Last Updated on : |
|||
|
|||
[CONTENTS] || [PREVIOUS] || [NEXT] |
|||
The Doctrine of the Trinity:
|
|||
|
|||
As in the Old Testament there is probably no doctrine so prominent as the Monotheism of the Jews, so in the New Testament there probably is no greater refutation of the doctrine of the Trinity than in the repeated declarations by Jesus of His subserviency to the Father: and not only His subserviency, be it particularly remarked, but His very nature's antagonism to His Father's will. This subserviency has been noted and admitted by the eminent Trinitarian, Dr. J. Pye Smith:
It is also worth remarking that in all the acts and offices attributed to Christ even in Trinitarian works apart from the position assigned to Him in the definitions of the Creeds, He is subservient in place and subject in acts and authority to the Father! Bishop Bull acknowledges that this is so:
Further, Dr. Bull remarks:
Again, Dr. Hey, in his Lectures on Divinity, says:
And the Bishop of Chester, Dr. Pearson, also speaks in very similar language:
For the purpose of demonstrating how inconsistent the doctrine of the Trinity may be shown to be in this matter, let the position of those who endorse the teaching of the Church of England be entirely assumed: how that Jesus had pre-existed as the Second Person of the Trinity -- "the Word" -- and how that this "Word" was clothed with human flesh to effect the means of salvation for man. Jesus, therefore, when on earth, would be a person of ordinary outward appearance, and dominated within by His perfect self, His real being, the soul -- which in this particular case would be "the Word" -- such as is commonly urged is resident in every man to will: the body alone being purely the medium of the soul's deliberations. While not agreeing with either of these propositions, yet it is requisite to assume a common basis to view the doctrine from its supporters' own ground. Now prophetically it was affirmed of Christ as referred to by the writer to the Hebrews:
The effecting of this purpose, it is claimed, was carried out when the Son assumed human nature. Now it is evident that but one mind can exist in the Godhead, whether that Godhead be constituted of One or Three persons, and therefore the incarnate Second Person would bear the purpose and have the will of the Godhead in Himself: indeed, He would be the very embodiment of the essence of the Will of the Trinity. When, however, nearing the time that He must offer Himself up for the sins of the world, Jesus retires to the Garden.of Gethsemane, and falling on His knees, bowing His face to the ground, prays:
Here, obviously, there are manifested contrary wills -- not as I (Christ) will, but as Thou (the Father) wilt -- the contrariness being openly recognised by the Son Himself. To meet this difficulty of the contrary wills it is commonly urged that Jesus as a mere man was then speaking. Such a contention, however, is entirely out of court, for examining the nature of man from the standpoint already given, it is claimed that the real man is that peculiar entity residing within him, the power which wills and which determines; and that the body is not the man, but is the mere instrument which works the will of the soul: and this soul being immortal, would after the death of the body, still exist, and of course, retain its identity in its eternal existence.
Now it would be impossible to conceive that Jesus had within Him "the Word," and also a soul*; for after His death the "Word" would occupy its position as the Second Person of the Godhead, and His soul, an entirely separate being would exist, independently of that "Word," and there would be the anomaly of eternally observing the soul of Jesus in its own capacity as the soul of His manhood, and the "Word" the second Person of the Trinity. *It has only just been noticed, after the composition of this chapter, that the Roman Catholic party do actually consider that Jesus had a natural soul and is also the "Word," God the Son. The following is their belief:
What the eventual and final position and relationship is of the human soul of Jesus to God the Son is not declared. The mere statement of such a contradiction seems to be its best refutation. It should be noted that the dual existence of the it "soul of man" and "the Word" is in the present tense.
On the other hand, given that the soul of Jesus was the "Word" which became resident in flesh to work the joint determination of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is immediately obvious that but one will could have dominated Jesus: the sole desire to carry out the plan He Himself in conjunction with the Father and the Holy Ghost had determined upon. Nevertheless, upon the essential and culminating feature of this purpose, the sacrifice of Himself, His will is discovered to be admittedly contrary to the will of His Father. Provided the impossible position of affirming the possession of a dual soul by Jesus is not urged, the the argument of the antagonistic wills may be briefly summarised thus:
To claim that the "Word" did absolutely cease to exist as a real Person in Jesus and thus allow of the soul being responsible for this antagonism, would be to affirm the cessation of the existence of God; for Jesus, according to the Creeds, formed as essential a part of the Godhead as did the Father Himself: the Father and the Holy Ghost could not in Themselves constitute the Godhead, for there be Three in One and One in Three. The truth of the matter is that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, "the Word" made flesh which wilt be more particularly examined in a later chapter, but that He possessed no immortal entity within Him; that He, as in the case of man, possessed no being apart from His body. That the real being, the soul, is the personality obtained by the union of breath with the body, as the Biblical record of the creation of man so clearly affirms:
Neither the body nor the breath thus of itself constituted man, but the result of their action together is styled the "living soul." It was the nature of the Lord Jesus which antagonised the Father's purpose. Jesus Christ came "to do thy will, O God," and it was in the firm determination to carry out the purpose of His mission that He developed that character so well-pleasing to His Father:
His thoughts and desires were in perfect accord with His Father's, but His nature was antagonistic, for He possessed that nature which the Apostle Paul describes as the "body of this death":
and in which nature there is that knowledge as the Apostle describes and as all well appreciate:
Therefore when Jesus appeared on earth to accomplish His Father's work, He had the desires of natural man, but never at any time in His career, did He transgress the divine law and sin: His desires as a man were naturally antagonistic to the divine decrees, but by prayer and meditation, and strong crying, He was heard of God, and strengthened and overcame the natural repugnance at so cruel a death at the crucial moment of His mission. Though He as a natural man desired not the execution of His Father's difficult work, yet by continued application of His mind thereto, He worked out a character, and received strength to lay down His life, and to take it again -- triumphing over death gloriously. That there were these desires and natural revolts in Jesus is discovered from the Epistle to the Hebrews (v. 7-9):
An instance of this "strong crying" is observed in that pathetic exclamation, but shortly before He was offered up to bear the sins of many:
The antagonism of His nature finds its culminating moment, as He hung on that dreadful cross in excruciating agonies, in that cry:
Jesus, therefore, from the exhibition of these desires, could not have held a place in an equal Trinity, from the reasoning on the general Trinitarian orthodox basis of there being a predominating spirit within our otherwise inanimate body; actuating it in all its desires, and being responsible for all its actions. The "predominating spirit" within the body of Jesus being the perfect, unsinning, untempted and untemptable Second Person of the Godhead.
|
|||
|
All Books/Booklets, Editorials, and Articles are FREE and can be downloaded without permission. |
|