Index To All Nine Sections Part I - Historical Background. Is the orthodox version of one God in three persons an unassailable and inviolable doctrine straight from the pages of Scripture? Not exactly! This incomprehensible doctrine was formally adopted in 381 AD as a defense against charges that Christians worshipped more than one God. It prevailed because it satisfied a number of requirements and gave the church a nice tidy solution. Yet, although unknown to the Scriptures, it somehow evolved into a litmus test for true faith. Part II - ‘Proof Texts’. Passages that supposedly "prove" the trinity. Part III - The Grammar. Can the grammar legitimately be used to support the idea that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity? Part IV - The Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Bible very clearly shows that Christ is God AND ascribes Divinity to the Holy Spirit which leads to the question... Part V - Can God be more than one? Part VI - What is The Holy Spirit? - A separate person, or the Divine presence and power of the Father Himself? Part VII - The Cappadocian Fathers. The doctrine of the trinity that has remained virtually unchanged to this day found its roots in paganism not the Bible. This largely due to the part played by the Cappadocian Fathers - three ancient Greek philosophers and mystics Part VIII - Begotten Vs. Proceeds. The Son is "begotten" of the Father and the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father. Different? Certainly! But not what The Cappadocian Fathers made it out to be You Are Here  Part IX - Summary and Conclusion
ON THIS PAGE
Proof Texts
The Holy Spirit
The Grammar
The Cappadocian Fathers And Origen
So Why Did This Particular Idea Prevail?
Finally Other Mistranslations and Misinterpretations Please Note: Challenging the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean challenging the Divinity of Christ and it does not mean challenging the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament abounds with much proof of the deity of Jesus Christ, and Acts 5:3-4 is more than enough to clinch the issue of the Holy Spirit being God. What is challenged is the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the trinity... a co-equal member of the Godhead, which most Christians believe to be divine truth. It has become so foundational a part of the Christian faith that many go as far as to say you cannot be completely Christian unless you believe it.
Proof Texts
Although, there isn't a single verse or passage that "clearly" states that there is one God who exists in three persons, Trinitarians usually advance a number of verses as evidence for there being three co-equal members of the Godhead.
In reality these verses do no such thing. Texts that mention Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one place are often pointed to as 'proof texts' for the Trinity. However if we abstain from going beyond the actual words and stick to exactly what the text says, we will find that none of the verses say anything about the nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nor do any of them describe or even imply that there are three coequal Persons in one Divine Being. For example when we read that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all do different things simultaneously at Jesus' baptism, we automatically assume that just because each of the three functions separately, each has to be an individual member of the Godhead. This is us applying to God our understanding of how things work in our physical three dimensional world. I have no idea how God and His Spirit can be seen simultaneously doing different things, but then again I don't understand How God made a dragonfly's wings either. If the Bible is content to tell us that God and His Spirit can perform separate activities at the same time, then I am equally content to accept it as so.
The Holy Spirit
The Bible makes it very clear that there is only one Spirit. Many passages show that the Spirit of the Father is the Holy Spirit and (as mentioned several times) this Spirit is no different from the Spirit of Christ. In other words, the Spirit of God the Father, the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same Spirit.
This explains why the Holy Spirit is... Conspicuous By It's Absence as A Distinct Person In telling the Jews that He and the Father "were one" (John 10:30), Jesus made Himself equal with God (John 5:17-18), and said that the Father had sent Him (John 8:16). But not once did He make a similar statement about Himself and the Holy Spirit. Paul consistently and repeatedly, tied the Father and Son together with no mention of the Holy Spirit. John makes no mention of seeing the Holy Spirit in his visions recorded in the book of Revelation. The third person of a supposedly triune God is curiously absent from Daniel's vision of heaven and, at his martyrdom, Stephen saw God the Father and Jesus the Son, but no Holy Spirit. If that wasn’t enough, the Holy Spirit is missing from the opening salutation of most of the New Testament books, and from the approximately eighteen doxologies in these books.
Anthropomorphisms
It is true that the Holy Spirit is often portrayed being grieved, speaking and capable of being lied to... all the characteristics of a person. However, anthropomorphism - attribution of human form, characteristics, emotions, motives, and actions to non-living things - is an ancient literary tradition. The Old Testament speaks of non-living things crying out for vindication, shouting/singing for joy, clapping their hands, lamenting etc while the New Testament depicts wisdom as having children, creation groaning, righteousness speaking etc. Therefore ascribing activity or other human characteristics to the Holy Spirit does not mean the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. God the Father and Jesus Christ are consistently portrayed with human like shape and form - arms, hands, faces, hearts etc. In comparison, the Holy Spirit is consistently represented by symbols, like a dove, or inanimate objects like water, tongues of fire, or a pledge. Additionally, the Holy Spirit is spoken of in many ways that do not support the idea that a person is being spoken of. For example a person, divine or otherwise, cannot be quenched, given as a gift that is "poured out", or given "without measure". You cannot rekindle, or "stir up" a Divine being (unless of course like the genie on a bottle, this being is asleep and needs shaking awake). People cannot drink/partake of a person, or be filled with a person. And finally, you cannot be baptized with a person.
The Grammar
Because the Holy Spirit is referred to as 'He' or "Him" in quite a few places in The New Testament, many people assume that the Holy Spirit is a divine person just like the Father and the Son. In fact, the grammar is often used by many evangelicals as the first line of defense against any challenges to the doctrine. The problem is that the grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the idea that the Holy Spirit is a separate Being.
Doctrinal bias, not grammatical accuracy, is responsible for referring to the Holy Spirit with masculine rather than neuter pronouns when both are equally legitimate. In other words, there is no grammatical foundation for the orthodox view that the Holy Spirit is the 'third person' of the Trinity So, if not the Scriptures, where did the idea of the Trinity come from?
The Cappadocian Fathers
Greek Philosophers...
There are strong links between Plato's teachings and the doctrine of the Trinity for which there is a very good reason. Three theologians from Cappadocia .... Basil (bishop of Caesarea), his brother Gregory (bishop of Nyssa), and Basil's close friend Gregory of Nazianzus, jointly known as the Cappadocian Fathers, gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity at the Second Ecumenical Council.
All three of them were well trained in Greek philosophy that focused on the importance of reason and evidence in understanding the nature of God, the universe etc. In other words, everything about God etc. had to be approached based on reason. As long as the so called logic was sound, it didn't seem to matter whether or not it contradicted the Scriptures. Moreover, they were also trained in rhetoric, the art of using language effectively and persuasively. (The word rhetoric was also used of language that was elaborate and high-flown). Origen
Basil and the two Gregorys were also greatly influenced by the writings of Origen as evinced by Gregory of Nazianzus' statement: "Origen is the stone on which all of us were sharpened." In fact, Basil, bishop of Caesarea and his close friend Gregory of Nazianzus "edited a collection of Origen's writings, which they called Philokalia, Yet, Origen was known for introducing Greek ideas into Christianity often flatly contradicting Scripture.... He taught the pre-existence of souls, the final reconciliation of all creatures (possibly even Satan), and the subordination of the Son to the Father. He also apparently believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (it literally become the Body of Christ at the consecration). Origen more than once affirmed that Mary remained a virgin throughout life. He in fact, used the expression Theotokos (Mother of God) to refer to Mary. This designation was raised to a "dogmatic standard" by the 431 A.D. Council of Ephesus. The second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. added the title "Eternal Virgin." [01] Relevant to this article, Origen also stated that since there are "certain secret analogies or affinities" between the things below and the things above, we must "read within ourselves the reflection of truths" that we could not otherwise know. Gregory of Nyssa applied Origen's line of reasoning to the trinity. He wrote that we would have no content for our thoughts about Father, Son, and Spirit, if we did not find an outline of their nature within ourselves. In other words, the key to the Trinity is in our triple nature ... our minds or reasoning, our word, and our souls. And, Gregory went several steps further, stating that you learn "the secret of God" from the things within yourself... a "testimony above and more sure than that of the Law and the Gospel". Mysticism
And finally, all three were mystics. Not only did Basil, bishop of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus pioneer the rules of monastic life, compiling what became known as "the Rule of St. Basil", but some of Gregory of Nazianzus' writings on the Trinity were nothing short of mystical gobbledygook... "No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One." [78] etc
As a mystic Gregory of Nyssa is said to be "most important as a neoplatonic Christian" [69]. And why is that important? Simply because Platonic philosophy holds that all existence consists of emanations from the One with whom the soul may be reunited. Plotinus believed that through contemplation people could be mystically united with, or absorbed into, "the One itself". In short, contemplative prayer began with Neoplatonism. It came to us via Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the various "desert Fathers" who, emphasizing an ascent to God through periods of purgation and illumination, deeply affected the spirituality of both the Western and Eastern Church. But thanks to some modern In so few years the entire lot of them had forgotten Paul's words (as, unfortunately, have we)... For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:17-23 NASB)
So Why Did This Particular Idea Prevail?
Simply because it satisfied a number of requirements.
a) It cleared the church against the multi-god accusation, albeit with a very intricate and complicated explanation. b) Since no Bible verse explicitly states the exact nature of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine could be considered 'safe'. And, finally c) the doctrine allowed the church to happily go about their business under the impression that they had solved the dilemma of seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible.
As far as they were concerned... they had a nice tidy solution. The difficulty was resolved, and the case could be closed! Tragically in their headlong rush to solve a "problem" they completely ignored the fact that although the Bible definitively points to a plurality in the Godhead, there is absolutely no evidence that the Holy Spirit is the 'third person of the trinity', and much evidence for the Holy Spirit being the Spirit of the Father Himself... the very essence of God Himself. It is the agency, or power/ability through which God acts and empowers us to overcome sin, be regenerated and renewed, and grow in the faith, thus becoming more like Jesus. Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:13 NASB) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5 NASB)
Finally
I'd like to say that the church, substituting their own rules for what the Scriptures teach, has often insisted you believe in their version of the trinity in order to consider yourself as being saved. The Scriptures SAY NO SUCH THING
How many Beings the Godhead consists of does not affect your salvation one whit. The Lord is not going to judge you on whether you are right or wrong about this or how well you "understand" this doctrine. He is going to judge you on your faith that Christ as God Himself came to earth to pay the price for our sins AND on whether or not you have followed His commandments. To reiterate - I doubt your belief in the Trinity will affect your salvation in any way. However, if you actually look into the historical and Biblical evidence for yourself, you are very likely to realize to what extent the church hangs tightly onto this doctrine in spite of the fact that it stemmed from pagan sources rather than the Bible. Our church leaders imposed the concept of the trinity onto any and all Biblical passages that happen to mention Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one breath to support ideas already set in stone.
Other Mistranslations and Misinterpretations
Also See Relying On Others To Decide What We Should Believe in Part I
Sadly, this is far from the only erroneous doctrine that is taught as 'Biblical' - the list is a very long one and covers almost every major doctrine in Christianity. One can only conclude that a pre-bias drove many of the so called translations. What we do know is that in the effort to put forward what they believe to be true, the translators have led people away from what the Scriptures actually say. Most believers rely on these inaccurate translations without realizing that even if they do not speak Hebrew or Greek, it is possible to check what is being taught. But, fair warning - it takes time, effort and dedication and a great attention to context. See Context is CRUCIAL Let us never forget that the book of Acts (17:11) describes the people from the city of Berea as "...more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so".
If the Bereans did not take Paul and Silas’ word for it but checked what they said against the Scriptures, why in the world do we imagine that we can take any modern day pastor’s or theologian’s word at face value without checking for ourselves that what they teach is true? We must be a LOT more gullible and, dare I say it, more stupid than those ancient people. 1.) Babel / Babylon: There is clear Scriptural evidence that Babel and Babylon were the same place including the fact that both words were rendered from the same exact Hebrew word ba·bel. So the fact that they were translated into two separate English words is one of the many mysteries that surround the translation of some Biblical words. However, this issue has direct bearing on understanding why Abraham was called out of his homeland, and in how the world has been shaping up for centuries as it inexorably inches towards the final conflict. See Babel To Babylon. 2.) Free Gift: Have you ever noticed how often Christians (rightly) make it a point to say that we should never ever add or take away anything from God's word? Yet, it is done all the time even by those we consider upstanding leaders and scholars. Deception is often very, very subtle. For example, in Romans 6:23 and 5:15-16 the word charisma that simply means a gift - is rendered "Free Gift". The word "free" does NOT exist in the original Greek. This is a clear case of people intentionally adding their own thoughts and ideas to God's word. But remember when any portion of God's Word is changed in any way, that portion is no longer God's Word. What makes it worse is that Charisma is used some 21 times in the New Testament - most often in regard to the gifts of the Spirit (healing, miracles, teaching. etc. Yet, it was translated 'free gift'' ONLY in the three instances when it occurred in connection with salvation. In all other verses charisma is rendered as gift. The word 'gift' means something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation. But just because a gift is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation, it does not necessarily mean that there are no conditions attached. Matthew 5:20 is a good example. See Free Gift?
3.) Sin, Iniquity, and Transgression were translated from entirely separate and distinct Hebrew words for which definitions are offered without a smidgen of Biblical support. However, if you take the time to carefully study the original Hebrew words - paying special attention to how the words were used - you will see that most definitions are baseless. See Sin 4.) Salvation: The church teaches we are saved. The Bible makes it clear that no living Christian is completely and finally saved. See The Two Phase Atonement 5.) Faith: Although the Bible does state that no one can be saved without faith, it disputes the idea that faith alone is sufficient to enter God's kingdom. See The Myth of Faith Alone 6.) Original Sin: I have to wonder how many of those that profess to believe in Original Sin have given any thought to the fact that sin is not a substance with physical properties that can be transmitted from person to person like a virus. Much to the contrary, sin is a conscious, willful act performed by an individual (in thought, word or deed) that transgresses God's law. Think about it. Sin can not even exist unless a sinner makes an bad choice and follows through with it. Besides which, if sin is transferable there is absolutely no reason why virtue, goodness, and righteousness cannot also be physically transmitted. See Original Sin, 7.) Calvinism: The Reformed doctrine of Calvinism claims to adhere to a very 'high view' of scripture based solely on Gods word, but is this true? So many churches teach Calvinism, so many books and online articles are written about it that, to the average person exposed to this avalanche of skillful presentations, it may seem that this doctrine came straight from the mouths of the apostles and prophets themselves, but .. See Calvinism 8.) Guarantee or Earnest: In certain verses (Ephesians 1:14, 2 Corinthians 1:22, and 2 Corinthians 5:5) that refer to God's promise of the Holy Spirit the NIV and several other popular translations render the Hebrew arrhabon as 'deposit' when the word actually means 'earnest'. This is important because there is a world of difference between the two words. To make matters worse, some versions not only translated arrhabon into the English 'deposit', but then went on to add the word guarantee. Unknowingly, countless people have been led to believe that Scripture actually speaks of a 'guarantee' when, in fact, it does no such thing. This "mis-translation" can only be accounted for by a clear and biased Calvinistic bent. See Guarantee or Earnest? 9.) Hell: Just like the trinity, the belief that Hell is a place of unending torment has been so strongly held for so long that few have dared to challenge it. However, the deeper one delves into the subject the less persuasive the argument in favor of the traditional view becomes. "Hell" is used in place of not one but three separate Hebrew and Greek proper names (Sheol, Hades and Gehenna). Proper names? Who in the world "translates' proper names? In any case "hell" does not mean fire and brimstone. It comes from an old English word which means to 'cover over' that ties in with the description of Sheol found in the Old Testament. Also note that when the New Testament authors quoted an OT verse that mentioned 'Sheol' they used the Greek' Hades. In other words, Sheol and Hades are the same place. So how does the Old Testament describe Sheol? Also what did Jesus mean when He referred to 'Gehenna'? - Definitely not the illogical and nonsensical story about perpetually burning fires outside Jerusalem city. It goes MUCH deeper than that. See What and Where is Hell?
10.) Heaven: As an aside, Christians who believe they will spend an eternity in "heaven", seem to have little or no idea where this heaven is, what it will look like, or what they will do there. This is not helped at all by the pious gobbledygook (pretentious jargon in this case) spouted by many theologians. See What and Where is Heaven?,
| 
