Christian Church since the times of the apostles" (Mueller, John Theodore.
The Lutheran Confessions. circa 1953, p.5). The creed discusses the belief in
the Trinity and concludes with "This is the catholic (general) faith; which
except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved" (p.6).

Thus the position of the Roman Catholics and the founder of the Protestant
Reformation is that salvation is not possible for those who do not accept the
trinity.

But because both Roman Catholics and the Protestants teach that Jesus was
'fully human and fully God', they reject that He emptied Himself of His
divinity, thus they deny that He has truly came in the flesh.

Remember that while on Earth, Jesus stated, "I can of Myself do nothing"
(John 5:30a). Look at something Paul taught, "Christ Jesus: Who, being in very
nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made
himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human
likeness" (Philippians 2:5b-7 NIV). Thus Jesus was God, but made Himself nothing
(or as the Greek indicates, 'emptied Himself' of His divinity) while He was on
earth. Remember, "Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren"
(Hebrews 2:17).
By being empty of His divinity, Jesus simply did not have the
direct powers (John 14:10), the inability to somehow die (and the Father raised
him, He did not raise Himself--Acts 13:30-34; Romans 10:9; Galatians 1:1;
Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12), the inability to be tempted (Matthew 4:1;
Hebrews 4:15)), and glory that He had prior to His human birth and after His
resurrection--thus Jesus was not "fully God and fully human" while in the flesh
as the trinitarians tend to believe.

Jesus made His lack of such direct powers on Earth clear in scriptures
previously quoted in this article as well as various comments He made about
angels. For example, while human He stated, "do you think that I cannot now pray
to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?"
(Matthew 26:53). Yet in various prophecies He said that later He had charge over
the angels (Matthew 13:41) and that He would have the Father's glory (Matthew
16:27;25:31). Also, prior to His resurrection had limited authority on His own
(John 5:27-30)--this differs from after the resurrection when He was given back
all authority (Matthew 28:18). (It should be added that Jesus suggested that the
miracles He performed while human had to do with faith, not His own power; see
Mark 9:23;11:22-24.)

John wrote, "every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in
the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you
have heard was coming, and is now already in the world" (I John 4:3). The
trinitarian teaching that Jesus was still fully God while on Earth suggests that
Jesus did not actually empty Himself of His divinity and that He truly was not
in all things made like His brethren (this is consistent with the trinitarian
teaching that the same God exists simultaneously in three manifestations, always
having the same power and will). The trinitarian teachings thus deny that Jesus
truly came in the flesh. And sadly, as John points out, this heresy was around
even in his time. The unitarian position that Jesus is not God would also seem
to be condemned by the I John 4:3 statement.

Concluding Ramifications

Another problem with the unitarian and the trinitarian positions is that they
limit who can truly be part of the God Family. Since those positions hold that
there is only truly one God being--and that is all there ever can be--they
essentially believe it is blasphemous to consider that God is reproducing
Himself and intends to add others to His family.
Of course, just as the Son
is under the authority of the Father, those added to God's family will be under
the authority of the Father and Son.

The proper binitarian position is that God is reproducing Himself. And this
is also why that it is a false assertion that proper binitarianism leads to
trinitarianism--trinitarianism never teaches that God is reproducing Himself and
that the God Family will be expanded.

LCG's last statement in its Official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs
is, "MANKIND’S ORIGIN, INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL AND ULTIMATE DESTINY God created
mankind out of the "dust of the earth" (Genesis 2:7). Human beings are made in
God’s "image [and] likeness" (Genesis 1:26; cf. 5:3); they are also given a
God-like mind and emotions. God planned that those who repent of their sins and
are baptized shall receive God’s Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; John 3:16). At Christ’s
second coming, all of those converted in this life, whether dead or alive, will
be given immortality—born as full "sons of God, being sons of the resurrection"
(Luke 20:36). "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew
5:5; cf. Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34). "He who overcomes shall inherit all things
[the universe]" (Revelation 21:7). According to all the prophecies and promises
of the Bible, God’s "firstfruits" (those called in this age) will be rewarded
with a place or position of rulership in God’s Kingdom (John 14:1-3; Revelation
3:21; 20:4-6), right here on this earth (Revelation 2:26-27; 5:10; Daniel 2:44).
The true saints will become full sons of God—"sons of the resurrection" (Luke
20:36). God’s purpose is that He is reproducing Himself and that those
converted, ultimately, become full members of the Family of God, under the
authority of the Father and the Son (1 John 3:1-3). They will share divine glory
in the resurrection. Jesus prayed, "And the glory which You gave Me I have given
them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that
they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent
Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me" (John 17:22-23)."

Paul knew this when he wrote, " And we know that all things work together for
good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His
purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image
of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans
8:28-29). We are to be Christ's brethren.

Those who do not believe in the concept of One Family of God, currently with
two beings, will not truly accept or understand this. Nor will various other
aspects of God's plan be understood by them as well.

Appendix A - Additional Unitarian Issues

I was asked to add this appendix so that I could address various unitarian
arguments, so that they would realize that the verses they point to do not ever
prove their position against Christ's prior deity.

1) Elohim can be translated various ways.

Though this is true, 'elohim is a plural noun, and hence shows the plurality
of God when it is referring to God.

2) Colossians 1:15-17 -- created all things by Jesus Christ -- unitarians
claim the 'by' can be equivalently translatable as "because of" or "for" -- so
that everything was created with Jesus in mind, even though Jesus had not yet
been created.

This position is inconsistent with the fact that Jesus was with God and was
God from the beginning (John 1:1-2) and that "All things were made
through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (vs.3). The word
translated as 'through' in the NKJV is the Greek word dia which the
Interlinear Bible translates also translates as 'by'. Even if it could be argued
that both verses 'by' should be translated as 'for', none of this changes the
fact that Jesus was there at the creation.

The same Greek term dia is also in Hebrews 1:2, "His Son, whom He has
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds". Isaiah
43:11,12,15 also shows Jesus is both God and creator.

Furthermore, if God made the world for the Son, and the Son did not have a
prior existence and the Son is not God, it seems illogical that the Son would be
the reason that God made the worlds.

3) Psalm 110:1 states, "The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand".
Unitarians point out that the second lord in this quote is not the same word,
and it means master with a little m.

This is true, but irrelevant. The binitarian position is that the Son is
under the authority of the Father, hence this changes nothing as it is
consistent with that position and it does show the duality that binitarians
profess.

4) John 1:1-3, John 6, 8 and 9, etc. Many unitarians insist that since
"God calls those things which be not as though they are" -- the Bible is calling
things that did not exist as though they did.

This is illogical in this context. The Bible states, "In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the
beginning with God" (John 1-2). It is telling us when, in those verses, which is
not in the future but was in the past.

5) Other verses in Isaiah, according to the unitarians declare, the
oneness of God.

This is true, but it does not explain how God is one. Furthermore, they
demonstrate that the unitarian position against Jesus being God is in error. For
example, Isaiah 43:10-11.15 states, "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And
My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand
that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I,
even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior...I am the LORD, your
Holy One, The Creator of Israel, your King."

Because God is one family, no other God family will ever be formed. Since
Jesus is the savior, these verses show that Jesus is God and was the Creator. It
should be noted that there are many New Testament passages that make it clear
that Jesus is savior (Luke 1:47,2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31, 13:23; Ephesians
5:23; Philippians 3:20; 2 Timothy 1:10; Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:4; 2 Peter 1:1, 1:11,
2:20, 3:2, 3:18; 1 John 4:14) and that the savior is God. Furthermore, in the
entire New Testament, the Greek term translated as savior only refers to Jesus
directly or members of the God family (some verses are unclear if they are
referring to the Father or the Son, and may very well be referring to both
together).
One specific example would be, "adorn the doctrine of God our
Savior in all things. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to
all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, Looking for the blessed hope
and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, Who gave
Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for
Himself His own special people, zealous for good works" (Titus 2:10-14).

Isaiah 45:22-23 in the usual translation (see main article for a fuller
discussion of this point) teaches, "For I am God, and there is no other. I have
sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall
not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an
oath".

Now to whom shall every knee bow? Philippians 2:9-10 teaches, "Therefore God
also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and
of those on earth, and of those under the earth".

It is interesting to note that Paul teaches that the fulfillment of Isaiah
45:22-23 occurs at the judgment seat of Christ, "For we shall all stand before
the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every
knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God" " (Romans
14:10-11).

Furthermore, instead of listing every possible verse in Isaiah (three are
mentioned here, and another in the main paper), perhaps this quote from Jesus
will put everything in context, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and
the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty"
(Revelation 1:8). Now Jesus' declaration about Him being the Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end is made four times (1:8, 1:11, 21:6, 22:13).

Jesus is clearly showing He was around from the beginning as He declares
Himself to be the Beginning. God the Father was also around. God the Father was
also the Beginning. Just as these statements from Jesus do not prove that God
the Father was never around, the other verses in Isaiah do not prove that Jesus
was not around (which would contradict these four in Revelation) either. In
addition, notice that Jesus calls Himself the Almighty. Every time the Greek
word pantokratur (translated Almighty) is used in the New Testament, it
is always used to refer to God.

6) Another scripture I have been told that the unitarians really hinge on
is 1 Timothy 6:14-16, "Lord Jesus Christ's appearing, which He will manifest in
His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and
Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom
no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power".

They argue that this 'who alone has immortality' is referring to God the
Father. Not only is that not clear to me from the context, since the Bible shows
that Jesus is 'King of kings and Lord of Lords' (Revelation 19:16;17:14), this
more logically refers to Jesus. Furthermore, God will grant immortality to His
saints at the resurrection (Romans 2:5-8; 1 Corinthians 11:53-54).

In addition since, "our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10), was
the one who brought immortality, it is logical to conclude that He also have
possessed it.

While it is true that the Greek word translated in 1 Timothy and 1
Corinthians as immortality is different from the Greek word translated as
immortality in Romans and 2 Timothy, the first word more properly means against
death, while the second word is better translated as immortality. However, since
the both terms are used for the saints in a similar context, they do appear to
be interchangeable.

7) QUESTION: Some religions teach that Jesus Christ is a created being.
Some even say that He was the brother of Lucifer, or that He was the archangel
Michael. Is Jesus Christ a created being, or is He eternal?

This question and the following answer are from the September-October 2004
edition of LCG's Tomorrow's World magazine:

"ANSWER: The idea that Jesus was created by God the Father is often
predicated on very narrow interpretations of Colossians 1:15 and Revelation
3:14, and by a failure to understand the plan of God as it applies to mankind.
The Bible, however, shows that both the Father and the Son are eternally
self-existent. Even though "there is only one God" (1 Corinthians 8:4;
Deuteronomy 6:4), Scripture shows that God is a divine Family made up of more
than one Being (Genesis 1:26; Ephesians 2:19; 3:15). According to the Bible,
Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament, the "Word" (logos), through whom
the Father created all things (John 1:1–3; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Ephesians 3:9;
Hebrews 1:2). After He "emptied Himself" of His divine power (Philippians 2:7)
in order to die and pay the penalty for our sins (Romans 6:23), Jesus then
became the "only begotten Son" of the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18), the
Savior of mankind (1 John 4:14) and He who died for our sins and was resurrected
that we might be saved from eternal death (Acts 4:10–12). Some point to the King
James Version translation of Revelation 3:14 as evidence that Jesus Christ is a
created being, as it describes Him as the "beginning of the creation of God."
The problem is in translating the word "beginning" (in Greek, arche). How do
other translations render this phrase? Christ is "the Origin of God’s creation"
(Moffatt, NRSV); He is "the Ruler of God’s creation" (NIV). "Beginning" would be
better rendered as the "Beginner" or the "Originator" of creation. As these
translations make plain, Revelation 3:14 does not imply that Jesus was the first
created being; rather, He is the One who created, and stands as the cause of,
that creation. Some wrongly take Colossians 1:15 to mean that Christ, as the
"firstborn over all creation," was Himself part of that creation. The Greek
translated here as "firstborn"—prototokos (from proto, "first" and tikto, "to
beget")—does not indicate that Jesus was created. Rather, it reminds us that,
through His resurrection, He had the "preeminence" as "firstborn from the dead"
(v. 18; Revelation 1:5). Additionally, as Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words rightly observes, Colossians 1:15 is a scripture "where His
[Christ’s] eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means
both that He was the Firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced
creation (the genitive case being objective, as ver. 16 makes clear)" (p. 104).
"By Him [Christ] all things were created" (v. 16)—He did not create Himself!
Another vital key to understanding Paul’s teaching is found in Hebrews 7.
Melchizedek was the king of Jerusalem, and a Priest of the Most High God in the
days of Abraham (Genesis 14:18). Paul writes that Melchizedek existed from
eternity, "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither
beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a
priest continually" (Hebrews 7:3). Melchizedek was "like the Son of God," and
remains a High Priest continually. If Jesus Christ is now our High Priest
(Hebrews 5:10), then Melchizedek and Jesus Christ are one and the same eternal
Being (For more on this topic, please write for our free reprint, Who Was the
God of the Old Testament?). Religions that consider Jesus Christ a created being
do not understand God’s plan of salvation. Jesus Christ, the "Word" who "was
God" and was "with God" eternally from the beginning (John 1:1–2), before the
creation, will return as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:13–16)
to establish lasting peace on the earth (Isaiah 2:2–4)."

8) Unitarians declare that the scriptures about God being one are clear,
and that those scriptures that seem to oppose it are unclear.

I disagree and believe the Bible teaches the opposite. And simply will refer
back to the main article.

Furthermore, the simple truth is that Jesus Himself explained how two can
still be one (marriage) and how many can be one (He and the Father and the
Church). The fact that Jesus was human while on Earth explains why He did not
call Himself God then--which is a main unitarian argument. The fact that He
allowed and agreed with Thomas that He was God after the resurrection, does deal
with those objections (which are numerous) from the unitarians.

Back to
home page

COGwriter 2004, 2005 (20050903 edition).