appindex scholarly testemony of trinity latter innovation

8/12/2019 Appindex Scholarly Testemony of Trinity Latter Innovation

1/6

APPINDEX SCHOLARLY TESTEMONYOF TRINITY LATTER INNOVATION

( NOTE: WE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE FROM SOME MAILING GROUPS )

Although ma ! T"# #ta"#a $% "&a'#l! a'm#t to th& a t that S "#*tu"& 'o&% oto ta# a a tual l&a"+ ut t&a h# g o th& T"# #t!, ma ! %t#ll # %#%t that th&"& !&t"&ma# % -#th# th& .o'! o S "#*tu"& th& "am&-o"/ o" 0u%t %u h a t&a h# g + that #%,

.! th& om.# at#o o o & *a%%ag& -#th a oth&"1 o", a% %om& -oul' %ugg&%t, .! th&oll& t#2& #m*l# at#o o %u h % "#*tu"&%3 A ' %o, # o"'&" to a2o#' a ! a u%at#o oha2# g m#%4uot&' a ! o th& %ou" &% .&lo-, #t mu%t .& %a#' that, .& o"& o" a t&" th&

*o"t#o -& 4uot&, a um.&" o th&%& ha' a tuall! %tat&' # th" '#% u%%#o % o th#%%u.0& t 0u%t %u h thought%, &5*"&%%# g 0u%t %u h a 2#&-3

O th& oth&" ha ', th&"& a"& al%o ma ! um.&" o % hola"%6h#%to"#a % -ho ha2 t&"*"&t&' th& '&2&lo*m& t o %u h &2& t% # a '# &"& t -a!, a ' th#% -oul' .& that,o %u h .&l#& -a% th&" taught, &5*la# &' a '6o" '& & '&' -#th# th& N&- T&%tam& to" .! a ! o th& &a"l! Ch"#%t#a %, .ut that th& &2& tual '&2&lo*m& t o th#%t&a h# g6'o t"# & -a% &2#'& & o a o""u*t#o -h# h ha' ta/& *la & -#th "&ga"' toth& t"u& t&a h# g% o 7&%u% a ' h#% '#% #*l&%3 Th#% -oul', o 'ou.t, &5*la# -h! #t ha'ta/& %om& 899 !&a"% to # ' a a tual &5*"&%%#o o that *a"t# ula" *&" &*t#o a '6o"u '&"%ta '# g o Go' + *a"t# ula"l! a% a %tat&m& t o a#th (o t& all&' ao &%%#o ;) + that #%, .! a ! o th& &a"l! Ch"#%t#a -"#t&"%, &%*& #all! o th& *a"t o

tho%& -ho ha' ma'& #t th" *u"*o%& to th&" &5*la# a '6o" '& & ' th& Ch"#%t#a%!%t&m o .&l#& 3 A ' %o, l#/&-#%&, a um.&" o % hola"% .&lo- ha2& &5*"&%%&' th#%

*a"t# ula" 2#&- a% -&ll3

1) Norton, Andrews (b.1786-d.1853). A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing The Doctrines of

Trinitarians, Concerning The Nature of God and The Person of Christ . Ed !"d b# E$%& Abb'! (b.181 -

d.188 )* d.d* ++.d. (C&,b% d " /%'0 * S2&!! 4 * & d C', & # /' !' H ++ &%d* 9%* & d C', & #*

1833)* . 38* 3 . /X 8 1 .N7 1833 : 83-1 87 .

. . . the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost bitterness and passion. They

sought on every side for objections to it. There was much in its character to which the believing Jews could hardly be

reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, explanations, and controversy, relating to uestions having their origin in

Jewish prejudices and passions. !ith regard however to this doctrine "the Trinity#, which if it had ever been taught, the

believing Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would have manifested the

most determined opposition,$with regard to this doctrine, there is not trace of any controversy. %ut, if it had ever been taught,

it must have been the main point of attac& and defense between those who assailed, and those who supported Christianity.

There is nothing ever said in its explanation. %ut it must have re uired, far more than any other doctrine, to be explained,

illustrated, and enforced' for it appears, not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the (nity of )od, but e ually so with that of

the humanity of our *aviour' and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connexion with it. +t must have

been necessary, therefore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it in its relations, and carefully to guard against the

misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every side. Especially must care have been ta&en to prevent the gross mista&es

into which the )entile converts from polytheism were li&ely to fall. et so far from any such clearness of statement and

fullness of explanation, the whole language of the -ew Testament in relation to this subject is . . . a series of enigmas, upon

the supposition of its truth. The doctrine, then, is never defended in the -ew Testament, though un uestionably it would have


2/6

been the main object of attac&, and the main difficulty in the Christian system. +t is never explained, though no doctrine could

have been so much in need of explanation. n the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth, the Apostles express

themselves in such a manner, that it had been their purpose to dar&en and perplex the subject, they could not have done it

more effectually. And still more, this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary article of faith' though it is now

represented by its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity.9=+'3=>?9), Ca"'# al3 An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine 3 < ' E'#t#o

(=%t+=>@ )3 (Lo 'o : 73 Too2&!, =>@B), **3 =@+=>, @9+@=@+'3=>?@)3 A Half-Century of the Unitarian Controversy, With Particular Reference to its

Origin, its Course, an its Prominent !u"#ects Among the Congregationalists of $assachusetts 3 ( o%to : C"o%.!, N# hol%, a '

Com*a !1 Cam."#'g&: M&t al a ' Com*a !, P"# t&"% to th& U #2&"%#t!, => ), A**& '#5 VIII, Th& Do t"# & o th& T"# #t!,

**3 @B@, @B 3 ?>@= 3E 6 88+9B@), '3'3 %he Church of the &irst %hree Centuries 3 (Lo 'o : "#t#%h a ' Fo"g U #ta"#a

A%%o #at#o , =>B9), **3 B9 6 u />=+98 @9@3


3/6

!e maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation' that it had its origin in a source

entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian *criptures' that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the

hands of the 0latoni5ing 8athers' that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the *on were

universally taught' and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible . . . The inferiority of the *on

was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante$-icene 8athers . . . That they viewed the *on as distinct from the 8atheris evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate . . .

The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin "7artyr#2 and this observation

may be extended to all the ante$-icene 8athers' that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. +t is

true, they spea& of the 8ather, *on, and prophetic or holy *pirit, but not as co$e ual, not as one numerical essence, not as

Three in ne, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as

explained by these 8athers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof

as any fact in the history of human opinions. . . .They occasionally ma&e use of a phraseology, which, in the mouth of a

modern Trinitarian, would imply a belief that the *on is of one numerical essence with the 8ather. %ut this they never thought

of asserting. The most they meant to affirm was that the *on, as begotten of )od, partoo& in some sort of the specific nature:that is, a divine;, just as an individual of our race parta&es of the same nature or essence with the parent from whom he

sprung :that is, a human;. At the same time they taught that he was relatively inferior to the 8ather from whom he was

derived, and entitled to only inferior homage . . .!e challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note, during the first

three ages, who held this "Trinity# doctrine in the modern sense.

) Gibbon, Edward (.3= 8 +'3= ?@)3 History of Christianity' Comprising all that Relates to the Progress of the Christian

Religion in (%he History of the Decline an &all of the Roman Empire,) an A *in ication of !ome Passages in the + th an

+ th Chapters, .ith a /ife of the Author, Preface, an 0otes "y the E itor, 1nclu ing *ariorum 0otes "y 2ui3ot, Wenc4,

$ilman, (An English Churchman,) an Other !cholars 3 (N&- o"/: P3 E /l&", =>>8), *"& a &3 R= 9 3G@ 6 8 + )1 23 @, t"a %lat#o .! S*"%, E.& & &"

"o- (.3 + ) a ' M#lla", 73 (.3 + )1 23 B+ , t"a %lat#o .! MJG#l h"#%t, W#ll#am (.3 + )3 E'#t&' .! "u &, Al&5a '&" alma#

(.3=>8=+'3=>??)3 (Lo 'o : W#ll#am% K No"gat&, =>?B+??), 2ol3 8, *g3 =8 3 Tingdom of )od. . . .That relationship was understood une uivocally as being one of ?subordination@, i.e.

in the sense of the subordination of Christ to )od. !herever in the -ew Testament the relationship of Jesus to )od, the

8ather, is brought into consideration, . . . it is conceived of and represented categorically as subordination. And the most

decisive *ubordinationist of the -ew Testament, according to the *ynoptic record, was Jesus himself. . . .This original


4/6


5/6


6/6

formulated on the other. . . .*ome of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as ?substance@, ?person@, and ?in

two natures@ are post biblical novelties. +f these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly

conditional, dependent on the late 4ellenistic milieu.

), *3 =9 6 > +9=8

appindex scholarly testemony of trinity latter innovation

Documents