The Oneness of God and the Doctrine of the Trinity

THE ONENESS OF GOD AND

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Kulwant Singh Boora

AuthorHouse™

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.authorhouse.com

Phone: 1-800-839-8640

© 2009 Kulwant Singh Boora. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

First published by AuthorHouse 10/22/2009

ISBN: 978-1-4490-0843-7 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4490-0844-4 (e)

Preface

As an Indian with a Sikh background, the concept of theology was always intriguing and fascinating. It was while studying theology with the University of Wales that a burning desire to know more about the oneness of God and the doctrine of the Trinity became paramount, which promoted the need to find out the underlying theologies about the subject matter.

The real Church was established about A.D. 33 on the day of Pentecost in the Book of Acts, which did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity to its followers. Jesus and his Apostles did not teach or imply a notion of the doctrine of the Trinity, they where pure oneness believers that believed in one eternal God. The doctrine of the Trinity on the other hand, has become one of the most complicated and profound doctrines that have ever existed in Christendom.

Yet when it is subjected to critical theological analysis, one will find that it is not as concrete as many suggest. Being of a Sikh background, it made much more sense believing in one supreme eternal God, than three so called persons. Sikh’s believe in one Supreme Being, as do the Jews, the similarities are outstandingly close. The belief of the Jews equates to the elements found within Sikhism and that is that they acknowledge and believe in one eternal God.

In the author’s view, it would be paradoxical to leave the belief in one God for that of three persons and one substance. Clearly the Apostle Paul did not abandon the Hebraic principle of Monotheism for that of one substance and three persons. It is evident that for a Jew to believe in more than one divinity would be idolatry and blasphemy, hence the reason why the Apostle Paul maintained and continued the practice and belief in one eternal God, teaching it to as many as he could.

This study will hopefully shed light on this subject that is constantly debated and defended by those who adhere to Church dogmas. In sum, this book briefly touches the surface of a subject that in all reality would take a life to understand. The belief in one eternal God, namely, monotheism and oneness is a practice that continued into the New Testament, whereas, the Trinitarian doctrine developed centuries later by human construct, and philosophic language.

Kulwant Singh Boora

Author

Acknowledgments

I thank God the eternal creator for all that He has done in my life, and for giving me strength from day to day, without Him I would not be here.

To my dear parents whom I dearly love with my heart that have been instrumental in my life and a tower of strength, my mother and father who always believed in me, thank you. I also extend appreciation to my lovely brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews who reside in England.

To my lovely and precious wife, Stephanie L. Boora and my precious son, Aidan Everett Boora, who have been very patient while I spent endless hours locked away in my study room researching and reading about this subject in preparation for this book, thank you for all your support, I could not have asked for a better family, you are a gift from God.

To Dr. Mark Gadd as my former Pastor, Birmingham, England you really understood my desire for the Word and to reach the lost, you and your family were truly wonderful people, your wife, Beth a real treasure; I really appreciated all that you and your family had done for me, thank you.

To Dr. Willie J. Duncan for providing guidance on a variety of theological subjects, you gave great support when many would have not, thank you for your time and all your assistance including supervision, and for personally taking time to spend it with my family and me.

To Pastors John A. Hemus (Liverpool); Keith Linton (Manchester); Pastor Colin Adlam (Nottingham), your continual support meant a lot to me, even though you are across the Atlantic, in England you all took personal attention to my goal and desire to produce this work and spent numerous hours on praying and fasting for me, it is truly a blessing to know true men of God; your support outweighed that of many.

To Dr. Fyffe, the influence that you had on my life in seeking to know more about the truth kept prompting me to know more and more, you never stopped sharing the Word of God with me and I always felt I learnt something new, it was your original influence that led to all this research, you always taught me to keep digging for the truth, it is hard to find these days individuals that really know the Word, thank you for your influence and encouragement.

To Peter J. Loughlin, former Adjunct Professor at Kesier College, Florida and attorney who immediately recognized my potential and continued endlessly in providing support, guidance and timeless assistance, Peter thank you for all your support, you always made me feel like I could take on greater things that I thought possible.

To Jenelda E. Witcher, attorney and counselor at law, who believed in me when many did not, your support, guidance and counseling went a long way, thank you for seeing the talent that God had given me, you gave me opportunities to develop my skills and talents and provided substantial tutoring, again, thank you.

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1. The Shema - Deuteronomy 6:4 Monotheism

2. The Trinity

3. Council Of Nicea And Beyond

4. Selected Passage Of The Old Testament - Genesis 1:26

5. Debate: Trinitarians V. Non-Triniatrians An Oxford Theologicans Study

Conclusion

Selected Quotes

Bibliography

"But when one is asked to believe something which one cannot

even spell out at all in intelligible terms, it is right to stop and

push the questioning one stage back."

Professor Maurice Wiles, Oxford Theologian, The Myth of God Incarnate, ed.

John Hick, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA. 1977, p. 5.

Introduction

A number of books have been written regarding the development of doctrine of the Trinity, some of which are very complex and perhaps confusing, while others are written to reinforce humanly constructed views handed down throughout the centuries. Theologians and academic scholars alike have devoted considerable time in attempting to explain such a doctrine by human reason, rational reflection and intellect.

Notwithstanding such human inspiration, there are vast difficulties in providing a systematic and coherent understanding of the Trinitarian formula. To overcome such an obstacle, a number of renowned theological and religious scholars are forced to conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity or the concept of the triune God is a divine mystery and one which is only revealed by ‘divine revelation,’ ‘general revelation’ or even ‘special revelation.’

Yet this revelation as they suggest is the channel and vehicle by which God imparts into the believer’s mind the ability to accept the concept of the Trinity. Not surprisingly, what emerges from this revelation is a convoluted perception, which places the recipient of the revelation in the untenable position of trying to provide his or her audience with an adequate explanation of such a phenomenon.

As will be explored, this artificial understanding into the insight of divine revelation as it relates to the mystical proponents of the trinity was far from a singular unified view. Rather, what will become apparent is that throughout the centuries and certainly within the earlier periods, theologians and believers were divided on the defining characteristics of the Trinity within the structure of divine revelation.

What allegedly started off as a divinely revealed mystical truth, resultantly, became the same obstacle that rendered the individual’s explanation as an untenable opinion, by appealing to human Creeds and documents that are formulated by platonic and philosophical jargon. This Trinitarian phenomenon in return prompts questions regarding the very source from which the revelation was allegedly sent.

If God is to provide human beings with miraculous revelation, He would not do so at the peril of being brought into question when examined in light of consistent and systematic interpretation(s) e.g. what goes for one goes for the other. God must herald a pattern that is universally agreeable and not one that is doubted and theologically divided that seeks to explain the revelation in various stages throughout the centuries.

One must for example contrast Luke 24:44-45 where the Lord opened all of the Apostles’ understanding with the exact same text, with the exact same revelation, with the exact same result and not one that took centuries to evolve, explain and understand. This of itself should at least as a bare minimum demonstrate the consistency of divine revelation from the exact same text with the exact same result.

The late, highly acclaimed Oxford Theologian, Professor Maurice Wiles provides impetus to this line of reasoning: But when one is asked to believe something which one cannot even spell out at all in intelligible terms, it is right to stop and push the questioning one stage back.¹ Professor Wiles provides a compelling and irrefutable proposition that should prompt question(s) that challenge the very fabric of Trinitarian doctrinal theology.

Equally, what will also become clear is that Trinitarians are unable to point to which one within the triune God is the one who is assigned the role of revelator. In other words, the revelation that was revealed to Saul on the Damascus Road, Acts 9:5, was revealed by Jesus whereas on contrast the divine revelation that Peter received came from God as testified by Jesus, Matthew 16:17. In one instance Jesus is portrayed as the revealer, whereas, on another occasion it is God who is the revealer to which Jesus testifies.

Understandably if the Trinitarian doctrine is allegedly a divinely revealed truth, we struggle to find the framework in which divine revelation operates, for example, who is the one that reveals the truth is it God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit? In the foregoing paragraph we see that the role of administering such a revelation is not assignable to any particular deity thus clouding our thinking as to who is the one that is assigned to provide Trinitarian revelation, let alone spiritual understanding to such a mystical revelation.

On contrast, Trinitarians seek to challenge the very fibers of the monotheistic and oneness belief system, arguing that even Deuteronomy 6:4 is of Trinitarian origin and interpretation. It is these areas of the unknown that will ultimately challenge the very core and basis of the oneness belief. The question must be asked have we misread the Shema in its liturgical sense as well as syntactically or rhetorically and perhaps even theologically.

Have we genuinely confused the predicate with the subject while including the verb in its English grammatical setting, not knowing that the Nash Papyrus, which is one the oldest Hebrew witnesses to Deuteronomy 6:4, dating around 100 B.C.² follows the Massoretic text except for one critical addition? Was this critical addition an attempt by a scribe to clarify the syntactical relationship between Yahweh `ehãd?

Also what meaning should be attached to the Hebrew word `ehãd, the numerical one or a compound unit, while not forgetting the theological significance of why the Massoretes enlarged the final radicals of the first and last words of Deuteronomy 6:4 (the ` in the shema` and the d in `ehãd). Which two letters (`d) spell the Hebrew word for "witness" (‘ed’); but what would it be a witness to and to whom, a question to which the answer will be revealed as you continue to read.

Conversely, in order to provide a comprehensive approach to this subject it will also be essential and needful to look at other factors in the sequence, namely, historical developments, liturgical practices, literary genres and narratives, linguistic proponents, scriptural texts, etc, all of which will comprise a body of understanding. This body of understanding will contribute to the overall theme of this book by building up a library of knowledge that will enable to reader to draw his or her own conclusions and inferences.

It would only seem natural to start our investigation with a detailed look at Deuteronomy 6:4 seeing that this was the core basis of Judaic theology; then proceed to review the events that lead to Nicea and post-Nicea, to the eventual formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Following on from this we shall consider an Old Testament passage that is frequently quoted to indicate and suggest a strong Trinitarian view.

In sum, this book is primarily intended to provide the oneness believer with some form of practical guidance on how to defend and perhaps critique the Trinitarian view. It is not intended to be a comprehensive guide on the actual doctrine of the Trinity and its formulation since there are volumes of academic and scholastic material on the subject that are available for the reader that will set the tone of understanding.

The author anticipates that you prayerfully read the contents. In all of what is presented herein the author would like to give the glory to God. His mercy and grace enabled me to find such truths, and present them in this book.

…Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere ‘monotheist.’ We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged.

Karl Rahner, The Trinity, translated by Joseph Donceel,

New York, Crossroad, 1977, p. 10-11.

Karl Rahner was viewed as one of the greatest

Catholic Theologians of the 20th Century

Former Peritus at Vatican Council II and Former Professor

Dogmatic Theology at Munster

"Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the

Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have

depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever

attained to the doctrine of

the Trinity."

Late renowned conservative theological scholar Benjamin B. Warfield.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p.3012.

1

THE SHEMA - DEUTERONOMY 6:4

MONOTHEISM

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306

The beginning of beginnings must be the Old Testament, since this was the foundation of the early Church long before the doctrine of Trinity and as the highly esteemed Professor Marvin N. Wilson has stated: …Thus knowledge of beginnings is central to biblical thought….³ Maintaining a clear understanding of Old Testament teachings will demonstrate how it has survived in the New Testament period right up until the death of the Apostles who were pioneers and practitioners of the sacred written text.

What is about to follow in the forthcoming paragraphs will ultimately challenge as well as reinforce a oneness understanding. Sadly beneath the once held belief of a single unique God, a trend is emerging that falls foul to misguided theological interpretations. Only those who desire to bridge the gap of faith-based teaching with the scholarship arena will see a gradual departure in this post-modern era of what Judaism sought to protect and religiously embrace, as practiced and taught by the Apostles.

Not surprisingly then, Western scholars have sought little dialogue in embracing Jewish exegesis with devastating consequences, which have distanced themselves from Jewish roots and religious practices. To the extent that some modern Western scholars are forced to recognize that expertise of Old Testament beliefs, customs and practices are dominantly a field to which the Jewish scholars dominate. Professor of New Testament Studies, Richard N. Longnecker of McMaster University and University of Toronto, Canada alludes to this view.

His study entitled, Biblical Exegesis In The Apostolic Period, explicitly recognizes that: Jewish scholars usually evidence a greater expertise than Christians in dealing with data of Early Judaism….⁴ Western civilization is plagued with so much dogma about the Trinity that even Jewish literature of Middle Eastern origin is generally viewed through the spectacles of Western presuppositions of Trinitarian philosophies and ideologies thereby avoiding impartial evaluations of the text.

It is for this very reason that even scholars in this post modern era echo warnings that seek to safeguard students from absorbing erroneous theories and hidden agendas of interpretations that seek to read out of the Bible ideas, which are in fact catapulted into it that subtly promote steady departure from Biblical doctrines. This very issue underlines the importance that what was once accepted as a genuine practice and belief is now rejected on the basis of scientific knowledge and data.

One esteemed scholar, Professor Gerald Bray, Professor of Anglican Studies at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, Alabama points out that: "Recent publications also indicate that more and more scholars are bringing their own fairly well-defined agendas to the biblical text, seeking to read out of it the ideas which in fact they are importing into it."⁵ Putting this another way is what the late Rudolf Bultman (1884-1976) insisted. Bultman insisted that exegesis without presupposition is impossible,⁶ especially if you are presupposing the results of the exegesis inside defined Trinitarian agendas and dogmas.

As will be seen in this Chapter what was once a fortified doctrine and belief is now labeled under the auspices of problematic and unreliable. It is for this very reason that Jewish literature must take precedence in explaining Old Testament understanding of Israelite and Jewish theology. One thing that many Christian believers seem to forget with regards to Jewish data, material and literature is that the early Church was predominantly Jewish, which relied heavily on Old Testament texts.

It is not surprising that Professor Wilson is right to point out that the Church has neglected its Jewish roots, which may provide the answer as to why there is also a departure from New Testament understanding, beliefs and practices regarding Jewish and Hebraic roots. He alludes to the belief that: "The roots of Christianity run deep into Hebrew soil. Though the Hebrew heritage of the Church is rich and extensive, many Christians are regrettably uninformed about it."⁷

Another scholar, Professor Darrell L. Bock, Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, equally supports Professor Wilson’s comments by acknowledging that: Evangelicals have often neglected the role of Jewish theology as the framework of theological discussion in the first century.⁸ Neglecting Jewish theology ultimately has adverse consequences that run over into New Testament theology.

Again this may be the reason as to why biblical scholarship and individuals have shown a gradual departure from Old Testament thinking. Yet, it must be borne in mind as the late renowned world British New Testament scholar Professor F.F. Bruce put it:

"Christianity was regarded as nothing

more than a new sect of Judaism…."⁹

Bruce