POPULAR FALLACIES OF TRINITARIANISM.
I.—TRINITARIAN FALLACY CONCERNING MYSTERY; OR, MYSTERY NO ARGUMENT IN PROOF OF THE TRINITY.
As to what is called "the mystery of the Trinity," though strictly a religious matter, and pretended to be purely a matter of divine revelation, it is yet a thing confessedly nowhere so much as once named in Scripture, either as a mystery or not a mystery. It is freely confessed, as it must be by all its abettors, to be purely a matter of inference—a theory which they have assumed to explain certain things in Scripture which they think cannot be rightly accounted for otherwise; and because we cannot comprehend the works of God—and far less God himself—so they think the nature of God being so much a mystery, we should just believe as they do, and not presume to question their opinion concerning that mystery. This, under whatever plausible garb it may be put forward, is always the real amount of the argument which is attempted to be passed off in every one of those stale appeals that are made to mystery in behalf of Trinitarianism; and as it is a conclusion between which, and the premises, we certainly cannot see the least connexion, so it is one to which we at once demur, and maintain that we have a right and a duty upon us to prove all things, and hold fast only that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21.
In speaking of mystery—just as if that could solve and silence every objection to the Trinity—they sometimes affect to be very rational and philosophical, arguing, in very plausible terms, how we must admit mystery in the works of God; and how much more reason have we to admit it in God himself. Now, we must freely admit it in both; but we tell them that whatever mysteries may be in nature, no philosopher appeals to mystery for the support of any notion or theory which he may form of the laws of nature; nor, if he did so, would he be allowed, for a moment, the right of such an appeal? What, for example, is more mysterious in nature than the principle of gravitation? Now, we have a theory on this subject, as applied, for instance, in the science of astronomy, to account for the motions of the heavenly bodies. But what rational defender of this theory would pretend to answer any objections that might be brought against it by saying, that it is a mystery—that we should not presume to question the received theory of this principle, because, forsooth, it is one of deep and impenetrable mystery? What man of science is there who would not spurn, with contempt, such a plea? and if the theory could not be defended altogether without such a plea, it behoved of necessity to fall to the ground, and deservedly so. On the subjects of light and vision, and of the constitution of the human mind, which are all of them matters of great mystery, we have different theories—some of them, of course, open to objection: so on numberless other mysterious subjects, we have different theories, all of them less or more objected to; but no one thinks of quashing or putting down objections to his particular theory, by alleging that the subject is a mystery. No: such a thing is utterly out of the question. It was reserved for Trinitarian theorists alone to seek to defend their peculiar theory by the help of mystery, and, at the same time, modestly to assume to themselves the character of being the only reasonable, orthodox, right-hearted, and truly pious men!
It is one thing to admit mystery in the nature of God, and another to admit mystery as an argument for any opinion of man concerning that nature. Though always confounded by Trinitarians, the cases are wide as the poles asunder. We admit mystery, in the nature of God, as freely as they do, but deny mystery as an argument for any theory or notion of man, concerning that nature, or any nature whatever. In all this we are perfectly consistent, both with ourselves and with the principles of sound philosophy, and desire our opponents to show where their consistency with either lies.
Moreover, we would remind them of her who has mystery written on her forehead—that mystery is great Babylon's motto—the chief corner-stone of bigotry and priestcraft; and it belongs to "Mystery, Babylon the Great," and to her philosophy only, to seek to impose her unreasonable dogmas on mankind by the dark device of mystery. Where mystery begins, all knowledge, and all revelation ends. The Scripture notion of a mystery is that of a new truth, or something that is a secret until it be revealed; but, when once it be revealed, it ceases to be a mystery. "Behold," says the apostle, "I show you a mystery," (a new truth, which they did not know till he told them.) "To you it is given," says Christ to his disciples, "to know the Mysteries," (the secrets or new doctrines) "of the kingdom of heaven." Bet the mysteries of Babylon the Great are quite different: they are things that cannot be revealed or given to any to know; being professedly incomprehensible; but, in real truth, they are mere confusion and contradiction—quite like the name Babylon itself—which is a name of confusion. Babylon comes from Babel, which signifies confusion; and "Mystery Babylon," signifies mystery confusion, or confused mystery.
Let us, therefore, have no more of mystery in the shape of argument; for, it is a thing below all contempt to seek to argue from mystery, for anything whatever, unless we mean to be sceptics, saying, All is mystery in the nature of God, and that we know nothing, and need trouble ourselves nothing about the matter—a conclusion, alas! to which there is reason to fear that too many have been driven by the hard and tremendous thoughts of God, to which the notion of a Trinity has given birth. Witness, in particular, their unreasonable heart-withering and terrific notions of original sin, and predestination of a helpless non-elect world of mankind to eternal torment—their wild absurdities of transubstantiation—of bowing to crosses and images, as if they were gods—of worshipping and praying to the Virgin Mary, under the profane heathenish titles of "Holy Mother of God," and "Queen of Heaven," with a mass of other nauseous matter of the same kind, all finding a ready plea in mystery; and being the very flower and first-fruits of Trinitarianism as it first began to appear in maturity in the days of Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine.
Nature, to which Trinitarians so much appeal for mystery, is full of secrets, but no mysteries of their kind, which are palpable contradictions. Taking mystery in this, its scriptural and rational sense, it makes nothing in favour of scepticism; for it is always to be remembered, that however secret or mysterious a thing may be in one aspect, this is not at all to hinder us from viewing it in other aspects, and ascertaining with certainty every fact concerning it, that is necessary for us to know; and it is only from known facts that we can draw any just conclusions: so far as mystery is concerned in anything, it makes not for any one conclusion, or any one opinion, more than another. It makes for nothing, save the modest suspension of opinion about the matter, and for calmly instilling the needful lesson of humility, charity, and Christian forbearance, which are alike remote from the cold frigidity of scepticism, on the one hand, and from the fiery bigotry of Trinitarianism, on the other.
Whenever we form a theory of any subject, it matters not how mysterious the subject may be, that is not the question. We have formed A Theory, and that is the question, and that alone; and that must be defensible without reference to mystery, or not at all. In the case of two men forming different theories of the same subject, there is not, and cannot be, a shadow of reason beyond his own dogmatic conceit, why the one man should claim the mystery of the subject for his theory, any more than the other man should claim it for his. So far as mere mystery is concerned, both have an equal claim or none at all. The truth is, that once admit mystery as an argument for one opinion, and there is no opinion, however absurd, that may not claim the same privilege: and this is the whole upshot of the matter about mystery. And let Trinitarians take this along with them, that we admit mystery, in the nature of God, as freely as they do; but deny mystery as an argument for the truth of anything that we do not already perfectly know to be true without it; and that we reject their theory just for this very reason, that they cannot defend it without mystery—that they cannot defend it by honest Scripture argument, without recourse to this sophistical plea of mystery—this hollow and dark device of priestcraft, by which it has sought, in every age, to enslave the human mind, and which is no other than raising a mist, and a casting of dust in the people's eyes that they may not see the truth.
One of the first texts that shook my belief in the Trinity was, Phil 2:9—"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him," &c. These words plainly imply that God and Christ are two distinct beings —that Christ is a being distinct from, and inferior to, the God that highly exalted him. This is a truth so self-evident, that to deny it, we may as well deny that two and two make four. To speak of Christ's human nature as being meant only here, is nothing to the purpose; it is begging the question. It was not the human nature that humbled itself to take human nature. God highly exalted him, and him only, that humbled himself to take a servant's form. It was not the form he exalted, but him that took the form. This is unquestionably the fact; and all the attempts made to evade it, by the abettors of the common system, only involve them in a mass of quibbling and equivocation. The stale device of mystery to which they resort, as a plea for their system, we have sufficiently seen, does them no good. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Harvey, have been among the most illustrious in forming theories of certain departments of the laws of nature, which have fully stood the test of investigation, but which, at the first, had all to contend with the bitterest opposition and prejudice of the day; but none of these illustrious names, however bitterly opposed and persecuted some of them were, even advanced the plea of mystery in support of his theory. Never, for a moment, did they attempt to silence objection in such a manner, or hint at such a thing—nor has any true philosopher ever done so. It is in vain then for our opponents to advance such a plea for their favourite theory; a plea which they themselves would scorn to advance for any theory in any other branch of science whatever.
Whatever the Scripture says about mystery, taking the term in any sense you please, it nowhere represents the unity of the one God as a mystery, any more than the unity of the one Lord, the one faith, the one baptism, or any other unity whatever. It makes no distinction between the numerical oneness of God, and that of any other single intelligent being in the universe. When it speaks of one man, no body doubts the meaning, or talks of mystery; and when it speaks of one God, it sets no guard or limitations in the one case more than the other. It asserts God to be one in the common numerical sense of the term, in opposition to polytheism, which maintains the contrary, that there are more gods than one. Moreover, the Scripture having once asserted that God is one, never varies from that assertion, nor ever stops to explain it, but leaves it wholly to ourselves to determine the meaning of the word one, as applied to God, the same as when applied to any other single intelligent being. And the question then is, in what sense ought we to take the word one, as applied to God? whether in the plain popular sense that a child would think of on hearing of "one God and Father," or in the complex speculative Trinitarian sense, that no child or plain person would think of without suggestion from some other source than Scripture? I affirm, in the plain popular sense, without a doubt, as the Scriptures in all practical matters are invariably written in the plain popular style for the use of plain illiterate people, for little children, and those like them, for the mass of mankind, who are incapable of entering into any farfetched, abstruse speculation—especially where nothing of the kind is suggested to them. While the Scriptures of the Old Testament often expostulate with heathens for their polytheism, and tell them most expressly that there is but one God, they never give them the most distant hint of his being a Trinity, three in one, or one in any other than the common popular sense in which they were accustomed to take each of their own gods by himself as one, or one undivided person, in the Unitarian sense. And unless the heathen were accustomed to view each of their own false gods as a Trinity, it is impossible they could otherwise, from all that the Bible says to them on the subject, conceive to themselves the notion of the true God being a Trinity, without giving way to a new imagination, alike unheard of in the Bible and their own system.
In connexion with this subject, it is worthy of particular remark, how Jesus commends little children as a type of the character of his true disciples, saying, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matt, 19:14. "Verily, I say unto you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein." Luke 18:17. "Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt, 18:3. Now, let us think of this, and compare it with the fact, that no child or plain unprejudiced person, in reading the Scriptures by himself, without the teaching of Trinitarians, ever imagines God to be three in one, or one in any other than the common numerical or Unitarian sense. When a child, after knowing his earthly father, comes next to hear, in the simple words of Scripture, of "one God and Father of all," in heaven, he never dreams of his one heavenly Father being a Trinity, any more than his one earthly father. He never thinks of his heavenly Father any otherwise than as a Unitarian, till he has been taught his mistake by some book or creed, or advocate of Trinitarianism. Never till then does he find out his mistake, however often, or however carefully he may read his Bible. He may find many things there to puzzle him—but never does that theory occur to him without suggestion from some foreign quarter. Indeed, it were most unlikely, if not morally impossible, that a doctrine which took centuries of subtle speculation and discussion among learned theologians and polemics, to bring it to its present state of perfection, should be stumbled upon in a lifetime's reading of the Bible alone, by plain illiterate people that had never heard of such speculation. During childhood and youth it was certainly my own simple belief—to which belief I am now returned—that my heavenly Father was one undivided person, and one God—the same as my earthly father was one undivided person, and one man; and this, I am satisfied, is the simple belief of every child on being told of God, or reading of him in his Bible, by himself, without the sophistication of Trinitarians; and, that he never imagines anything to the contrary, till his mind has first been brought over by a series of training to their way of thinking. Whatever new or peculiar ideas might occur to him in reading his Bible, I am well satisfied that nothing of their strange and complex hypothesis would ever occur to him without their teaching. And, indeed, after all their training, I am quite convinced that the mass of the people, even serious people, unless immediately prompted by the words of some human creed, seldom or ever think of God as a Trinity, or in any other than the simple way in which Jesus himself would lead us to think, when he says, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." John 20:17.
The hard, perplexing, unscriptural terms, which the doctrine of the Trinity so much requires for explaining it, put it far enough beyond the reach of common people to think of from the bare words of Scripture, and apart from all other considerations, go very far indeed to satisfy my own mind, that, as that doctrine cannot be expressed in Scripture language, so it is destitute alike of Scripture foundation. It must be allowed upon all hands, that the Bible says nothing about mystery or Trinity in the unity of God: and where then is the right of man to foist in mystery and Trinity where God has said nothing of either; and then to condemn his fellow-man who cannot fall down and worship the idol of his imagination? In a word, while Trinitarians will have God to be a Trinity, a three-one God, the Scriptures never speak of such a thing, but always -represent God simply as one, without the least mention of three,* or any number but One! [*The text of 1 John v. 7, about "three that bear record in heaven," is spurious, and has been unanswerably proved to be so.]
We, therefore, hold fast the Scripture number, and determinately reject all attempts to add to it, or to make God a being of any number but one. "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things." 1 Cor. 8:6. "There is one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all." Eph. 4:6. "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5
T. G. (1847)
Newburgh, Aberdeenshire.
Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents
See also Christology & the Trinity Doctrine - Over 320 Books on the on TWO DVDroms
See also Christology & the Trinity Doctrine - Over 320 Books on the on TWO DVDroms
No comments:
Post a Comment