Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Great Christian Example?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is portrayed as a great example of the Christian faith, e.g. in Christian Focus' "Ten Boys Who Didn't Give in". (Christian Focus' children's books are a blessing from God, but one of the main criticisms I would have is their uncritical presentation of some Christians and professed Christians.) Although, he is a great example of courage and conviction (so is Gandhi), it is questionable whether he was a Christian based on the following account of his life and beliefs:

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a neo-orthodox German theologian, pastor, preacher, radio broadcaster, and prolific writer in the 1930s and early-1940s, during the rise, rule, and downfall of Adolph Hitler. He was greatly fascinated with neo-orthodox thought, theology, and terminology, and was greatly influenced by the major theologian of neo-orthodoxy, Karl Barth (1886-1968). Bonhoeffer's writings are credited with helping to father the "Death of God" theology which was popularized by the Anglican Bishop John A.T. Robinson in the decade of the 1960s.

Bonhoeffer was in reality a practical atheist and a religious humanist who denied virtually every cardinal doctrine of the historic Christian faith (Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge, New York: Macmillan Co., 1972, pp. 9-12). Bonhoeffer readily acknowledged "the debt he owes to liberal theology." Declaring that it was impossible to know the objective truth about Christ's real nature and essence, Bonhoeffer proclaimed that God was dead.

Moreover, Bonhoeffer believed that the true Christian was the confessing believer who totally immersed his life in the secular world, becoming a secular Christian. Rejecting the objective unalterable moral standards of the Bible, Bonhoeffer proclaimed a situational ethics -- that right and wrong are determined solely by the "loving obligations of the moment" (Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge, New York: Macmillan Co., 1972, pp. 9-12, 378; Ethics, pp. 38, 186; No Rusty Swords, pp. 44-45).

The son of a Berlin professor of psychiatry, Bonhoeffer studied theology at Tubingen, Berlin and at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Bonhoeffer, student chaplain and lecturer at the University of Berlin, joined the anti-Nazi pastors in the German "church struggle." In 1935, he was appointed head of the Finkenwalde Confessing Church Seminary, which was closed by the government in 1937. In 1939, Bonhoeffer rejected the possibility of a job in America, safe from the impending European war. He was convinced that he had to face the difficulties ahead with the Christians in Germany. Back in Germany during World War II, Bonhoeffer was forbidden to preach or to publish.

Though claiming to be a disciple of Gandhi and his credo of non-violence, Bonhoeffer worked as a double agent in the anti-Nazi resistance movement and in the German military office, and eventually joined the wartime conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. His arrest in 1943, however, arose from his direct involvement in smuggling fourteen Jews to Switzerland. He was hanged by the Nazis at Flossenburg on April 9, 1945.

Although only 39 when executed, Bonhoeffer left a rich legacy of books, some of his best known being Sanctorum Communio, Act and Being, The Cost of Discipleship, and Life Together, as well as letters, papers, and notes published by his close friend and biographer, Eberhard Bethge. These include Letters and Papers from Prison, Ethics, and six volumes of collected writings (Dr. Ruth Zerner, City University of New York, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer," Eerdmans' Handbook To The History of Christianity, 1977, p. 603).

Although Bonhoeffer presented his own strain of neo-orthodox existentialism, many evangelicals have been taken in by his warm-hearted piety and by his high sounding devotion to Christ and call to suffer for His sake. His religious terminology may appear to be evangelical, but its substance was existential. Yet, there are those today who continue to present Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a genuine Christian hero (e.g., Don Matzat, Chuck Colson, and the editorial board of Christianity Today). Grand Rapids Baptist College (GARBC -- now Cornerstone College) scheduled a play in the fall of 1991 which extolled Bonhoeffer's memory. And Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr., has used quotes from Bonhoeffer to expound on the nature of true Christian fellowship ("The Riches and Responsibilities of Fellowship," The Master's Current, Winter 1994, p. 2). All such accolades to Bonhoeffer are clearly unwarranted.

The following is a summary of beliefs and influence of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as taken from some of the over 14 books and documents attributed to him:

1. He believed that "God is teaching us that we must live as men who can get along very well without Him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us." Bonhoeffer also believed that the concept of God as a "supreme Being, absolute in power and goodness," was a "spurious conception of transcendence," and that "God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, and science ... should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated" (Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, pp. 122, 164, 360).

2. He believed that mankind had become of age and no longer needed religion, which was only a deceptive garment of true faith; he suggested the need for a "religionless Christianity." To Bonhoeffer, "the Christian is identified not by his beliefs, but by actions, by his participation in the suffering of God in the life of the world" (Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, p. 163). Thus, Bonhoeffer's final writings have given impulse to Marxist theologians sponsoring "liberation theology" and to others wishing to promote a worldly social gospel.

3. He refused to discuss the origin of Christ, His relationship to the Father, His two natures, or even the relationship of the two natures. Bonhoeffer was adamant in his belief that it was impossible to know the objective truth about the real essence of Christ's being-nature (Christ the Center, pp. 30, 88, 100-101).

4. He questioned the Virgin Birth, and in reality denied it (The Cost of Discipleship, p. 215).

5. He denied the deity of Christ; he advocated that "Jesus Christ Today" is not a real person and being, but a "corporate presence" (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 75-76; Christ the Center, p. 58).

6. He denied the sinlessness of Christ's human nature and further questioned the sinlessness of His earthly behavior (Christ the Center, pp. 108-109).

7. He believed that Christ exists in three "revelatory forms" -- as Word, as sacrament, and as church. From asserting that Christ is the church, he followed that all persons in the church are identical with Christ (Christ the Center, p. 58; The Cost of Discipleship, p. 217). This amounts to pantheism!

8. He believed that Christianity is not exclusive, i.e., that Christ is not the only way to God (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 55-56).

9. He was a prominent figure in the early ecumenical movement, as evidenced through his associations with the "World Alliance for International Friendship" (a forerunner of the apostate World Council of Churches [WCC]), Union Theological Seminary, and Visser 't Hooft (who later became the first General Secretary of the WCC) (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 22, 212, 568). Bonhoeffer also reached out to Roman Catholics, prefiguring the broader ecumenism that blossomed after Vatican II in the mid-1960s.

10. He was a practical evolutionist (No Rusty Swords, p. 143), and believed that the book of Genesis was scientifically naive and full of myths (Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3).

11. He adhered to neo-orthodox theology and terminology concerning salvation (Testimony to Freedom, p. 130), was a sacramentalist (Life Together, p. 122; The Way to Freedom, pp. 115, 153), believed in regenerational infant baptism (Letters and Papers from Prison, Macmillan, pp. 142-143) as well as adult baptismal regeneration (The Way to Freedom, p. 151), equated church membership with salvation (The Way to Freedom, p. 93), and denied a personal/individualistic salvation (Letters and Papers from Prison, Macmillan, p. 156).

12. He placed little or no value on the Old Testament --"... the faith of the Old Testament is not a religion of salvation" (Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, p. 112).

13. He denied the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture, believing that the Bible was only a "witness" to the Word of God and becomes the Word of God only when it "speaks" to an individual; otherwise, it was simply the word of man/men (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 9, 104; Sanctorum Communio, p. 161). To Bonhoeffer, the Bible was meant "to be expounded as a witness, not as a book of wisdom, a teaching book, a book of eternal truth" (No Rusty Swords, p. 118). He also believed in the value of higher criticism/historical criticism, which is a denial of the inerrancy and authenticity of the Bible (Christ the Center, pp. 73-74).

14. He had no faith in the physical resurrection of Christ. Bonhoeffer believed the "historicity" of the Resurrection was in "the realm of ambiguity," and that it was one of the "mythological" elements of Christianity that "must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith." He also believed that "Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death," and that such things as miracles and the ascension of Christ were "mythological conceptions" as well (Christ the Center, p. 112; Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, pp. 93-94, 110).

Dr. G. Archer Weniger declared, "If there is wholesome food in a garbage can, then one can find some good things in Bonhoeffer, but if it be dangerous to expect to find nourishment in a garbage can, then Bonhoeffer must be totally rejected and repudiated as blasphemy. It is worse than garbage" (FBF Information Bulletin, May 1977, p. 12).

* The material in this report was adapted in part from a paper by Don Jasmin (Fundamentalist Digest, P.O. Box 2322, Elkton, MD 21922-2322). See also the 9/13/93 and 9/18/95 issues of Christian News (p. 21 and pp. 11-13, respectively), and the Oct-Dec 1991 Bibliotheca Sacra, pp. 399-408.] Continued...

Gene Robinson Publically Called to Repent

We give thanks to God that an ordinary Christian has had the courage to speak-up against the wicked heretic and pervert, Gene Robinson, at a public meeting. See here.

What the Ungodly Want from Preachers

A prophecy concerning Williams, Sentamu and Harper from Isaiah 30:9-11:

This is a rebellious people,
Lying children,
Children who will not hear the law of the LORD;
Who say to the seers, “Do not see,”
And to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things;
Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.
Get out of the way,
Turn aside from the path,
Cause the Holy One of Israel
To cease from before us.”

English Archbishops Respond to GAFCON/ FoCA

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, responds here to GAFCON/ FoCA, and John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, responds here. (I suppose the Archbishop of Armagh's statement about gay union may be part of his response.)

I guess Jesus' and John's response to the Pharisees ("brood of vipers"), and Paul's response to the Judaizers in Galatians ("anathema") and elsewhere, must seem a little "ungracious" to Sentamu. I suppose he should get Williams to counsel them in "appreciative conversation" and "interpretative charity" in such grey areas as justification. After all, why should such things divide us?

TV Programme on Judaism

Very interesting programme on Rabbinical Judaism that I watched at breakfast today. This is mainly based around the former owner of the Faith shoe shop chain (Mr Faith). Again, it emphasises how many additions to God's Word that the Pharisees added. (Modern Jews are the descendants of the Jews who rejected the Messiah for the teaching of the Pharisees. ) Just shows how far things get out of hand, when you turn your back on the Regulative Principle/ Sola Scriptura.

We may allow Gay Unions says Irish Anglican Head

It is sad to think how the Church of my maternal ancestors has declined so markedly. See here. The article shows the Archbishop's heretical hermeneutic.

I recently got a copy of the 2004 CoI Book of Common Prayer. When the CoI was separated from the CoE in 1878 it removed readings from the Apocrypha from the Lectionary. It is sad to see that in 2004 they have been added back in, along with an alternative lectionary from the Romanists (just to show that we're "all one"). Also, in the new marriage service, the vows by both parties seem to be the same, and the promise to obey and serve by the wife has been removed.

Conservative Anglican GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration

As some of you may know the latest episode in the long-overdue use of discipline in the Anglican Church has been the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem. The Church Council (which it effectively is) has issued its final statement in which they not only declare an Evangelical Anglican statement of faith, but declare the following, amongst others:

1. A form of independence from the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (which they say has always existed, although theory and practice are different): "While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

2. The formation of a new ecclesiastical organisation, "Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans" (now being referred to as "FoCA"), with a new Primates' Council (seemingly as an alternative to the current Primates' Meeting at Lambeth, etc.) within the Anglican communion.

3. Rejection of Liberal teaching as "heterodox" and a "false gospel".

4. Rejection of "the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed."

4. Encouragement of the ongoing excommuication of Liberals, including the formation of a new Anglican province in North America by the GAFCON Primates' Council.

5. Belief that the Anglican Church will continue to be "reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations."

6. Continued rejection of homosexuality.


We rejoice that Evangelical Anglicans are at last beginning to seek reformation in their church through starting to use discipline and uniting around godly confessions such as this. May God bless this attempt by our dear brethren to glorify His name!

One hopes that this a purely Evangelical movement, but questions arise such as :

a) What is an Evangelical?

b) What will GAFCON adherents mean by the Evangelical-sounding phrases in the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration?

c) Why is there a lack of statements excluding salvation by works or sacramentalism? (Although how an Anglo-Catholic could adhere to the Jerusalem Declaration is hard to see, but anyone familiar with Anglo-Catholics and "Evangelical" Romanists have seen this done before.) They may argue that the 1662 BCP excludes Sacramentalism, but does it really? The 1662 BCP is an ambiguous document at several points, and is in serious need of revision even to align it with Evangelical Anglicanism.

d) Are Evangelical Anglicans also separating from Anglo-Catholic Traditionalists/ Conservatives, who also preach another gospel? (E.g. Jensen's statement about "the sleeping giant that is evangelical Anglicanism and orthodox Anglicanism", i.e. not Evangelical Anglicanism, or Evangelical and Orthodox Anglicanism, but "evangelical Anglicanism" and "orthodox Anglicanism" as if one can be Orthodox but not Evangelical. Also, Stephen Noll's definition of Anglican Orthodoxy in which he states that it consists of both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.)

The sad fact is that Anglicanism as a Traditionalist system that does not adhere to the Regulative Priniciple is disobedient to God and has the seeds of its own destruction within it. (Just as when so-called Presbyterians slide from Biblical Presbyterianism into Committeeism, etc.)

God grant that He may enlighten us all as to our defects and sins, and in particular that He might be merciful to our Anglican brethren so this might be a Third Reformation for the Anglican Church leading them back to the attainments of the Second Puritan) Reformation (esp. the Westminster Confession of Faith) and beyond, so that they may adopt a Biblical Church government, doctrine, worship, evangelism, etc.

God grant that our Anglican brethren may see that their previous tolerance of and communion with heretics, and lack of discipline has led to the whole homosexual fracas, and that they may repent completely of it by rejecting Anglo-Catholics, etc., as heretics also.

God grant that 'Evangelical' Anglicans may see that the ordination of women and Ecumenism, etc., are as much departures from Holy Scripture as homosexuality. God grant that they may also reject Arminianism and Charismaticism.

God grant reformation to the Reformed Churches throughout the World as well, so that we might be more Biblical (holy) in all aspects of our living and ecclesiastical organisation.

God grant that Evangelicals within unorthodox, so-called Presbyterian, Reformed and Baptist denominations may also separate themselves from Liberals and heretics, and commit themselves to true, Biblical communion.

For full details see here and here.

Continued...

Against Modalism 12: The Father and the Son both Dwell in the Believer

John 14:23
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Here we see both the Father and the Son making there home in the believer. Clearly this is not the humanity of the Son, for man's spirit is finite, so it must be His divinity, and yet both the divinity of the Son and the Father make their home in the believer. (We also know elsewhere that the Holy Spirit dwells in believers.)

This shows that the Son and the Father are distinct, divine persons.

Against Modalism 11: Is the Father (or Jesus) Talking to Himself? (Or is Jesus His own Father?)

John 17
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

“But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

Please take the time to read this extended prayer from Christ the Son to the Father. Is this really the Father talking to Himself? Or (for other Modalists) is this Jesus talking to Himself? There is a clear, personal distinction between the Son and the Father.

Some Modalists may argue that this is the humanity of Christ talking to God the Father. However, the Son who speaks here was with the Father in eternity (v. 5). This is the one who was loved by the Father in eternity (v. 24).

Modalists complain about us dividing the one person of God into three persons (which we do not, but we believe in three distinct persons in the one being of God), but those who argue that here we have the humanity of Christ praying to the Divinity of the Father heretically divide the person of Christ.

Just to touch upon personal pronouns: here we have I and you, me and you, yours and mine, etc. The first and second persons distinguish between one person (I) and another person (you). This is another reason why Christians are forced by the clear facts of Scripture to believe in the Trinity, even though it may seem a hard thing to understand. We do not twist the facts, because to do so would be to deny the Lord to our own destruction (2 Pet. 2:1; 3:15,16; 1 John 2:22,23).

Read the passage and think about it…

Continued...

Against Modalism 10: A Present Intercessor with the Father

Mark 16:19
So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Romans 8:34
Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

Hebrews 7:25
Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Hebrews 8:1
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens…

1 John 2:1
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Jesus the Christ has risen to the right hand of God in heaven. What is He doing there? Amongst other things, He is interceding on our behalf as our High Priest and will do so until the end of the World.

However, He is interceding with the Father. He is distinct from the Father. Is the Father interceding with Himself? No, Christ is. This is a problem for the Modalists, because they must divide the person of Christ: the humanity must intercede with the same Deity that indwells Him, that is the Father. For the Trinitarians, the totality of the Son, human and divine, one united person, intercedes with the Father.

Continued...

Distinction and Separation in the Trinity

Why use 'distinction', instead of 'separation' in relation to how the Three Persons subsist in the One Divine Essence? This is a question of semantics, but I prefer, along with most thinking Trinitarians, to use the word 'distinct' as opposed to 'separate' for good reasons.

We prefer not to say that these Persons are separate, lest we undermine the truth that there is one and only God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not separated from each other. This would be Tri-theism, not Trinitarianism. They share the one divine substance (to use feeble, human words), or each one has the fullness of God.

As the Athanasian Creed says:

3. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

Note that we also don't "confound the persons": there is a real distinction between them.

And again the Westminster Confession:

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. (WCF 2:3)

As I have stated elsewhere, I don't quote these as having inherent authority, but as expressing what I believe to be Scriptural truth.

Again, this is semantics; if someone says that they believe in separate Persons in the one God, then they probably mean the same thing, but I think that the word 'separate' can be misleading and is not as accurate.

There is an interrelation and unity between the Three Person that is a mystery to us, i.e. it is hidden from us and beyond our knowledge:

"I and My Father are one." (John 10:30)

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29)

Continued...

Against Modalism 9: The Divine Son Sent by the Father from Heaven to Save the World

John 3: 13,16,17
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man… For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

John 7:29
But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent Me.

1 John 4:14
In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins… And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world.

Here we are told that the Son of Man came down from heaven. He was sent into the World by God – that is God the Father. How can we explain this? Given that we know that the Son is God, then only the Trinitarian view that both the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the Godhead makes any sense.

God in His love sent His only begotten Son to save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and with them the rest of Creation (Romans 8:19-22).

John 6:38-51,69
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven... What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?”

Again, we see in this passage that the Son was sent from heaven by the Father; for heaven was where “He was before”. The Son is not merely the humanity of Christ; neither can He be the Father in another manifestation, for it is the Father who sends the Son. So again, we see that only the Trinitarian view of God makes sense in light of this evidence.

John 3:31-36
He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Moreover, in this next passage, not only do we see the Son sent from heaven from the Father, but we see the Spirit as distinct from God. How can this be? The Father stands here in the economic Trinity on behalf of the whole Godhead in sending the Son to bring everlasting life and giving the Son the Holy Spirit to sustain Him in His humanity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but the One God, committed to His people's salvation.

Continued...

Against Modalism 8: The Eternal Son 3

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Here again we see Jesus Christ described as the one through whom are all things and yet He is described as distinct from the Father, so again His pre-existence is affirmed.

‘Ah, but what about “one God, the Father”?’ say the Modalists. Fair point, but given the evidence against the Modalist position, can it really be affirming their position?

The reality is that this statement says too much. Modalists come in various shapes and sizes (modes?). For those who believe that there is one Divine Person who is manifested in different forms, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is a problem. If God is restricted to “the Father” in this sense, then God must be restricted to the Father mode, i.e. there can be no God the Son mode, nor any God the Holy Spirit mode.

Even for other Modalists, a similar issue exists: whatever way you try to use a “God = The Father” as opposed to “God = The Son” or “God = The Holy Spirit”, you’re still placing a restriction that destroys your ‘Oneness’ theology.

So what does “one God, the Father” mean? The word Father in relation to God is used in various senses: one is the Divine Person who bears a relation of Father to the Divine Person called the Son; another is of God as the Father of His adopted children (believers); and lastly, God as ultimate progenitor of all things, or God as Creator.

In this last sense, God is described in this passage as Father, or ultimate progenitor. He is the one ”of whom are all things”. This is especially relevant to the pagans in the preceding verses, who generally conceived of an Ultimate ‘One’ who is Father, or Source, of all (Acts 17:28,29), including the multitude of so-called gods; yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him. There are no other ‘gods’.

To those who use this verse to deny the deity of Christ, they should consider these verses as a sample: Matt. 1:23; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20.

Again, lest my main point be lost in answering the objection, here we see Jesus Christ described as the one through whom are all things and yet He is described as distinct from the Father, so again His pre-existence is affirmed.

Continued...

Book on Oneness Theology

I've come across this book in my investigations. It can be previewed here and it looks like a valuable resource for anyone considering the debate between Trinitarians and Modalists. (I regret to say that I don't have it as yet!)

The same gentleman has a website on the subject here.

Against Modalism 7: The Eternal Son 2

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh…

As far as I understand it, Modalists usually regard “the Son” as the human manifestation of God, when the Father became incarnate in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. This humanity is what was begotten in time by the divine power of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

However, in this passage we see the Son being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Clearly “the Son” is personally distinct from the Father (otherwise how could God send Him?), and the Son existed separately from human flesh and prior to His Incarnation (otherwise what does sending the Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” mean?).

John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

It is in the Son’s relation to the Father as the divine Son that He is equal with God. It is this divine Sonship, not a supernatural birth produced without a human father that is the problem for the Jews (and for Modalists).

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, states here that He came down from heaven. This cannot refer to the humanity of Christ, yet it cannot refer to the Father as He also says that He was sent to do the will of Him who sent Him. He who sent Him and whose will He did is personally distinct from this divine being from heaven.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law…

Again, this passage repeats the fact that God the Father sent the Son from heaven, and that this Son was not the humanity, because why would it be remarkable to say that a human was born of a woman?

1 John 1:1-3
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life — the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us — that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Jesus as the ”Word of Life” was ”from the beginning” and thus eternal, and yet He was distinct from the Father (”with the Father”).

Isaiah 48:12-16
”Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. When I call to them, they stand up together.
All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; He shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper.
Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

Here “the First" and "the Last”, the One who “laid the foundation of the earth” and “stretched out the heavens”, the One who speaks here in the days of Isaiah, and who says, “from the time that it was, I was there”, says, ”And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

Clearly this is the eternal God, the creator of all things, and yet He is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and is sent by them. This is the eternal, divine Son, not His temporal humanity, which accords perfectly with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Hebrews 1:1,2
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds…

The Son is the one through whom the Father made the worlds. “The Son” as the Son was present at the creation of the universe and was distinct from the Father.

Hebrews 1:5-8
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”?
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your kingdom.”

The Firstborn is brought into the world. This clearly refers to the Son existing prior to His birth and as having an origin in heaven.

Again, to the Son the Father says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” The Son is not merely the humanity of Christ. This is not Thomas speaking to the God-man, but the Father referring to the Son.

(Modalists often use v. 5 to claim that the Son is born only in time. Some Trinitarians would say that the “today” is in eternity, e.g. Augustine. I would be inclined to think that it does refer to His Incarnation given the context of Psalm 2 concerning the Mediatorial Kingship of the Messiah. A temporal birth (which He clearly had) does not preclude an eternal begottenness. Trinitarians do not use the term Son to refer only to His divinity, but the totality of who the Son is: His undivided personhood as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. However, my focus is not on this verse, but the other ones.)

Hebrews 7:3
…without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God…

Here Melchizedek is compared with the Son in that he almost appears to be eternal. Melchizedek of course isn’t, but the Son clearly is from this passage.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Although this is a disputed text, yet I am personally persuaded that it is original and thus I quote it. (See here for an example argument.) It is clear what it says.

If you reject the above reading because of a belief in the superiority of the Alexandrian text-type or eclectic considerations, then try this for an Alexandrian reading:

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Need I say more?

Continued...

Against Modalism 6: The Eternal Son 1

One of the great distinctions between generic Modalism (apologises to Modalists who differ) and Trinitarianism is the following:

• Modalists believe that God the Father became incarnate in the humanity of Jesus Christ and that the Son became begotten in time at the point of the Incarnation. The Son is the "incarnate mode" of the Father. God is eternally one person.
  
• Trinitarians believe that the one God has eternally consisted of three distinct persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son has existed eternally as God. Only the Son became incarnate, when "the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continues to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever." "Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin." (Westminster Shorter Catechism Questions 21, 22).
  

I will try to show from Scripture that this orthodox belief is correct and the Modalist heresy is wrong. This will be a fairly simple exposition of these texts as I'm not writing a book, nor do I have the time.

John 1:1-3,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here we see that there was a person called “The Word” who was with God and yet was God. The Word is thus shown as both God and yet distinct from God. This Word is the only begotten of the Father, i.e. the eternal being called “the Word” is not the Father.

Who is “the Word”? Verse 14 and the rest of John 1 make clear that the eternal Word was made flesh as Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.

Also, all things were made through the Word, so if the Son only came to exist at the point that Jesus’ humanity was conceived, then how could this be?

This shows both that the Son is eternal, very God and yet distinct from the Father.

See also here.

Colossians 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

Again, all things were made through the Firstborn, so the Son did not begin to exist at the Incarnation. This repeats the theology of John 1, that all things were created by, through and for Him. Not only did the Son (as distinct from the Father) create all things, but all things were created through Him.Who was creating through the Son? It was the Father.

See also here.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Christ was with the Father before the World existed. He is shown as present in eternity and yet distinct from the Father.

See also here.

Philippians 2:5-11
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Christ was “in the form of God” and yet “equal with God” before His Incarnation. He was divine, distinct from God in some sense and yet equal with God. This glory that He had with the Father from all eternity he laid aside to take upon himself the “form of a bondservant” and “likeness of man” in His humiliation.

Paul clearly quote from Isaiah 45:23,24, where Yahweh says, “[T]o Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath.” All will declare Christ to be the Lord, or ‘Kurios’ in the Greek, which was the translation of the Hebrew ‘Yahweh’ in the Greek version of the Old Testament, due to the sensitivity about the divine name Yahweh among the Jews.

So Yahweh declares before the Incarnation something about Himself, which will happen in the person of Christ. This will be to the glory of the Father as distinct from Jesus Christ, whom all will confess is Yahweh.

All of this aligns perfectly with Trinitarianism which believes that Christ is the eternal Son of God, who is God, and yet distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. We believe that He joined to His divine nature a fully human nature, and that He will continue to have this divine/ human nature to all eternity.

See also here.
Continued...

Against Modalism 5: Is Trinitarianism Pagan?

Apart from portraying Trinitarians as believing in three Gods, Modalists and other Unitarians attempt an ad hominem fallacy by asserting that Trinitarianism comes from paganism, i.e. guilt by association. Even if paganism had such an idea, it would not invalidate the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The reality is that such a concept is utterly alien to paganism.

Some Modalists, that I have debated with, backed-up their assertion by asking me to consult the Free Church of Scotland pastor Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons.

In this book against Romanism, he just shows how that pseudo-church corrupted its worship by the introduction of Tri-theistic and Modalistic images from paganism to represent the Trinity. As a true Presbyterian (as opposed to liberalism), he abhorred the syncretism and idolatry of that system. As a true Presbyterian, it is absurd to suggest that he was suggesting that Trinitarianism was rooted in paganism, nor is there any evidence of this in the book.

None of these pagan triads were like the Trinity in their metaphysical state. They were either Tri-theistic (three gods, not one God in three Persons), often with this triad over further sub-gods; or Modalistic, where the one, supreme deity was manifest in different forms or modes, e.g. as he states on p. 18, “In India, the supreme divinity… is represented with three heads on one body, under the name of ‘Eko Deva Trimurtti,’ ‘One God, three forms.’”

If anything, Hislop’s work shows a connection between Modalism (one God, three forms – or more) and paganism.

Also, as the early church leaders (e.g. Hippolytus) argued in their writings, Modalism was derived from the pagan Greek philosophy of Heraclitus and Plato, who believed that God was a Monad.

Unitarians’ own moulding of Scripture to fit their philosophical presuppositions is evident when they urge that it is ridiculous to believe that one God could consist of three Persons. Why not? This is begging the question. (See the previous article.)

The following quote from B.B. Warfield’s Biblical Doctrines (pp. 133, 134) is worth reproducing:

“In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any ethnic religion present in its representations of the Divine Being any analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity.

“Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all poly¬theistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all.

“Sometimes, as in the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, they represent the cyclic movement of a pantheistic evolution, and symbolize the three stages of Being, Becoming and Dissolution. Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than an odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three widespread standing as a sacred number (so H. Usener).

“It is no more than was to be anticipated, that one or another of these triads should now and again be pointed to as the replica (or even the original) of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheising notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e. g., Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo's neo-Stoical doctrine of the "powers," especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham's three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zim¬mern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology.

“It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of ‘threeness,’ and beyond their ‘threeness’ these triads have nothing in common with it.”
Continued...

Against Modalism 4: Not One God and Three Gods, nor Three Persons and One Person

To continue clearing some ground, some Unitarians laugh and say, "Trinitarians are ridiculous! How could there be three Gods and yet one God?"

It would be illogical to say that there is one God and three Gods, or one person who is three persons (A = 3A or B = 3B), but the Trinitarians do not oppose the rules of logic. We nowhere state such things. This is the fallacy of category.

We say that there is one God in three persons. “God” and “person” are different categories, so this true representation of Trinitarianism is logical (A = 3B). For example, is it illogical to say that I am one person, but have two constituents: a body and a soul? (Although the being of God is not absolutely analogous to this.)

God is unique and beyond our experience and comprehension. We should not seek to mould him to our own experience, but humbly submit to His self-revelation.
Continued...

Against Modalism 3: The Seriousness of the Situation

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of those doctrines which Scripture clearly reveals in its basic facts and yet is hard to fully comprehend. This prompts some 'untaught and unstable people' to 'twist' these teachings 'to their own destruction'.

...our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15,16)

What a serious thing heresy is, not only for the Church, but also for the heretics themselves, esp. in denying the Lord and who He is:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22,23)

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-9)

But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe... raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever... “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”... These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit. (Jude 5,13-15,19)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them.
We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1-6)

Although this passage relates directly to the Gnostics who taught that Christ didn't really come in the flesh, but was a spirit who gave the appearance of having flesh, how much more serious is it to deny the distinct personality of the eternal Son in distinction from the Father? It may well be that Modalists could be directly included in this passage, as they deny that the eternal Son came in the flesh, for they really believe that the Father was the one who came in the flesh, in the humanity of Jesus Christ.

Let those who are taught Modalism by their leaders examine these teachings in the light of Holy Scripture and thus 'test the spirits, whether they are of God'. Let them be like the Bereans who were praised for holding the Apostle Paul accountable to the Word of God (Acts 17:11).

Those who teach others and lead them astray so seriously are severely warned:

My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (James 3:1)

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6)

Modalists are not members of Christ's body as true believers have 'one Lord' and 'one faith' (Eph. 4:5), but Modalists have a different Lord and a different faith.
Continued...

Against Modalism 2: We Believe in One God

Q. Are there more Gods than one?
A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

— Question 5 of the Shorter Catechism, which Presbyterian children traditionally learn.

In the debate with Modalists and other Unitarians, Trinitarians are often said to believe in three Gods, or they quote passages that state that there is one God as if we did not believe this.

We do not believe in three Gods. We believe in one God and our confessions, creeds, books and articles over millennia make this abundantly clear.

To say that we believe in three Gods, or several, is not merely a misunderstanding, it is an inexcusable misrepresentation, or at best culpable ignorance. To persist in declaring such untruths while conscious of knowledge to the contrary is to wilfully lie.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

Furthermore to merely quote passages which affirm a belief in one God is also misleading and distracts from the real point of difference: are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit three distinct persons in the one God, or three manifestations of the one Divine Person?
Continued...