banner

Last Updated on :
Saturday, November 22, 2014

 

sp spacer

[CONTENTS] || [PREVIOUS] || [NEXT]

spacer

The Doctrine of the Trinity:
P White


spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer

 

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:

"The Lord Jesus uniformly represented Himself as performing all His acts for the instruction and salvation of men, in the most perfect subserviency to the will of His Father, and dependence upon Him; and this fact He stated in avariety of expressions, and on different occasions, so as to manifest an anxiety to impress it deeply on His followers." -Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. ii., p. 300.

 

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:

"God the Father, as He at first framed and created the world through His Son, so through the same Son did He afterwards manifest Himself to the world." -Defensio Fidei Nicene, vol. i., p. 24.

 

Further, Dr. Bull remarks:

"When the Son is said to be next and second after the Father, and the Minister of the Father, the subordination of the Persons is expressed, so far forth as One has His origin from the Other, not any difference or inequality of nature in the Divine Persons. The Father as Father, is first in the most Holy Trinity, the Son is second after the Father. In all the Divine operations the Son is Minister of the Father, in that He works from the Father (who is the fountain and origin, as of the Divine Essence, so also of all the Divine operations), and God the Father works through Him: not God the Father from Him, or He through the Father." -vol. ii., pp. 572, 573.

 

Again, Dr. Hey, in his Lectures on Divinity, says:

"There is one thing never to be forgotten for a moment; that is, the unity of God. Scripture and Reason jointly proclaim, there is but one God: however the proofs of the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost may seem to interfere with this, nothing is to be allowed them, but what is consistent with it. The divine nature, or substance, can, therefore, be but 'one substance'; the divine power can be but 'one power." -vol. ii., pp. 250, 251.

 

And the Bishop of Chester, Dr. Pearson, also speaks in very similar language:

"The Divine Essence which Christ had as the Word, before He was conceived by the Virgin Mary, He had not of Himself, but by communication from God the Father. For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one essence properly Divine, and so but one God of infinite wisdom, power and majesty; that there can be but one Person originally of Himself subsisting in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods; that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving His eternal Being from any other. Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine nature originally of Himself, and consequently, being we have already proved that He is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to Him by the Father, who is not only eternally but originally God." -Exposition of the Creed, vol. i., pp. 170, 171.

 

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:

"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me), to do thy will, O God" (chap. x. 7).

 

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:

"O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt " (Matt. xxvi. 39).

 

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:

"Who is Jesus Christ? -- Jesus Christ is God the Son, made man for us.

Is Jesus Christ truly God? -- Jesus Christ is truly God.

Was Jesus Christ always God? -- Jesus Christ was always God, born of the Father from all eternity.

Is Jesus Christ truly man? -- Jesus Christ is truly man.

Why is Jesus Christ truly man? -- Jesus Christ is truly man because He has the nature of man, having a body and soul like ours.

Was Jesus Christ always man? -- Jesus Christ was not always man: He has been man only from the time of His incarnation.

What do you mean by the Incarnation? -- I mean by the Incarnation that God the Son took to Himself the nature of man: 'the Word was made flesh' (St. John i. 14).

How many natures are there in Jesus Christ? -- There are two natures in Jesus Christ, the nature of God and the nature of man.

Is there only one Person in Jesus Christ? -- There is only one Person in Jesus Christ, which is the Person of God the Son." -Catechism of Christian Doctrine approved by the Archbishop of Westminster and the Bishops of England, pp. 6, 7.

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:

The Soul of Jesus, as in the case of man, was the actual person, which wills and deliberates (the body having no volition of itself, being indeed only the obedient instrument of the soul's behests).

The Will of Jesus, which would be the dictates of the soul, was not in accordance with the Father's will, Whose will must in turn have been consonant with the will of the Second and Third Persons of the same Godhead.

Therefore, Jesus, as His will was not agreeable to the Father's, could not be a constituent of an equally omniscient Godhead.

 

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:

"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. ii. 7).

 

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:

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" (Matt. xvii. 5).

 

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":

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Jesus, verse 9) also himself likewise took part (R.V., partook) of the same (Heb. ii. 14).

 

and in which nature there is that knowledge as the Apostle describes and as all well appreciate:

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not" (Rom. vii. 18).

 

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):

" . . . (Christ, verse 5) in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them which obey him."

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:

"Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again" (John xii. 27, 28).

 

The antagonism of His nature finds its culminating moment, as He hung on that dreadful cross in excruciating agonies, in that cry:

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. xxvii. 46).

 

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.

 


spacer