Jesus Christ is the Son of God (not "God the Son, " a phrase not
found in Scripture), begotten of the Virgin Mary by the
power of the Holy Spirit
This doctrine affirms that Jesus was the Son or offspring of God, and that God
had the power and authority to cause his birth. As his position was to be the
savior of men, it was necessary that he be a man, not an immortal, preexistent
being. Like all flesh-born sons of men, he developed embryonically in his
mother's womb for approximately nine months: "And Joseph also went up from
Galilee ... with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was,
that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be
delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son ..." (Luke 2:4-7).
The covenant of circumcision was an adjunct of the Mosaic law, and all Jewish
males were required to be circumcised on the eighth day. Childbirth defiled the
Jewish mother, and certain purification rites were necessary for cleansing:
"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be
unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity
shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be
circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three
and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the
sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid
child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall
continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days" (Lev.
12:2-6). Condemnation passed upon all men as a result of Edenic disobedience.
All descendants of Adam came under this sentence of death merely by being born,
and Jesus was no exception (Rom. 5:12, 18; cp. Heb. 2:14, 16-18).
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child,
his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was
conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the
law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him
to the Lord" (Luke 2:21-22). In the act of circumcision there was an
acknowledgment of the existence of sin and of the necessity of blood to remove
sin. If we believe the testimony of the Bible, we will acknowledge a Jesus who
was born after the usual course of man's development from conception to birth.
However, as our proposition above is stated, he was begotten of the virgin Mary
by the power of the Holy Spirit. God was his Father, in that God caused the
power of the Holy Spirit to overshadow Mary and to work germinatively upon her.
As a virgin, she had known no man. No mortal man had anything to do with the
birth of Christ, not Joseph nor anyone else. When God announced at Jesus'
baptism that "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"
(Matt. 3:17), He was expressing a relationship that substantively existed, a Son
of His begettal.
It is evident that the wording of the
proposition under review is a direct disputation of the trinitarian theory.
Instead of Christendom's "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost," the Bible teaches quite clearly that there is one God, who is the
Father and supreme head of all things, that His Son is of His begettal and
brought forth in the birth process from a mortal woman, and that the Holy
Spirit is God's special power which He utilizes for selective purposes. The
testimony of Luke 1: 3 5 should satisfy the inquiring mind with its reference
to the specific assignments of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: "And the
angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
We have heard that the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted into "the
church" by a single vote. Perhaps some reader could write in to verify the
source of this statement, if it is correct. It really makes no difference how
it came to be accepted into "the church" as long as we recognize that
it is a fallacious piece of sophistry. It is a well documented fact that the
doctrine of the Trinity officially became sanctioned by
"Christianity" at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. The work of
establishing the church's position on the matter was prominently influenced by
Athanasius (298-373), bishop of Alexandria. We hear the terms, Nicene Creed and
Athanasian Creed, referred to in the theological discussions about the Trinity.
The following quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica provides some
information which should be interesting to those seeking the background of the
trinitarian theory:
"Arius had received his theological education in the school of the
presbyter Lucian of Antioch, a learned man, and distinguished especially as a
biblical scholar. The latter was a follower of Paul of Samosata, bishop of
Antioch, who had been excommunicated in 269, but his theology differed from
that of his master in a fundamental point. Paul, starting with the conviction
that the One God cannot appear substantially on earth, and, consequently, that
he cannot have become man in Jesus Christ, had taught that God had filled the
man Jesus with his logos or power. Lucian, on the other hand, persisted in
holding that the logos became man in Christ. But since he shared the
above-mentioned belief of his master nothing remained for him but to see in the
logos a second essence, created by God before the world, which came down to
earth and took upon himself a human body. In this body the logos filled the
place of the intellectual or spiritual principle. Lucian's Christ, then, was
not 'perfect man,' for that which constituted in him the personal element was a
divine essence;. nor was he 'perfect God,' ****for the divine essence was a
created being. It is this idea which Arius took up and interpreted. His
doctrinal position is explained in his letters to his patron Eusebius, bishop
of the imperial city of Nicomedia, and to Alexander of Alexandria, and in the
fragments of the poem in which he set forth his dogmas. From these writings it
can even nowadays be seen clearly that the principal object which he had in
view was firmly to establish the unity and simplicity of the eternal God.
However far the Son may surpass other created beings, he remains himself a
created being, to whom the Father before all time gave an existence formed ,out
of nothing.' Arius was quite unconscious that his own monotheism was hardly to
be distinguished from that of the pagan philosophers, and that this Christ was
a demigod."
It (the controversy) reached even the ears of Constantine. Now sole emperor, he
saw in the one Catholic Church the best means of counteracting the movement in
his vast empire towards disintegration; and he at once realized how dangerous
dogmatic strife might prove to its unity. Constantine had no understanding of
the questions at issue; and no course was left but to summon a general or
ecumenical council, which was convened in Nicaea in 325. After various turns in
the controversy, it was finally decided, against Arius, that the Son was
"of the same substance" with the Father, and all thought of his being
created or even subordinate had to be excluded. Constantine accepted the
decision of the council and resolved to uphold it.
Also, see Nicaea, Council of "The Council of Nicaea is an
event of the highest importance in the history of Christianity. Its convocation
by Constantine and its course illustrate the radical
revolution which the position of this religion, within the confines of the
Roman empire, had undergone in consequence of the Edict of Milan. From his
accession Constantine had shown himself the friend of the Christians; and, when
his victory over Licinius (A.D. 3 2 3) gave him undisputed possession of the
crown, he adhered to this religious policy distinguishing and fortifying the
Christian cause by gratuities and grants of privilege. This propitiatory
attitude originated in the fact that he recognized Christianity - which had
successfully braved so many persecutions - as the most vital and vigorous of
religions, and as the power of the future ... The deliberations on the Arian
question passed through several distinct stages before the final condemnation
of Arius and his doctrines was reached ... Accordingly Constantine proposed
that the Caesarean creed should be modified by the insertion of the Alexandrian
passwords (including the decisive term, 'identical in nature'), as if for the
purpose of more accurate definition, and by the deletion of certain portions.
That he appreciated the import of these alterations, or realized that this
revision was virtually the proclamation of a new doctrine, is scarcely
probable. The creed thus evolved by an artificial unity was no ratification of
peace: in fact, it 4 paved the way for a struggle which convulsed the whole
empire."
Also, see Athanasius the Great: "Alexander had inherited from
his predecessor the, disorders caused by the schismatic ordinations of
Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, who had intruded himself during the persecution
into the diocese. To these in 319 were added the dissension caused by the
teaching of Arius. Arius taught that the Son of God was a created being. There
was a time when he did not exist. He was, indeed, the first born of all
creatures and surpassed them in dignity. Through him all other creatures were
made. But he could only be called divine in a limited and secondary sense.
Arius also denied the full humanity of Christ. He held that this semi-divine
being only took a body through which he acted. The Council of Nicaea were
forced to employ some technical term, not in Scripture, to rule out such
teaching which contradicted the sense of Scripture. Thus they added to the
Creed the test word homoousios, that is, 'of one essence' or 'substance.' There
is nothing materialistic about it in Greek. All that it asserts is that
whatever the essential being of God is, namely divinity, the Father and the Son
possess it equally. They also affirmed that the Son was 'of the ousia or
essential being, of the Father,' that is, he was not created out of nothing; he
existed eternally ... The term ousia was ambiguous. It might mean
either a particular being or a common essence. The same ambiguity belonged to
the term hypostasis, though it inclined to the meaning of a
particular entity. In the anathemas appended to the Creed of Nicaea ousia
and hypostasis were employed as synonyms. This increased
the suspicion of the East that the term homes really excluded any
real distinctions in the Godhead. On the other hand, writers who used the term hypostasis
in the sense of 'Person,' to mark the distinctions in the Godhead seemed
to those who used it in the other sense to be speaking of three gods.
Athanasius saw that the dispute was at bottom a matter of the use of terms. In
the important Tomus ad Antiochenos which records the decisions of
the council, both uses of hypostasis were recognized and
explained, and the term home was cleared of ambiguity. The way was prepared for
the acceptance of the later terminology, 'One ousia, "Three Hypostases,'
corresponding to the Western, 'One Substance,' 'Three Persons.' "
No Pre-existence
Even though the Arians were closer to the truth on the nature of Christ than
were the Trinitarians or Catholics, they did not understand it correctly. The
Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is the distinct. Son of God, begotten of the
virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. For 4,000 years following the
creation of Adam and Eve there was no Jesus; he did not exist for he had not
yet been born. We see in Galatians 4:4 that "when the fullness of time was
come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." The
inferior status of Jesus due to his birth circumstances plainly shows that he
was not an equal of the self-existent Deity. Jesus said, in John 14:28,
"My Father is greater than I " John 3:35 testifies, "The Father
loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." And Jesus prayed
in John 17:1-3, "Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee....
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." It is significant that redemption was
promised in Genesis 3:15 through the woman's seed, not man and woman's. The use
of the term, seed, indicates that the subject did not at that time exist. Seed
implies predecessor, and it is clear that God preceded His Son just as every
father preceded his son.
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary
was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of
the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:18). J S.