The Trinity, Part 2

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Live from the Mecca of Mormonism, Salt Lake City, this is Heart of the MatterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology. where we are learning together how to live as Christians in the age of fulfillment. And I’m your host, Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion..

Introduction to Trinity Part II

Show 20A Trinity Part II
Taped April 28th, 2020
Aired May 4th, 2020

So, the doctrine of the Trinity. As you know, I suggest that in the day of fulfillment, all believers ought to consider taking a step back from the dogmatic demands of the denominations. Let me use what I call the demanded doctrine of the Trinity as an example of how and why such demands and things ought to be abandoned.

First, the demand for the Trinity from others can and does serve as a divider among believers—when unity and freedom of belief ought to reign. And I say this because at the end of the day, to cast people out of fellowship because they don’t agree with a man-made confabulation is immaturity and is ignoring the fact that we all have differences and most of those who claim and demand the Trinity don’t even understand it. In other words, the man-made concoction of God called the Trinity has not served us well—because all man-made concoctions (when it comes to anything about God) always wind up not serving Him or His children well.

As mentioned last night, I only believe what the Bible says about God and I do not believe what men interpret the Bible to say about God. Therefore, I do NOT embrace the Oneness Pentecostals versions of God, I do not embrace the Mormons version of God, I do not embrace the Trinitarian view of God or the binitarian, or any other man-made view. When asked about God today, I cite the scripture, as it reads and is presented, and not through the lens of any self-appointed scribe. I certainly have my own interpretation of all the scripture put together, but when the rubber meets the road, if I meet someone who upon hearing a passage of scripture and says, “I agree with that,” then they are my brother or sister in Christ.

Scripture and Interpretation

What I mean by this, and I hope you agree too, but I AGREE with every passage of scripture that speaks about God and the Lord Jesus Christ. As they read in English. Every passage stands alone in my book when it comes to the doctrine of God, every passage is correct in my worldview, and every single passage I see as correct. As it is, by itself, and without interpretation by others. The man-made doctrine of the Trinity tells me that this is not right of me, and then demands that it teaches me how to interpret the passages I read. I can’t do it. So that’s the first response to the Trinity—I go by what the Bible actually says. Not what men “say it says,” and I will not part with anyone over interpretation of such.

Early Church Heresy

The second response to the Trinity comes from my view of eschatology—which again, I choose to trust what Jesus and his apostles actually say in the Bible (about his return) and not what men interpret it to say. And this view says that the apostolic church was under fire when the apostles were alive. The bride of Christ, which the gates of hell would not prevail against, was going to be rescued and saved by Jesus promised return for her, and that within a generation all material aspects of religion in heaven and earth were going to be shaken, making way for a new heaven, and a new earth, and a new Jerusalem that is spiritual and above, where new creations in Christ would have the new Kingdom dwelling within them.

Did you know that very early in the church that many heretical ideas had already risen up from within the early Church? To this Jesus said in Matthew 24:4-5 “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many.” You can read many similar warnings in other passages (such as Matthew 24:11; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 2:18-26; 1 John 4:1-3).

A couple of decades after Jesus' deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God. and resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote that many believers were already “turning away . . . to a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6). He also wrote in 2nd Corinthians 11 that he was forced to contend with “false apostles, deceitful workers” who were fraudulently “transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.”

False Brethren and the Early Church

Johns 3rd epistle explain that conditions had grown so dire in his day that false ministers openly refused to receive John's representatives and were actually excommunicating true Christians from the Church! All of that was happening WHILE Jesus chosen apostles were on the earth! These facts caused the famed historian Edward Gibbon to write that a “dark cloud hung over the first age of the church.” (1821, Vol. 2, p. 111).

Now imagine this – Jesus came, called and trained twelve apostles to oversee the church and to protect her until he returned for it, and even then, if that time was not shortened, even the very elect would have fallen! And we are supposed to believe some cocamame idea that the Church-Bride, pure and without spot, was purposed by God to make it through the last 2000 years! Ha!

No, Christ’s little bride, pure and without spot, apostolically led and protected by a superabundance of the Spirit hung on just long enough to be saved before all of material religionA fulfilled system of temples, rituals, and laws—replaced by direct spiritual relationship. was destroyed. After that, those heretics crept in and it wasn’t long before true servants of God, (if there were any left) became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves “Christian.”

The Rise of a Different Faith

In fact what stepped in once the bride was gone was a very different form of the faith as it now incorporated all sorts of practices and beliefs that were rooted in or borrowed from all the religious beliefs around them (in a practice that was known as syncretism) and steadily transformed the faith established by Jesus Christ into a church of Man. This does not suggest that there weren’t real believers on earth. There were. But they were as marginalized then as they are marginalized now.

By the time we get to 120AD or about fifty years after the death of Paul, we find a church in many aspects was very different from that in the days of Peter and Paul – and this fact should not surprise anyone since the church was under great assault while Peter and Paul were alive! And this very different church, which both Catholic, Orthodoxy and Protestantism regale as good and true, would grow in corruption, power and influence – even to the point of it dominating the whole Roman Empire!

By the second century, faithful members of the faith had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution and it was at this time that some major divides entered into the scene – and this became the setting from which the man-made doctrine of the Trinity emerged. In other words, new beliefs began to replace the teachings of the original Church Bride as genuine believers were either driven into hiding or they had become politized, secularly motivated or were embracing systematized dogmas created by human agendas.

Debates and Doctrine

This is where the “church” entered into its “doctrinal debates.” But this brings us to a really important realization: What was being debated was NOT between truth and error – no no no – that line is the products of people who want you to believe that the Church was still viable and purposed to continue on materially. The reality is that what was being debated by the late second century was error against error.

An example of this was the "dispute" in 325AD (note how much time has now passed and how much theological garbage has collected on the curb of the so-called Christian culture) and this dispute was over the nature of Christ. Before we go on allow yourself to just stop and rethink: Jesus warned about wolves, and the apostles said that they were present in the churches in their day.

Jesus rescues his pure unwrinkled bride and destroys Jerusalem – all within a 40 year period of time, and 280 year later, a dispute arises over the nature of Christ. TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY YEARS LATER! 280 years. Are you kidding me? The apostles could barely hold on for 40 years and religious men today want us to believe that 280 years passed and nothing got messed up?

Anyway, the setting for this first dispute was not a scene of true Christianity doing all it could to keep the faith pure. It was set in an empire overseen by a sun-worshipper named Constantine who is errantly called the first “Christian” Roman Emperor. In fact, just to show how solid Constantine was in his Christianity he had both his own son and wife murdered. And

Constantine and the Council of Nicaea

He was absolutely hateful of Jews. All after he supposedly embraced the faith. No Constantine was an emperor and Emperors do not like unrest and upheaval among their subjects. But he was smart enough to recognize the value of the Christian religion in its ability to unite his empire. So he got to work. But before he could effectively use Christianity to unite his empire, he had to settle a bitter battle raging within its ranks—the “doctrine of God.”

1st Corinthians 8:6

Now, I'm no scholar and I'm no Emperor, but it seems to me that the doctrine of God is plainly explained by Paul in 1st Corinthians 8:6 who wrote: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Either this passage is true or it is false. If it is true all other takes are faulty. I say there is one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

The Arian Controversy

Why it took a counsel of men 280 years after material religion was destroyed and God began to write his laws on the hearts and minds of those who are his, (making the faith entirely unshakable) to create a new definition of God, I don't know. Why the Roman Catholic Church has tried to perpetuate material religion, I don't know—or why the Protestants tried to reform material religion, or the Mormons have tried to restore material religion, we can only guess. But they all did, and all have—and the formalization of these efforts have all splintered and divided and corrupted easy to understand biblically based beliefs, like there is one God, the Father, and one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

So, Constantine convened what is called the Council of Nicaea in 325 as much for political reasons—for unity in the empire—as religious ones. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy. Arius, was "a priest" (that's already a problem isn’t it?) from Alexandria, Egypt, who taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was a special creation of God. He also taught that if Jesus was the Son, the Father (by necessity) had to be "older." Errant, right?

But opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon (a deacon, called by whom? Aren't deacons just servants that clean tables and work with money? What was this deacon doing coming up with new insights on the doctrine of God? – Oh well) Anyway, Athanasius was also from Alexandria, Egypt. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism where "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other."

Historical Context and Outcome

Historian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, wrote “In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians to whom he had shown considerable favor it was to his interest (Constantine's) to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble."

Interestingly, it is believed by some scholars that when the church council was held, few embraced either Arias's views or Athanasius and there were all sorts of views bounced around in that time. In any case, with Constantine’s approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the also minority view of Athanasius. And the so-called church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea and the groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now in place—three centuries after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.

The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy. Constantine was pleased, but there was no unanimity established. Therefore, the bishops (the who?) went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times because it was very difficult to make his creed stick."

And the great historian Will Durant writes, speaking about the aftermath of violence stemming from Nicea, “Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-343) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome” (The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4).

The Role of Doctrine in Religious History

The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8.

Sound like the product of something that came from God?

Professor Harold Brown says:

“During the middle decades of this century, from 340 to 380, the history of doctrine looks more like the history of court and church intrigues and social unrest . . . The central doctrines hammered out in this period often appear to have been put through by intrigue or mob violence rather than by the common consent of Christendom led by the Holy Spirit”

The Evolution of Religious Ideas

But like most things religious and part of group think, they start off as questionable, then they become acceptable, then they become unquestionable, and ultimately they become enforceable.

Personal Responsibility in Spiritual Thinking

Don’t trust me. Don’t ever use my thoughts as your dogma. But think – and let the spirit guide, refusing the dogmatic demands of men.