The following is from an email exchange I had with Jay Dickens who is an anti-Trinitarian “patertheist.” That is, he and his “church” believe that God is One – the Father – and Jesus as a mere man was an expression of the Father – but not the eternally begotten Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. It is a bit like Jesus-only heresy (modalistic Monarchianism), but focusing on the Father rather than Jesus. He wanted to debate me, so I said: “Buy my book, Why Creeds and Confessions? and tell me where you disagree.” So he did. This is my exchange with him. The bold text below are his responses and questions posed to passages in my book.

We don’t need to hunt witches in the evangelical world. There is no need to hunt what is not hiding. The “witches” are in plain view, every day on national television, teaching blatant heresy without fear of censure. ~ R.C. Sproul

First, thanks for buying the book and reading it. I said earlier that I don’t debate patristic orthodoxy with anti-Trinitarians. However, I did write a book so I would have something to engage people who come with these questions. When you have an expertise in something, you find that people will ask the same set of questions over and over again. But your stance is a little bit “new” — or so I thought at first. I said in the book there are no new heresies. And yes, that is true because our first disagreement is over the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Trinity derives from that, but is inseparable. So we can’t come to an agreement unless we agree on this: “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:13-16, Mark 8:27-29, and Luke 9:18-20).

I am surprised you didn’t begin with Christology since that is the true crux of the issue. Instead you tired me with tirades against the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades and other irrelevancies in addition to counter-claims to my Trinitarian arguments.

Below I highlighted your actual questions. Then I respond in-line.

Some background is that I was raised Roman Catholic, but converted to Christ in a born-again experience when I was part of an Assemblies of God Church in 1985 in Boston, Massachusetts. I later joined a charismatic campus church and world missionary outreach in 1987. In 1989, I was asked to join The Forerunner. That is when I moved to Florida. I later joined Saint Andrews Chapel, where R.C. Sproul was the teaching elder. In any case, I think a similar bio is in my book.

I originally started to write Why Creeds and Confessions? because our charismatic campus church network and international office broke up (or decentralized) in 1990. I had just moved to Gainesville in the previous year, so I was interested in continuing with the ministry of The Forerunner, which I did by raising support for myself and working various part time jobs. But our local church that was part of the network eventually closed. A few members of our church for a time attended a UPC church, but did not join or agree with their doctrines. That was the first time that I encountered Oneness, Jesus-only or modalistic Monarchianism. I did not know what to think at first. I reasoned that since the Roman Catholic Church had introduced some errors, it is possible that the Trinity could have been one of them. When I looked for answers among my fellow charismatics I got a whole range of answers from: “It’s a rank and damnable heresy!” to “I’m not Oneness, but I’ve always believed in baptizing in Jesus’ name” to “Yes, I’ve always believed in Oneness, but I don’t preach it” to “Oneness or modalism is just another form of Trinitarianism and we Pentecostal/Charismatics need to stop dividing over doctrine.”

I was a bit shocked. I was inclined to think that the last statement was true. Like the doctrines of grace, it is hard for the human mind to grasp the Trinity. Like the argument over Arminianism and Calvinism, maybe they were just two ways of looking at a greater truth that is difficult to comprehend. The problem was that Oneness Pentecostals will sometimes say that you aren’t a Christian and saved unless you are baptized in Jesus name. Although not all say this, it makes it impossible not to make a choice. In Arminian and Calvinist doctrine ultimately you have to decide whether or not your works and choices earn you merit with God in your justification. I think Arminians are true Christians and saved because they affirm justification by faith alone, but they are inconsistent in their thinking. Some Arminians are also more extreme than others (as are some Calvinists). Again grace is a very hard thing to understand. On one level it is simple, but if you reason out the implications, it is profoundly difficult to be consistent. So it is with the Trinity.

God is three in one and one in three. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are each God. But they are not each other. It’s easy: draw a circle with three spokes meeting in the middle. It’s hard: answer the difficult metaphysical questions about essences and substances.

But what if no one taught the Trinity until later? What if it is not really stated directly in the Bible? The basic idea comes from primitivism. The early Church believed and practiced certain things that then the Roman Catholic Church changed or obscured. Justification by faith alone is a big one. Then there is credo-baptism, congregational church government, premillennialism, and so on. The idea goes that there was a peak of orthodoxy and then it became obscure. Traditionalism and hierarchy set in. Finally the Reformers of the 1500s recovered some orthodox teachings that had been obscured or lost, but this work of restoration is ongoing. This is the idea behind the Restorationist Movement of the 1800s and the Latter Rain Movement of the 1950s. In fact, some of my friends had been discipled by Latter Rain teachers who were Oneness.

For a while after our church group broke up, I was a primitivist. That lasted for a while, but eventually the fact that some charismatics and Pentecostals denied the Trinity stuck in my craw. Could it be that I was biased because I was raised Catholic? Was this a doctrine invented at the Council of Nicea, like some claimed? I decided to use their own argument. Would I find the Trinity in the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries prior to Nicea. As you see in my book, the answer was a resounding “Yes!”

My research was made into an article called, The Trinity: The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit I never published it until years later when I finished the whole book, Why Creeds and Confessions? and that became part of the material.

It’s interesting that since this time, I’ve run into a few other people who shared my story. They were discipled by a charismatic or Pentecostal teacher who never shared that they believed in Oneness or didn’t make it into an issue. When they found out years later, they were shocked. They had trouble moving on because they had so close a relationship to this person who was like a father. But eventually they found other issues and doctrines that were just as problematic. At this point, we understood that if you deny the Trinity, then anything goes.

We see this is rampant and rank among independent charismatic and Pentecostal churches. I soon discovered that a huge number of well-known teachers and preachers have publicly distorted or denied the doctrine of the Trinity as “Roman Catholic” and therefore error. But most of us don’t treat it like it’s a big deal.

And that revelation became the basis for my second article, which is in the introduction and chapter 3 of my book, Why Creeds and Confessions? The Trinity

The most obvious objection to my method is that even though the Church Fathers taught the Trinity (in some form), how do we know that Jesus and the Apostles taught it? Why isn’t it obvious to everyone? I realized that this question deals with epistemology. How do you know what you know? Everyone has the same book. Everyone disagrees on something. But that is not unique to the Bible. Take science, history, philosophy, literature, political science, and so on. Each great thinker has writings and followers who hate each other as heretics because they get it wrong.

The difference with the Bible is that it is God’s Word. Each book in the Bible has some claim somewhere to be not “a truth,” but the Truth. It is fallen human nature to not understand everything correctly. I don’t know everything and neither do you. However, there is enough in the Bible that is understandable to all who have the Holy Spirit so we can be certain of the way to salvation and whether we are saved.

What is that common denominator?

What God are we to have faith in?

It was early on stated in the creeds. Each creed dealt with a heresy and also held to a gold standard in that it had to be approved by all the bishops in all the world. Let me state first before I get into finally answering your questions and objections what I DO NOT believe and what I believe.

Denials

1. I do not believe creeds and confessions bind the conscience.
2. I do not believe creeds and confessions are infallible.
3. I do not believe that the Church Fathers were all united on every point of primary orthodoxy.
4. I don’t believe that any one of the Church Fathers never committed a serious error to writing.
5. I don’t believe that someone is damned to hell with certainty because they question or deny the creeds.

Affirmations

1. I believe that basic formulas of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds that have come down to us are without error. (They contain no error in doctrine, but they might have. They are inerrant, but not infallible.)
2. I believe that the Church Fathers were generally united on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds doctrines.
3. I believe the Creeds explain what it means to a Christian to believe in God and be part of the Church.
4. The Creeds are a standard of orthodoxy. They state what is necessary to claim that someone is a true “Christian.” (This is very different than being an acid test to determine whether someone is truly saved.)

Orthodoxy is a means of saying what is right. It is not a measure of the eternal state of an individual’s soul. That being said, we are constrained not to admit someone to church membership who denies the basic truths of Christianity. That is not radical. Every church does this. Every church and professing Christian has creeds whether they are written or not.

You can construct a theology using the Bible to defend any doctrine. Creeds are like guard rails on a highway. They keep you on the road. They don’t guarantee that you won’t get into other serious errors. But if you deny the creeds or major points in the creeds you will go off the road somewhere and then you will believe anything that you choose to believe.

That is why I say in the book, “We need to stop judging whether the Church Fathers were right [about the Creeds specifically] and ask them to start judging us.”

A Conversation With an Anti-Trinitarian

Here are Jay Dickens replies to me in bold. Page numbers are from the text of my book.

1. On page 7 you write, “God is personal. — We refer to God as He not It. He is … a person.” Further along you write, “God is Triune — He is … actually three persons…”

It seems to me, Trinitarians subconsciously do not think of God as a Trinity; this is shown by their use of personal pronouns for God. In a context where God is used for the Trinity one should use It or They. For example, I could say “The committee will meet at 3 pm. It will meet in Room 7.” Or I might say “They will meet in Room 7.” But I would not say that “He will meet in Room. 7.” (Some Trinitarians say that God is “one what, but three who’s.” You would think that at least they would use “It” and “They” when referencing the Trinity.)

When the word God (without further modification, e.g. God the Father) is used in the Bible, how do you know when it refers to one person of the Trinity or to the whole Trinity? On page 13 you quote an old man talking to Justin, “For no one can perceive or understand these truths unless he has been enlightened by God and Christ.” Why didn’t he just say God since Christ is included in the Trinity? His choice of words shows that he subconsciously distinguishes between God and Christ. Likewise, many Trinitarian writers speak of God and Christ together in context, rather than in a way that reflects their belief that Christ is God. I can ask the Trinitarian the same question I would ask the modalist: Why are God and Jesus mentioned together so often in context if Jesus is also God?

The answer to the first question is obviously “by context.” If Jesus is mentioned apart from God, it can only mean several things.

a. Jesus is the human nature of Christ and “God” is His divine nature.
b. Jesus is the Son and God is the Father.
c. Jesus is the Son; God refers to the Trinitarian Godhead.
d. A combination of two or all three of these.

I don’t know how to answer the second question without simply saying, “Read my book!” God is three in one and one in three. I cannot add anything significant except what is stated in the four partistic (or “ecumenical”) creeds.

You say also, “It seems to me, Trinitarians subconsciously do not think of God as a Trinity.”

Yes! Many evangelicals are naive modalists. I cover that in my book. It’s a big problem. But it is one that is easily corrected in churches that recite and teach the Creeds.

2. On page 14, “Any nation, state, or government, that continually breaks God’s moral laws, will ultimately be destroyed within history. When the breakdown of Rome finally came, Christianity thrived.”

Doesn’t it strike you as ironic that the Roman Empire fell after it adopted Christianity as the state religion? Maybe the Christianity it adopted wasn’t so Christian after all.

No, not at all. Empires are not God’s plan. See the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). What happened after Christianity conquered Rome peacefully is that ethnically based nations throughout the world sprung up as they embraced Christ in their culture and preached the Gospel in their language. Greater spiritual and civil freedom ensued. It has been a struggle because the Roman Catholic Church (and other churches — even Protestants) embraced aspects of paganism. This is what the Reformation was all about. But the Reformation always needs reforming. I don’t see imperfection in the Church as a refutation of the standard of being perfect. Quite the contrary. The fact we recognize imperfection shows that a perfect exists.

3. Pg. 29, “The Bible, like no other book in history, has withstood vicious attacks from its enemies.”

Even the Trinitarian Roman Catholic Church banned and burned the Bible, which you acknowledge later in your book. My question is, do you view the RCC as an apostate church? If so, when did it become apostate?

I cover your question in detail in my book. The quick answer is that I do on certain doctrines that divide Protestants from Catholics. It officially became apostate when their bishops signed the Canons of the Council of Trent. But not all Catholics actually know or agree with what Trent said about justification by faith and imputed righteousness. Much of what Trent said about justification by faith is correct, by the way. I think only two points negate Reformed Protestants. The rest are aimed at heretics and some of the Anabaptists, which most Reformed Protestants would agree with.

4. As a patertheist I have no problem reciting the Apostles’ Creed. (Assuming that the phrase “the holy catholic church” refers to “the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven … and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.” Not to man-made institutions. And, in case you have misunderstood my belief and those who share it, we are not adoptionists.)

You are some kind of Monarchian. If only the Father is God, then that is a Monarchian heresy of some type. I cannot tell you specifically what you yourself think, but that would be “Monarchianism” as an agreed upon definition.

5. I can agree with parts of the Nicene Creed,

Good for you!

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, … begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, [My understanding of this phrase is, no doubt, different from your understanding of it. After this point it gets problematic though there are points further along with which I can agree; also I had to remove the word eternal that appeared before begotten.]

Notice even they begin with “one God, the Father.” So they start out biblical, and go beyond biblical a few phrases later.

Read my book. I don’t know what I should add that I didn’t already state. This was the first hint that our disagreement is Christology, and not the Trinity.

6. One thesis you present which I find interesting and agreeable is the self-authentication of the New Testament books as canonical. It means I do not have to look to an apostate church as the authenticator of Biblical canon.

Good for us! All the Reformed Confessions state (or at least imply) the canon is self-authenticating. Some also state that just as the Holy Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit also shows us a clear pedigree in the received text. Is the acceptance of the New Testament canon even an issue with you though? I would add that the Hebrew language Old Testament canon that was in use up until the time of Jerome (and beyond that time among the Jews and some Christians) is the only correct one. We don’t get the New Testament canon list from the Church Fathers, but they are the ones who received the canon from the Apostles and knew for certain who wrote which books. That was their own view by the way. They understood this is what they received, not what they thought or decided. Canon means “rule” — the rule of orthodoxy is derived from holy Scripture and then this same rule is used to judge both books that appeared afterward and doctrines that appeared afterward.

This method is unavoidable. Let’s say that Abraham Lincoln wrote a series of speeches and newspaper editors published them. Let’s say that in the early 20th century there were variants and forgeries that began to appear. Who would we look to today to know which were which? We’d want to know who Lincoln’s immediate associates were and whether they knew his canonical speeches. We’d give greater credence to Lincoln’s own family, cousins and friends who original received his correspondences and letters. We would look at their writings to compare to see where they quoted Lincoln or described him. We would not blindly accept a Lincoln speech because we liked it or it fit our conception of Lincoln. So there would arise a Lincoln orthodoxy and Lincoln councils to determine which speeches were genuine. This is done all the time with ancient writings and it is done today. This is how we received the canon of the New Testament on which all Christians agree. So it is self-authenticating, but the Fathers also corroborated it. However, the same men who agreed on the New Testament also passed down a rule of faith (a canon) that became the basis for the later Creeds.

7. On page 73 you write, in Deuteronomy 6:4 “the Hebrew word for ‘one’ is not the same word as the integer (the number used for counting).”

Below is what I copied from Biblehub. These are the only two words that came up in the search for “one” in Hebrew. Echad is the word used in Deuteronomy 6:4, and its primary definition is one and is described as “a prim[ary] card[inal] number.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary © 1984, “cardinal number: a number, as 3 or 11 or 412, indicating quantity but not order.” [Underling added.] Ordinal numbers indicate order (first, second, third). An integer is a whole number, as opposed to a number containing a fraction. Also when I went to google translator for modern Hebrew אֶחָד [echad] came up as the translation for one.

Strong’s Concordance
echad: one
Original Word: אֶחָד
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: echad
Phonetic Spelling: (ekh-awd’)
Definition: one

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. card. number
Definition
one
Genesis 1:5
HEB: בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד׃ פ
NAS: and there was morning, one day.
KJV: and the morning were the first day.
INT: morning day one

Strong’s Concordance
yachid: only, only one, solitary
Original Word: יָחִיד
Part of Speech: Adjective; substantive
Transliteration: yachid
Phonetic Spelling: (yaw-kheed’)
Definition: only, only one, solitary

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from yachad
Definition
only, only one, solitary

I have literature on hand that goes into much more detail on this subject. If you’re interested in reading it, I could photocopy and send it to you.

This is a bit complex, but now 20 years after I wrote this, I am inclined to concede that ONE here does not literally mean “unity” in every case the word is used. Although it can mean this. Moses also wrote:

“Indeed the people are one [echad] . . .”

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one [echad] flesh.”

Echad does mean unity in some cases, but the implication in Deuteronomy is “one ALONE.” That is, “Our God is the true God alone among all the other false gods.” The doctrine of the Trinity is not that there are three Gods, but three PERSONS in One God. In any case, Deuteronomy 6:4 is not a smoking gun that disproves the Trinity, since the doctrine clearly states God is one.

In any case, even if you think Deuteronomy 6:4 does not support the Trinity, the entire doctrine of a major tenet of faith never hangs on one verse.

8. On page 76 you refer to 1 Corinthians 8:5 where Paul writes, “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth…yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him….” If God is a Trinity why didn’t Paul write here “for us there is but one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, from whom are all things, and we exist for Them.”

WHY DIDN’T HE OR ANY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS WRITE THIS SOMEWHERE?

Again, read my book. There are many doctrines that are stated in other words that are not direct quotations from the Bible. “Justification by faith alone” is a biblical doctrine that appears nowhere in the Bible with the word “alone.” There are others. In short, the New Testament writers did write about the Trinity. Roughly, 100 years later, the Church Fathers began to state it as a philosophical formula. “Three in one” is “three persons in one substance.”

9. On pp. 79 and 80, “Although they never answered the questions later tackled by Tertullian, the Apostolic Fathers had a strong concept of the Trinity. The Apostle’s revelation of God could never have been expressed in words (2 Corinthians 12:4), but through the creeds and symbols they used in their teaching, the truth of the Trinity was imparted and was widely accepted in the early Church.”

If the apostles’ revelation could not have been expressed in words, why have Trinitarians tried to do it through creeds, confessions, articles, and books over the centuries?

This is a repeat of the previous question in different words. Obviously, the Apostles used words. Paul was saying that the full revelation of God is unknowable. I’d say the Trinity is simple and comprehensible even to a child, but as we comprehend it more, we realize that like grace it is a deep revelation rooted in the knowledge of God. We never stop growing in our knowledge of God. So in that sense, the Triune God is unfathomable.

We can draw a diagram to represent logically the Trinity (think of the Mercedes logo). However, we cannot fully understand God. That is not a controversial statement.

David Bercot, editor of the Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, agrees with you that the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity, except they were subordinationists, hence not orthodox Trinitarians.

Good for him. Maybe some were. I have looked at the Trinitarian references among the patristic writings and I don’t see that this is a clear slam dunk for the view that they were all subordinationists. That is open for interpretation. I also know that Bercott is a primitivist. He has vacillated all over the place in his lifetime. There is nothing wrong with that necessarily, but this means he doesn’t even agree with himself. This only bolsters the idea that Creeds are necessary.

As for the Apostolic Fathers (those whose lives may have overlapped with the apostles) you quote Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch. Of these three the only quotes you present that sound Trinitarian to me are those of Ignatius. Both Jesus and Paul predicted the rise of false teachers and false prophets before AD 70. On page 150 you agree, writing, “There were heresies in the Church even from the first century.” How do I know that Ignatius was not affected by these apostate teachings, or by false teachers that arose after AD 70? Paul writes about associates of his that apostatized or abandoned him. So it is not impossible that associates of John did also. Compare 1 John 2:18-19.

On page 45 you write, “The teaching of Scripture is binding on the believer for faith and practice.” I agree. What Ignatius — or any other post-Apostolic writer— says has to be in harmony with what the Bible says. In my opinion, Ignatius does not agree with the Bible.

One day you and I both will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. If Trinitarianism is the truth Jesus might ask me, “Why didn’t you believe Ignatius?” However, if patertheism is the truth Jesus might ask you, “Why didn’t you believe me when I said the Father is the only true God?” I would rather have to answer the first question than the second. Which would you prefer answering?

Neither.

I addressed this in my caveats in the beginning and also the question of the rule of faith or “canon.”

I don’t hold to either one of these propositions, so neither.

Let me explain.

You are aping Jesus here, “Why didn’t you believe what Moses and the prophets said about me?” But Law and the Prophets are inspired of God without error in their writings received by us.

Ignatius was not inspired of God without error. You are not inspired of God without error. The Bible is. So if you say, “In my opinion, the Bible says …” You are quoting your creed. Everyone has creeds. “I believe” is not valid unless you agree first with the Bible.

You don’t believe the Bible unless you believe that Jesus claimed He is eternally God.

Here you are arguing about the basis of epistemology. How do we believe? We believe the Bible alone is infallible and inerrant, but we don’t believe in a vacuum. As soon as we state we believe something, we have invented a Creed.

The only question is whose Creed is the “right opinion”?

10. Pg. 94, 95 “Trinitarianism, as a formulated doctrine, did not begin to emerge until after the Gnostic heresy became a serious threat to the church, around AD 100… The New Testament era Christians (AD 30-70) were probably neither self-consciously Trinitarian nor modalistic. Both of these views were theological elaborations created later in response to controversies outside the experience of the disciples of AD 30.”

Jude 3 speaks of the “faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The very first people to become followers of Jesus were monotheistic, non-Trinitarian Jews. If the faith that was entrusted to the saints contained a Trinitarian view of God, how could they not be self-consciously Trinitarian?

The Trinity is a doctrine or a creed. The Triune God is the object of our faith. The doctrine is not God. You actually hold to a heretical understanding of the same Scriptures that gave rise to the doctrine of the Trinity. You have a Creed based on the same Scriptures I read. Your Creed actually doesn’t matter in itself. The only thing that matters is whether you know the true God.

You don’t believe Jesus is God.

I am actually not going to argue for the Trinity here because your problem is with orthodox Christology.

If believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation, how is it that none of the sermons presented in the book of Acts mention that God is a Trinity?

I don’t hold that view. The primary orthodox doctrines of the patristic creeds are necessary to say what and who is Christian. I don’t know who will be saved in the end. I do say with Scripture that if you deny Jesus is God come in the flesh, then you cannot be saved. That is more fundamental to our discussion. You gloss over this and go straight to the Trinity. Why?

If Jesus’ apostles had been preaching that God is a Trinity, which they would have if it were apostolic truth, there would have been huge controversies in “the experience of the disciples of AD 30” with the unbelieving Jews. The Bible records no such controversies.

11. Pg. 101 “‘God is love’ (1 John 4:16). Love, an eternal attribute of God, existed before the creation of the universe. Who did God love before the creation of Adam, if there were not distinct persons in the Godhead?”

To limit God’s love to human understanding and experience is absurd. For us love is primarily an emotion. For God it is a foundational character attribute which underlies His mercy, generosity, justice, holiness, creativity and all His other qualities. Christian love is more than an emotion; it is showing dignity and respect due fellow creatures made in God’s image. Did you ever met someone whose personality you found disagreeable? Yet you treated him with Christian love.

This I agree is not the strongest defense of Trinitarian doctrine. It is true and Scripturally based, but it has holes as you point out. However, it is true that eternal love before the world began existed between the Father and the Son.

God has always existed and there was time, we assume, before He created anything. So what did He do the zillions of eons before He became a creator? Did He just sit around twiddling His thumbs, all six of them? How long before He created anything did God decide to become a creator? Recently I read in a book the thought that God is outside of time; that to Him there is no past, present or future. If that be the case then the creation has always existed with Him, in His mind prior to its actual creation.

These are valid questions that all thinking Christians have at least considered. Even children ask such questions. There is an interesting passage in Augustine in which he discusses this and agrees with you in part. Stephen Hawking uses it in his A Brief History of Time. Look it up. It doesn’t prove the Trinity in itself, but the two ideas are complementary and give each other more plausibility.

*Years ago, I asked my mom how long does it take after a baby is born for a mother to start loving the child. She said that the mother loves her baby before it is born. At the time I found that incomprehensible. God loves His creation, and loved it before it was created, just like a mother loves her baby before it is born. Like humans, God wants His creation to love Him; but His love does not crave reciprocity as human love does. He is complete in Himself; and this is true regardless of whether He is one, or They are two, three or a hundred. In understanding God wouldn’t it be better to rely on overt revelation than subvert a scriptural passage with human philosophical musing?

This isn’t a real question. It’s a rhetorical BLAM!

12. Pg. 123, 124 The Chalcedonian Creed “… born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness …” etc. proves the absurd use of Creeds, exposing human philosophical debates as the basis of their existence rather than Biblical exegesis. Paul wrote, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ” ( Colossians 2:8).

Not a question here.

“Theotokos is a title of Mary, mother of Jesus, used especially in Eastern Christianity. The usual Latin translations are Dei Genitrix or Deipara Familiar.”

You can look this up. The Theotokos doctrine was not formulated to say Mary existed with God from the beginning or is divine herself. It refutes Adoptionism. Mary is the Mother of God from Jesus’ conception. That is, he was fully man and fully God when conceived. Many Protestants mock this title without understanding what it means. But I explain it in my book.

I don’t know if you are ignorant here or if this is a dishonest ruse. For your sake, I hope you are ignorant. I’d be a lot more encouraged by that than if you already know what is true, but are creating a divergence via reducto ad absurdum.

13. The Anathemas. This made me think of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They encourage interested persons to question the beliefs they hold. However, once a person is baptized as a Witness, they are discouraged from questioning the Organization and may be threatened with disfellowshipping when persistent or vocal in doing so. It’s okay to question the Baptist church, the Catholic church, etc., but not the Watchtower Society.

The fear-mongering that the Anathemas exploit represses conscientious discussion of the Bible which furthers the exposition of truth. (Recall my earlier email in which a couple of ministers seemed to agree with my belief, but would not make public declarations, possibly for fear of crippling their ministries. No ministry should be afraid of an open and honest discussion of the Bible, letting the believer decide what is wheat and what is chaff. Too often when labels such as heretic are assigned to the dissenter open-minded discussion is abandoned.)

Not a question here, but see my caveats above in the introduction.

14. Pg. 163 “So the Arians, being the prevailing party, had the civil authority on their side to persecute the true Church. They were opposed by Athanasius and finally defeated in the fifth century.”

I laughed out loud when I read this. True, Arians persecuted Trinitarians, but what you ignore is also true. The “true Church” persecuted the Arians when they had the civil authority on their side. From my understanding of history the civil authority flipped several times in its support of the two sides. Look at the history of the so-called “true Church” down through the centuries. Where they had political power on their side both Catholics and Protestants persecuted those that did not agree with them on one point of doctrine or another.

Jesus’ primary teaching was love, love of God, love of neighbor, love of fellow-believer, even love of enemies. Where was the “true Church” during the centuries of European religious wars? Where was the “true Church” before and during America’s civil war, Reconstruction, and segregation for the next century? Where was the “true Church” during World Wars I and II? (It is reported that Hitler’s troops had ‘God With Us’ on their belt buckles.) Ask Muslims about the Crusades and the “true Church”. Ask the Jewish victims of anti-Semitism about pogroms and the “true Church.”

Yes, there have been individual Christians down through the centuries who have exemplified the love of Christ, and many of them bore scars of persecution from fellow “believers” of a different doctrine. Even the revered John Calvin was in favor of the execution of Michael Servetus, a modalist non-Trinitarian. And from my understanding his persecution of those who disagreed with him did not stop there. Sadly, he is not the only reformer so guilty. If the “true Church” had prioritized the development of Christian love in the lives of its followers think how different the history of the world would have been! Christ’s feet and hands were nailed to the cross so that we might walk in the path of love and do deeds of compassion. But when we walk in the ways of hate and raise weapons of war, we are no longer the Body of Christ.

Not a question, but a rhetorical rant.

15. Pg. 168 “Arian cults begin by questioning the authority of the Word of God and the most vital doctrines of the orthodox catholic faith. Through skillful Scripture twisting …”

Patertheists do not question the authority of God’s Word, but we do question the skillful Scripture twisting of Trinitarians. Arians would probably say the same.

Not a question.

16. Pg. 201 “The change will come when we stop asking whether we agree with Augustine, Athanasius, Tertullian, Irenaeus — and ask instead: “Do the Church Fathers agree with us?” No, we should be asking, Do we agree with Jesus and he with us?

Discussed above.

17. Pg. 202 “It is the communion of the Trinity that makes all things be and without which nothing can exist.”

Paul writes at 1 Corinthians 8:6, “yet for us there is ONE GOD, THE FATHER, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” Oops, Paul forgot to mention the Holy Spirit. Notice, too, that Paul identified the “one God” as the Father just like Jesus did in John 17:1-3. Verse 7 begins, “It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge.” Contextually, of course, he was not talking about Trinitarians since they did not yet exist in the Christian community, but the verse does seem apropos.

Not a question.

18. Pg. 205 “This is the Church that is the object of the unceasing prayer of the holy Trinity, “that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You … that they may be one, even as We are one.” (John 17:21, 22) [Underlining added.]

I thought this was Jesus’ prayer. And it seems he also forgot to mention the Holy Spirit. Hmmm, well, the first-person plural pronoun may have unspecified antecedents if the larger context allows for it. I don’t see it included; you can decide for yourself. But you left out the middle, verse 21b reads, “that they may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (JP Green, Sr.’s KJ3 Literal Translation). How exciting! “One in Us … as We are one.” The disciples (the “they”) get to be one in the Trinity as the Trinity is one. They get to join the Trinity! Herbert Armstrong was right, God is a Family! See what Scripture twisting can do?!

Yes, I see scripture twisting and reducto ad absurdum.

19. Pg. 92, “Therefore, the church fathers and apologists thought that belief in the Trinity is essential to our salvation.” Proposition 2 in my booklet shows that the Bible connects the value of Jesus’ sacrifice to his human nature. Where does the Bible connect salvation to belief in the Trinity?

See above.

I can also turn this question on its head. If patertheism is the truth, is it essential to salvation? – after all, Jesus did say that eternal life is knowing the Father as the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent.

What do you think?

You don’t believe in Jesus Christ, God come in the flesh. That is the root disagreement. You won’t prove that by proving or disproving the Trinity. You are coming in the back door with a relevant, but secondary issue. The Deity of Christ comes first in the Creeds before the doctrine of the Trinity is broached.

Is Jesus begotten not made of the Father and eternally begotten of the Father?

(Begotten denoting relationship as per the Gospel According to John.)

Actually, I think the answer to your question is “no.” Most importantly, knowing God and Jesus is about knowing their personalities. In separating “The Sheep and the Goats” the determining factor was not their beliefs but the way they treated those less fortunate than themselves. The same is true for “The Rich Man and Lazarus” parable. If patertheism is true, Trinitarians are, in effect, calling Jesus a liar. That can be forgiven, after all “love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8).

Thanks for reading.

~ Jay

---