Why I am a Trinitarian

[CWJ]

August 16, 1998 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - James White (author of The King James Only Controversy), D.A. Carson (author of The King James Version Debate), and most other opponents of what they love to label "King James Onlyism," reject the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 as inspired Scripture. They gloss over the powerful arguments which have led Bible believers to accept 1 John 5:7 as Scripture for centuries on end.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7).

Most modern versions omit this passage, yet 1 John 5:7 as it reads in the King James Bible stood unchallenged in the English Bible for a full six hundred years. It was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale

[CWJ]

In 1 John 5:7,8 the Received Text presents us with two sorts or triads of witnesses, one in heaven, the other on earth, and asserts the unity of the first triad in one. In the revised Greek text underlying the modern versions all this is omitted, and all reference to a trinity is obliterated. The significant fact to which we would draw attention is that many of the variations proposed by modern scholars which have any doctrinal importance appear to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity, and particularly the doctrine of Christ's deity. The various readings in the manuscripts and versions may be counted by hundred thousands, but the vast majority are insignificant. Among the few important various readings there are several that bear on this one doctrine--a doctrine which was keenly debated between orthodox believers and heretics just before the three most ancient existing copies were made.

The Sabellian and Arian controversies raged in the 3rd and 4th centuries and the copies now held in such high repute among scholars were written in the 4th and 5th centuries. The hostility of these documents to the Trinitarian doctrine impels the mind to the conclusion that their omissions and alterations are not merely the chance errors of transcribers, but the work of a deliberate hand. When we remember the date of the great Trinitarian contest in the Church, and compare it with the supposed date of these documents, our suspicion becomes much more pronounced. Did the party of Athanasius introduce spurious testimonies into the text to advance their Trinitarian doctrine, or did the party of Arius expunge authentic testimonies from copies of the sacred text in order to obscure the doctrine?

The so-called oldest codices agree with each other in omitting a number of striking testimonies to the divinity of Christ, and they also agree in other omissions relating to Gospel faith and practice. Was this because these ancient documents represent the views of copyists who regarded the Athanasian Trinitarians as corrupters, or can it be established that the omissions were deliberately made by the Arians to expunge the Scriptural evidence against their case?

All the critics vote against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 but let us see whether the case is quite as clear as they would have it. The arguments in favour of its claim to genuineness carry a good degree of probability and this text is a good instance of the value of that internal evidence which recent critics profess to discard. The full text follows with the disputed word in brackets:

HOTI TREIS EISIN HOI MARTUROUNTES (EN TO OURANO, HO PATER, HO LOGOS, KAI TO HAGION PNEUMA; KAI HOUTOI HOI TREIS HEN EISI. KAI TREIS EISIN HOI MARTUROUTES EN TE GE) TO PNEUMA, KAI TO HUDOR, KAI TO HAIMA; KAI HOI TREIS EIS TO HEN EISIN.

The internal evidence against the omission is as follows:

1. The masculine article, numeral and participle HOI TREIS MARTUROUNTES, are made to agree directly with three neuters, an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. If the disputed words are allowed to remain, they agree with two masculines and one neuter noun HO PATER, HO LOGOS, KAI TO HAGION PNEUMA and, according to the rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them. Then the occurrence of the masculines TREIS MARTUROUNTES in verse 8 agreeing with the neuters PNEUMA, HUDOR and HAIMA may be accounted for by the power of attraction, well known in Greek syntax.

2. If the disputed words are omitted, the 8th verse coming next to the 6th gives a very bald and awkward, and apparently meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession.

3. If the words are omitted, the concluding words at the end of verse 8 contain an unintelligible reference. The Greek words KAI HOI TREIS EIS TO HEN EISIN mean precisely--"and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One." This rendering preserves the force of the definite article in this verse. Then what is "that One" to which "these three" are said to agree? If the 7th verse is omitted "that One" does not appear, and "that One" in verse 8, which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced, has not antecedent presence in the passage. Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word and Spirit constitute.

4. John has asserted in the previous 6 verses that faith is the bond of our spiritual life and victory over the world. This faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth of which faith must be assured is the Sonship and Divinity of Christ. See verses 5,11, 12, 20. The only faith that quickens the soul and overcomes the world is (verse 5) the belief that Jesus is God's Son, that God has appointed Him our Life, and that this Life is true God. God's warrant for this faith comes: FIRST in verse 6, in the words of the Holy Ghost speaking by inspired men; SECOND in verse 7, in the words of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the Sonship and unity of Christ with the Father.; THIRD in verse 8, in the work of the Holy Ghost applying the blood and water from Christ's pierced side for our cleansing. FOURTH in verse 10, in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him that he feels within a divine change.

How harmonious is all this if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (verse 9) is struck out.

We must also consider the time and circumstances in which the passage was written. John tells his spiritual children that his object is to warn them against seducers (2.26), whose heresy was a denial of the proper Sonship and incarnation (4.2) of Jesus Christ. We know that these heretics were Corinthians and Nicolaitanes. Irenaeus and other early writers tell us that they all vitiated the doctrine of the Trinity. Cerinthus taught that Jesus was not miraculously born of a virgin, and that the Word, Christ, was not truly and eternally divine, but a sort of angelic "Aion" associated with the natural man Jesus up to his crucifixion. The Nicolaitanes denied that the "Aion" Christ had a real body, and ascribed to him only a phantasmal body and blood. It is against these errors that John is fortifying his "children" and this is the very point of the disputed 7th verse. If it stands, then the whole passage is framed to exclude both heresies. In verse 7 he refutes the Corinthian by declaring the unity of Father, Word and Spirit, and with the strictest accuracy employing the neuter HEN EISIN to fix the point which Cerinthus denied--the unity of the Three Persons in One common substance. He then refutes the Nicolaitanes by declaring the proper humanity of Jesus, and the actual shedding, and application by the Spirit, of that water and blood of which he testifies as on eyewitness in the Gospel--19.34,35.

We must also consider the time and circumstances in which the passage was written. John tells his spiritual "children" against "seducers" who taught error regarding the true divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ and regarding His incarnation and true humanity, and when we further see John precisely expose these errors in verses 7 and 8 of Chapter 5, we are constrained to acknowledge that there is a coherency in the whole passage which presents strong internal evidence for the genuineness of the "Received Text".

THE MANUSCRIPTS

It is true that the disputed verse has little support from Greek copies and has been found in only two--the Montfort MS in Dublin University Library and the Codex WIZANBURGENSIS of the 8th century. The Chief manuscript authority for 1 John 5.7 is in the Latin versions and it is found, with few exceptions in all the codices of these, both in the Vulgate and in the Old Latin. Among ancient writers who refer to all or allude to the disputed words are Tertullian and Cyprian and many later Latin authors. The passage is asserted as genuine Scripture with the almost unanimous agreement of Latin Christendom from the earliest ages. It should be remembered that the Old Latin was translated from the Greek at a very early age, certainly within a century of the death of the Apostles. The African churches did not lose their sacred books to the same extent as the Greek Churches during the great persecutions and it is in African Latin writers that we find some of the earliest citations of the disputed verse. Another relevant fact is that the ancient Latin churches were not so much tainted with the Arian heresy, the suspected source of so many corruptions. In the contest with Arians, the Council of Carthage, and other early "Fathers" appeal to this verse with questioning confidence as a decisive testimony against them.

Origen exercised a powerful influence over the transmission of the Greek text in the period before some of the most ancient copies now in existence were written. Mosheim describes him as "a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from who it has suffered much." He was the great corrupter, and the source, or at least the channel, of nearly all the speculative errors which plagued the Church in after ages. Nolan asserts that the most characteristic discrepancies between the common Greek text and the texts current in Palestine and Egypt in Origen's day are distinctly traceable to a Marcionite or Valentinian source, and that Origen's was the mediating hand for introducing these corruptions into the latter texts.

It is highly significant that important texts bearing on the Trinitarian doctrine, which appear in the Greek and Latin are lacking in the old MSS of the Palestinian and Egyptian. The disputed texts were designed to condemn and refute the errors of the Ebionites and Gnostics, Corinthians and Nicolaitanes. It is not surprising that the influence of Origen should result in the suppression of some of these authentic testimonies in the Greek copies, while the old Latin which circulated in areas not much affected by Origen's influence, should preserve such a reading as that found in 1 John 5.7 (Summarised from Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967, by the Trinitarian Bible Society, 217 Kingston Road, London, SW19, 3NN England).

See also --

[Guest wwatch]

My dear Blindseeker, Greetings again!!

After reading the last monologue by our esteemed brother Blindseeker, and the following  discussions of the development of our ancient creeds and the preservation of manuscripts, several questions and comments arose in my mind.  However, when I tried to put them all in one post, they exceeded the length restrictions.  So, I will try to present them in a step by step process which is probably best in any case.   :thumb:  

    First, Blindseeker will be puzzled to find that I found his scripture presentation about the Godhead to be a marvelous argument for the ancient creeds concerning the concept of the trinity.  This, I am sure, will be found frustrating specially since he works so hard to distinguish himself and his emphasis from the Trinitarian conceptualizations.  But, after reading Blindseekers scripture presentations, I found myself  wondering if we were talking about differences of substance or simply differences in labeling and packaging!   Differernces in emphases or differences in commentary.  And, I would like a  thoughtful answer to that question along with comment from Blindseeker as to whether he can understand how someone trying to understand his position might honestly come to that question. In order to try to keep this presentation as brief as possible I will not go through and highlight Blindseeker

[CWJ]

wwatch, I myself found reading his post confusing from the same standpoint as you bring up.

It all seemed to be scriptural evidence pointing to the Trinity.

I just thought I would post some credible evidence to the contrary of Unitarianism.

Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!

[Guest]

Brother Carl,

I read the whole of your submission of the Trinitarian Bible Society defending the I John 5:7.

[Guest]

Greetings' wwatch,

I certainly do not deny the existence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  And as you correctly acknowledged, I believe that there is but one God.

By that statement I do not mean there is one essence of God, like there is only one species of humanity, divided only by race, but still all one blood -

• Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation
  
  Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.
  
  
  Jimmy Swaggart taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each had their own body, spirit,  consciousness and personality.  That perspective I view as error.
  
  I believe that God is a spirit.  God is holy and therefore is correctly referred to as a Holy Spirit.
  
  I do not believe the Holy Spirit is just a force of God, He is very God.
  
  As a Spirit, God is everywhere all the time, all through time, at the same time.  He inhabits all eternity and space.
  
  This is one of the reasons why I feel blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, while against the Son it can be.
  
  • Matt 12: 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
    

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I do as you correctly noted, believe that God has progressively revealed Himself to all His creation, and became known as the Father of all creation.  I believe that He justified Himself of the devil's accusations by His humbling Himself and becoming lower than the angels to prove He is worthy of all power, honor and glory.  This He did by becoming a man.  He placed His Holy Spirit in a fleshly shell and tabernacled amongst His own.

I believe the humanity, the Son of man born of Mary existed only in His eternal Spirit form and was in the heavens prior was there manifested in celestial form upon the throne as a finite focal point for the angels.  I do not believe they truly understood His true spiritual state (infinite.)  For had they knew the devil would have known he had no chance in a rebellion against God.

I believe that Jesus was the express image of the invisible, eternal, immortal Holy Spirit incarnated for the purpose of redeeming man and proving to the angels He is worthy.

I believe while Jesus, as a man, grew in wisdom and stature in the confines of time and space, His eternal Spirit stilled continue to inhabit all time and all space.  This I believe is part of the mystery.

If you could escape time wwatch then you could go back in time and see yourself.  There would be you from the future with you in present or past.  It would truly seem as if there were two of you . . . but you are but one.   Thus God the Holy Spirit of eternity coexisted with the humanity of Jesus the Christ locked in time and space . . . but they are but one.

Due to time constraints I tried to make it as brief as possible.

Peace,

William

[Guest]

wwatch, I myself found reading his post confusing from the same standpoint as you bring up.

It all seemed to be scriptural evidence pointing to the Trinity.

I just thought I would post some credible evidence to the contrary of Unitarianism.

Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!

Unitarian Universalism

Carl,

I wish to let you know I do not view myself as a "unitarian."

I know under the broad scope of the word I would be there

[Guest wwatch]

Blindseeker

  My dear friend.  I wanted to post this thank you for your reply.  I do not have time now to look closely and respond in detail, but I think my main question still remains.  Which is...

     Could you please post a reply that details ONLY the POINTS of DIVERGENCE from the traditional historic trinitarian statement ... with your comments.

   Much of the problem, I admit, is with the receiver(s) (me, in this case, but I think CWJ alluded to a similar problem).  I am so accustom to thinking and seeing the trinitarian concept that you, as a very able communicator (no patronage, just fact), must limit and contain a post to simply the points of contention.

    Let me add, perhaps, to the angst of my Trinitarian friends and so you will not feel on the defense, that even though I am amicable and comfortable in the main with the integrity, honesty, and suitability of the Trinitarian formula, the creed, itself, is not divinely inspired.  It is a human construct.  It is an affirmational tool and we need not fear revisiting any creedal statement to make sure it still serves as well today in changing environments as in times past.  Let me go even further to encourage holy and rigorous (and I do mean sanctified) thinking, I am comfortable with the trinitarain concept and, at the same time can say that God is not a trinity.  We must understand that the trinitarian statement is honorable because it is a faithful summation of the whole of scripture pertaining to the topic without either preferring one point of emphasis that seem important or diminishing other revelational points that seems to leave mystery, loose ends, or even beg for criticism.  Partly, its strength is in that integrity.  No statement is an EXPLANATION of the GODHEAD. "Oneness" or "Trinity". The majesty and mystery of the Godhead remains.   All revelation is simply what God has wanted us to know, does not exhaust what there is to know, yet (as you have stated) is all we need to know for "life and godliness."  His revelation to us is divine and perfect.  Our formulaic presentations are not.  One may be better suited than another and that is and has always been the task of biblical theology.

  But, let me return to my question.  We have so much in agreement, but let me give a for instance.  If you could just enumerate the points of disagreement.  Like:

 1.) co-equal and co-eternal!   etc

 2.) the easy presumption of 3 gods which dishonors our Father

  3.)...etc...whatever...

  My dear friend, the reason I am asking is because, as I said, in my earlier post, it seems that, in actual detail and commentary, there is much common ground and agreement in how we perceive the self revelation of God in this matter.  And, the disagreement is in the labeling and more concrete attempts to conceptualize and illustrate.  Consider your quote from our Brother Jimmy Swaggart.  But in all fairness, as much as I love Jimmy and hope he is restored and serving the Lord, I never read anyone who quotes Jimmy on biblical scholarship except to point to excess or a problem.

   Well, since I have gone on this long, let me continue with what I was going to put off til later.  I want to illustrate how we agree and why I need the specific list of "problem" areas with the historic statement and your list of "divergent" emphasis only.   For instance,

     

I certainly do not deny the existence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We agree

I believe that there is but one God.

We agree.

I believe that God is a spirit.  God is holy and therefore is correctly referred to as a Holy Spirit.

We agree...Perhaps, I would say..the Holy Spirit.

As a Spirit, God is everywhere all the time, all through time, at the same time.  He inhabits all eternity and space.

We agree.

I believe that Jesus was the express image of the invisible, eternal, immortal Holy Spirit incarnated for the purpose of redeeming man and proving to the angels He is worthy.

We agree.  ...and I agree with the "proving to the angels" part as well though not necessarily or specifically part of this topic...I think this is an important point that many today fail to place in their cosmic (macro) understanding of the whole redemptive story and I loved to read your presentation on that truth.  Too much emphasis today placed on man as the central character instead of on God, His throne, Jesus, His glory.  As a matter of fact, it is all about the majesty and character of God and it is displayed in a story in which man is both a main character and the benefactor (if redeemed) of God's display of righteousness and grace.

I believe while Jesus, as a man, grew in wisdom and stature in the confines of time and space, His eternal Spirit stilled continue to inhabit all time and all space.  This I believe is part of the mystery.

We agree.

[Guest wwatch]

To All who are following this discussion

As I mentioned in closing  the last post, it seems fitting to point to the actual creeds and statements that we are discussing.

And, it is interesting to note that there is development in the history of the statements.

[CWJ]

Bro. William, in your response to my postings it appears to me you ignore some of the very credible argumentations presented in the case for 1John5:7-8.

I feel there are some very strong points, perhaps that's why you fall back to the common generalization of "lack of evidence". ( as in not enough manuscripts have it, but the fact that it is there, and that through centuries of various versions)

Did you read the second post thoroughly? A very strong linguistic case in favor of 1 John 5:7-8.

I find my acceptance of it being based on the fact that for centuries God allowed it to be present in the main English bibles.  I do strongly believe in His divine guidance on the written Word.

I have trouble with the belief that, He, after so much time allowed us to "discover" better manuscripts for better scripture.  This does nothing but show a "respect of persons" by our Lord, which is surely against His written word.  Would He withold from previous generations of believers, in favour of later saints ?

Like wwatch, I look forward to your answers to wwatch's questions, as I also am agreeing with a lot of what you have stated.

Also, a big apology on the Unitarian thing, you're right, I had no idea.  

Peace, Carl