Created Friday, July 12, 2002 - Updated Friday, Aug. 22, 2003

The Players The Issues Rebuttal to Arius Constantine "Settles" It!

Fate Takes an Odd Turn No One Was Right! About the Athanasian Creed The Creed

Related Articles

I am going to tell you the story of the great debate that erupted early in the fourth century (early 300's AD) over the trinity. It needs to be known and understood by all to better understand our present situation.

If you have read my article on what the early Christians writers had to say about the relationship of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, then you know that the earliest writers did not in any way believe in the trinity of today. In fact, they attacked and denied the things that define it as it is believed today. In fact, the word trinity can not even be found in early writers until the days of Terteullian.

But by the time we get to the 300's AD, a lot has taken place. By this time it would seem that the trinity had found itself with lots of subscribers and believers. But it was not without resistance and opponents, either. The various sources of history seem to be confused. Take the Encyclopaedia Britannica; in discussing Christ and the beliefs about him, they clearly mention that "Christology" was the early form of belief among the Christians, which is correct as the early writers have shown us. Only later did the trinity come into being. Who ever wrote that article for the Britannica knew their subject.

But on the other hand, who ever wrote the article on Arius, the so called heretic, claims that he first introduced this heresy against the trinity in the early fourth century. Not so. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing in that Encyclopaedia. To some degree, Arian ideas had been around since the very first non-apostolic writers put a pen to parchment to write. What Arius introduced was to some degree, orthodoxy. It was that early Christology mentioned, in many respects. The trinity was the real heresy. But in the interest of fairness, it is possible that neither side was completely right on the issues fought over. We shall consider those issues.

Arius was a presbyter in a church in Alexandria. He, hearing all this talk of the trinity, decided it was not faithful to the scriptures and decided to teach and campaign against the ideas of the trinity. Alexandria was the former home of Origen, who is the first one on record to strongly argue, though not with good logic, many of the ideas that would eventually be used and further twisted by trinitarians. From this city, the debate would erupt. Alexandria was a city of major influence on Christianity. Most issues that came up, usually involved the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome.

In that very same city of Alexandria was a bishop by the name of Alexander and after him, Athanasius, who would be the defenders of the trinity and who would denounce Arius as a heretic. But it would finally come to be settled by a worldly king. While this debate was taking place, the ruler of the Roman Empire, Constantine, had seen a vision and took it to be a sign that Christianity was the favored religion of God. More likely, he simply saw it as a practical move to have only one dominant religion to help unite what was a very fractured empire at that time.

Christianity had been severely persecuted throughout the Roman empire on and off over time. But part of the reason for the persecution was that Christianity was, over time, becoming the majority religion. Pagans were seeing their culture, religion, and beliefs dying out. While still having some numbers, they would often instigate uprisings against Christianity. But by the time Constantine came along, Christians were in the majority, even though the ruling powers were still in sympathy with pagan ways. There was plenty of friction.

It was the desire of Constantine to end the friction and try to unite his empire. So it seemed logical to him that since Christianity held a clear majority, that it would be the obvious religion to unite under. And so it came to be. But with one problem. Now Christianity itself was divided in the middle of a nasty disagreement that was no doubt seen as some threat to peace and unity in the eyes of its ruler, Constantine. So his decision was to call a council of the churches throughout the empire together to settle the matter once and for all.

But there were some problems with this. First of all, what business was it of Constantine's to meddle in the affairs of a religion. I understand his motives, but really, it was only the business of the Christians, themselves, as to what to believe or why. Constantine had no authority over the church. But he certainly had his reasons for wanting more unity and peace.

So Constantine forced himself upon the churches and intervened to try to bring his empire some peace. But what was good for him was not good for Christianity. They needed to settle their own affairs without government meddling. But that was not how it went. The two sides of the issue over the trinity were not capable of being solved alone. Neither side was going to give and they were just about perfectly divided down the middle. So Constantine threw his weight into it to force a resolution. One side came to love that and the other side despised it.

The argument seemed to focus primarily on whether Christ was human or divine while on earth and whether he was of one and the same substance and essence as the Father and actually being both the Son and Father. But really, both sides were acting like lawyers and making too many distinctions that could not be settled from the Bible. I don't have to tell you what a big mistake that is, do I?

The Britannica says this about the ideas of Arius:

"It affirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. Arius' basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot be God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated, so the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God. The Son must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence."

Now Arius goes too far in calling Christ finite and of a different order. The Bible mentions no such things, either for or against. So if someone wanted to find fault with those things, they would be entitled to do so and be correct. But trinitarians make the same mistake in their many unsupported assertions about the trinity. Again, no Biblical support.

Other sources simply suggest that Arianism insisted that the son had a beginning and was separate from the Father and in subjection to the Father, all of which are true.

Well, any good Christians can see both truths and flaws in the Britannica's version of Arianism. Christ was indeed called into existence, without a doubt. And just as a boy is a human just like his father, Christ is a spirit and a god, just like his Father. Arius says Christ can not be God. If he means Christ can not be the Father, he is right. But if he means that Christ has not been appointed as God over all things, then he is throwing out the Bible. Another term thrown around is self-existent. What is meant by that is not clear. But I would say Christ was a separate distinct entity and therefore, self-existent. Arius perhaps believes that Christ depends on God for life. But it seems to me that that Father granted Jesus, and in turn, Jesus granted all other spirits a separate and independent existense, not requiring support from the Father, just as the Father requires no support. Otherwise, why would God continue to support the devil and his demons.

It seems to me that the lives of these rebellious spirits must be independent and will require God to actively and purposely destroy them in order to eliminate their existence, because spirits do not depend on any sustenance and do not die, otherwise. The Bible does basically speak of spirits as being incorruptible. That is why they have to be destroyed because they will not die, otherwise. So it is with Christ. He is not dependant on the Father but was given a complete and independent existence from the Father.

It would seem to be apparent that God can grant or deny as much or as little power to His various sons, as He sees fit. With His only-begotten Son, He has withheld nothing but granted all power that He has as He trusts and loves the Son and is one with him in unity.

So we do see that despite the rebellion of Satan and other angels, they continue to exist. They do not die as people do. But again, we are dealing with semantics and lawyer-like technicalities; foolish questionings, I believe, are what Paul referred to them as. Without knowing exactly what is meant by self-existent, we can not really settle the matter but it is not of vital consequence, anyway, and that is what is sort of maddening about many of these disputes. They are not over anything that is really fundamental to Christian's understanding or salvation, so why fight about them? As you can see, the fruits of the spirit were no where to be found and the fruits of the flesh were abundant.

Now the problem with the reasoning of Arius was that they were not well refuted by Athanasius of Alexandria. He, according to the Britannica, argued that "Arius' teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism (since worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only he who was truly God could be deemed to have reconciled man to the Godhead."

Arius' claims did not reintroduce polytheism in anyway. Another lawyer trick! Further, the claim that only He who was truly God could properly reconcile man to God or Godhead was also a lie. To the contrary, no god could redeem man. Only another perfect man from God could redeem a man. It takes a man to redeem a man. Trinitarians, obviously, have missed that. Gods/spirits can not be tempted in flesh or be killed as they are not dependant on the flesh, or subject to it, or influenced by it.

The Athanasian camp had their own arguments. They said that the Son was consubstantial (of one and the same substance or being) and coeternal with the Father; of one substance where as Arians said "of like substance." I rather agree with Arius on the substance issue. But the son was clearly not co-eternal if they mean he had no beginning.

According to one writer of these events, Reginald H. Fuller writes (in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.), "much of the dispute about Arianism seems a battle over words, but a fundamental issue involving the integrity of the Gospel was at stake: whether God was really in Christ reconciling the world to himself." That is a load of crap. It was a stupid battle over words and trivialities. Edward Gibbon scornfully observed that Christianity was split over a single iota, the difference between two words being fought over, homoousios and homoiousios, that little "i" [called an iota in Greek] inserted to make a different word with a different meaning. It is a battle over words and letters. What exactly was the substance and essence of Christ was the source of dispute and it was stupid, nit picking, and immature. It was not from Christ nor had it really anything to do with the Bible. The Bible never used the words "substance" or "essence" in a discussion of what sort those things Christ was made up of. So why was there such a fight over things that never appear in the Bible?

I thought it wise to list a reference to the things spoken of by Mr. Fuller, in case anyone wants to look deeper into the matter.

Gregg, R. C., ed., Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (1987); Gwatkin, H. M., Studies of Arianism, 2d ed. (1900); Newman, John Henry, The Arians of the Fourth Century (1833; repr. 1968).

Not happy with the divided state of his empire, Constantine calls for a Christian council to meet at Nicaea in 325 AD, not far from the Capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, Constantinople. Some leaders of churches did not even bother to show, not recognizing the authority of Constantine. But many made the trip, wanting to establish their brand of belief over the rest, to keep the churches united, by will or by force, which ever it took. But they had already been divided anyway.

Though the camps were roughly about half and half as far as numbers believing one way or the other go, Constantine, for whatever reason is not apparent to me, sided with the trinitarian side and those in the Arian camp were declared heretics and deposed. But the battle was hardly over at this point. Although the trinitarians had managed to use the political power of the emporer to help enforce their beliefs upon the masses, the hearts of the Arians had not been changed or discouraged in the least. They would continue the fight.

According to the 1996 Catholic Information Network (CIN), "many individuals, including a large portion, perhaps even a majority, of the existing bishops in the Church of the day, were lost to Arianism, though at no time was any whole nation cut off from the Church because of Arianism."

How interesting that Arians were actually more populous than the trinitarians were. There was obviously no democracy or concensus here. Had numbers decided the issue, Arianism would have won. Worldly politics interfered in the matter, to the delight of the minority.

There developed 3 different schools of thought on Arianism. And they have been given 3 different names to identify the 3 schools according to Reginald Fuller. "Radical Arianism, which asserted that the Son was "dissimilar" to the Father; Homoeanism, which held that the Son was similar to the Father; and Semi-Arianism, which shaded off into orthodoxy and held that the Son was similar yet distinct from the Father." The last one was probably the most correct one.

As you can see, it was a matter of splitting hairs and there is hardly any difference in any of those beliefs. Similar or dissimilar, it is hard to know exactly what was meant by either word. Ideas were rarely defined or distinguished in any real detail. I believe both sides did that somewhat deliberately as both feared the exact truth to some degree and so they could veil their arguments in fogs of ambiguity by using such nondescript terms. The less you or I understand, the better as far as leaders are concerned. Besides, I suspect both sides know that they could not defend much of what they asserted from the Bible. It did not support their extra-biblical Greek philosophical non-sense. Plato was alive and well among the churches.

Appointed a bishop of Nicomedia about 318 AD, Eusebius represented the Arian view at Nicaea in 325. Although not completely happy with the decision there, he reluctantly signed on to the final decision. But not long after, he recanted and was exiled by Constantine to Gaul, later to become France. He was allowed back in 328 and immediately led a reaction against the faith of Nicaea (328-341), convincing Constantine of the correctness of Arianism and succeeded in having many supporters of Nicaea--including Athanasius in 335--deposed. What a change, huh? . In 337, he baptized Constantine in Nicomedia, and Constantine died shortly afterwards. But this victory was no better than the earlier defeat. Christianity had no business being involved with politics, no matter who won. It is very significant, though, that when Constantine became more interested in Christianity as his religion and not just something to unite his empire, he found the Arian view more convincing. That fails to get noted by trinitarians.

But now the majority view was back. This is the point where 3 different schools of Arianism began to emerge. Fuller reports a victory by the Homoean school/ party in 357 AD. The Semi-Arianism school joined the trinitarians except in Teutonic/ Germanic churches. Arianism survived there until the conversion of the Franks in 496 AD. To explain that just a little bit more, Germanic Goths came down into Rome/Italy, conquered and settled there. They were of an Arian persuasion. But East Roman emporer Justinian would not put up with that and started a war with the Goths and conquered them, leaving a power vacuum in the area. So war and politics managed to eliminate the Arians, not the scriptures or reasoning.

Political struggles and manipulations continued until Theodosius-I became the ruler of the eastern empire. He became emperor in 379 AD and outlawed Arianism. After many subsequent military conquests of various islands of Arianism throughout Europe, it all but come to an end by coercive political force, which would continue to be the preferred way of evangelism for the apostates of the trinity. God does not force people to believe or obey. That is the work of the devil. So I would have to say that as regards to the victories and defeats of both sides, that God was with neither of them. By their fruits you will know them. The trinitarians especially made use of the sword for conversions, as they continued to do down through many centuries though various Catholic kings and countries who subjugated various peoples of the world by the sword.

But each side was happy to declare the other heretics and apostates. In truth, they were both apostates, both willing to use force of politics, and there was no true unity of the churches except by brutal force. Unity is only significant and meaningful when it can be accomplished by unforced and uncoerced free will and acceptance. That is an indication that people are being moved by the spirit of God, a spirit of peace, and not by force, the preferred weapon of Satan.

When an individual or a church goes aspostate, perhaps by promoting a sect or whatever, the scriptures instruct that you reject them after a 1st and 2nd admonition. Treat them as an outsider, do not eat with them. They are rejcted and avoided, BUT . . . They are not persecuted, imprisoned, or killed for promoting a sect or some other apostasy. God will be the ultimate judge of them. See my article on "Christian Discipline" for more on the matters of punishment and apostasy and heresy.

The sad thing was that with Christianity divided equally over the issue, it was impossible to say that the scriptures were so clear or certain about the issue. Given what would appear to be such a difficult dilemma to settle, they should have agreed to disagree as they had done before on some issues. But the fruitage of the flesh was every where to be found. No one wanted to be reasonable or tolerant about it as they had been in earlier times. But Christianity was so far gone in so many ways, it hardly mattered. By this time, it was obvious that the warnings of Jesus and the Apostles had come true and Christianity had been sown with the seeds (weeds/tares) of the devil and had gone apostate, forsaking the scriptures.

I do not believe the trinity was hard to refute or to understand why some advocated it. The process of the error is quite traceable as I intend to show in examining the early church writers who took charge after the Apostles. The trinity was only one of many heresies to become established by the 4th century. In understanding and conduct, much was in shambles. I will explore many of those heresies on my site in time.

Since neither side was acting in the spirit, let us examine those beliefs ourselves to see what can be said. Arianism had much going for it in that it pointed out that Jesus did have a beginning, a creation, and was not THE God but the son of God who acted as God the Father in the Father's behalf, as His appointed king, so to speak. Trinitarians did not like this obviously scriptural fact so they made ample use of vague terms to swing it over to their way of thinking. Arians may have gone too far in what they argued but not nearly as off course as the heretic trinitarians.

There are two versions, one quite recent and the other created earlier in the 20th century, I believe. There have been some changes worth noting so this is why I placed both versions together. I am used to the old one. The new one has been updated a little to help it be more understandable. But being so ridiculous to begin with, the updating does not really help. When you read the word catholic, it does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic was a word that basically meant united as one. The early churches all claimed to be one but with the churches divided 50/50 over the trinity, you could hardly call it united.

Of course, they did manage to unite it to some degree by force, but that violates God's will and so is not very impressive. The original unity was accomplished by peace and the Holy Spirit through the Apostles, who had the right to use force, as they could produce the works which were clearly from God to verify their authority and force. People willingly submitted to the Apostles and the manifestations of God's spirit through them. No king or political power was needed or accepted. But by the 4th century, the Holy Spirit was no where to be found by this time. Only the fruits of the flesh, the works of the devil.

So let us examine that Athanasian/ Nicene/ Trinitarian creed to see what it has to say. The recent version was adopted by the CRC Synod of 1988. The earlier one I will place just underneath the more recent, but in parentheses.

This creed is named after Athanasius (A.D. 293-373), the champion of so-called orthodoxy against Arian attacks on the doctrine of the trinity. Although Athanasius did not write this creed and it is improperly named after him, the name persists because until the seventeenth century it was commonly ascribed to him. It is not from Greek (Eastern), but from Latin (Western) origin, and is not recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church today. Apart from the opening and closing sentences, this creed consists of two parts, the first setting forth the orthodox doctrine of the trinity, and the second dealing chiefly with the incarnation and the two-natures doctrine. The translation that always appears first was adopted by the CRC Synod of 1988. The earlier version always appears second in parentheses.

So how did it come to have the name of Athanasius given to it. Well it was Athanasius who debated and disputed with Arius about whether the trinity was a legitimate belief of the churches of the empire in the time of Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire, most predominantly, the Eastern half of the empire. The Nicene debate is covered in a separate article. I have criticisms of this creed here but deal with the scriptures to support my criticisms in the main article dealing with the trinity from a Biblical standpoint. Now for the creed.

My comments on the creed will be in red and contained in [{pairs of brackets like these from here on in.}] so that they will be distinguished both on the web and in black and white print.

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

[{So here we are told that we are not to exercise our own thinking ability but turn our minds over to an authority of doctrine and let them dictate what we should believe. Like hell! We are supposed to believe that the faith was still catholic (united and one) at this time. It clearly was not. Neither had it been faithful to the scriptures in a number of instances. A clear declaration of apostasy is what this really is. Only the Apostles could say whether a doctrine was right or not. They are dead and apostasy was foretold to enter the faith and it did and this is it, along with plenty of other things I will deal with elsewhere. And of course, if you do not agree with every letter of their doctrine, you are going to hell. What a load of crap.}]

Now this is the catholic faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
(We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity)

[{Jesus taught us to worship the Father but they say "God in Trinity, which I can't seem to find in my Bible.}]

neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence.
(Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.)

[{Can you make sense of what they just said? Neither blending or dividing. What? Neither confounding nor dividing. They can't make up their mind. This is ridiculous stuff. It is not to be found in the Bible, either. These terms they throw around are from Greek philosophy and speculation and manipulation. They are not from God. Nor are they logical, sensible, or comprehensible. They are just foolish babbling.}]

For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
(For there is one person of the Father)

the person of the Son is another,
(Another of the Son)

and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
(And another of the Holy Ghost)

[{This they said right but they will contradict it, I assure you.}]

But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
(But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one)

their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
(the glory equal, the majesty coeternal)

[{If by divinity they mean they are all from God, they are right. If by one they mean unity or origin from God, they are right. Notice how it changed from Godhead in the old version to divinity in the new one. The new one is more correct, by the way. Their glory is not equal. The Father is clearly above all, including the Son, by the Son's own admission. Neither is their glory equal or their majesty co-eternal. The Holy Spirit is not even a person. Also note that Holy Ghost has been updated from the archaic to modern, with Holy Spirit.}]

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
(Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost)

[{This is no big revelation. They are in complete union and harmony, if that is qhat they mean by quality. Quality is never really defined and that enables them to assert it and then have it mean whatever they want, after.}]

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
(The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated)

[{This is a heresy for the Bible plainly declares that the Son did have a birth, a beginning. But why let the facts get in the way, right?}]

The Father is immeasurable, the Son is immeasurable, the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
(The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible)

[{First, they change it in the new one from incomprehensible to immeasurable, which is likely what was intended as the meaning, so that is no big thing. They are just making it more understandable for us today, which I approve of. But what do they even mean by immeasurable? But likely this could be asserted without violating the Bible.}]

So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
(As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible)

there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
(but one uncreated and one incomprehensible)

[{Not 3, but 1! Absolute non-sense and lies. First, there are two individuals, not 2 in 1, and the Spirit is not a person. It was figuratively referred to as "he" and "comforter" and they took in literally instead of seeing it as a literary technique well known as personification, a very common and well used technique in the scriptures. How sad to be so blind.}]

The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal.
(The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal)

And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being.
(And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal)

[{More BS! The Son is eternal from the time he was created but not eternal as in having no beginning. To say that, we would have to ignore the scriptures. No 3 in 1 deal, either.}]

Similarly, the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty.
(So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Ghost is almighty)

Yet there are not three almighty beings; there is but one almighty being.
(And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.)

[{Almighty is a pretty powerful word. A word, usually of absolutes. Only the Father is almighty. The Son is almighty by virtue of having been given all power and authority from the Father, so in that respect, equal and almighty. But the Father is greater than the Son and is truly the only one who can be considered absolutely almighty for I do not believe the Son could overthrow the Father or resist the Father if he so chose and he does have free will. The Father is absolute and supreme above all, even the Son.}]

Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
(So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God)

Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God.
(And yet there are not three gods; but one God.)

[{The Son is God in that he represents God, but he is not the Father. The Holy Spirit is from God but is not God, but God's power and expression of His will. The Holy Spirit is also from the Son by will of the Father.}]

Thus the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord.
(So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord)

Yet there are not three lords; there is but one Lord.
(And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord)

[{The Son is Lord by will of the Father but that does not mean the two are the same. The Holy Spirit is God's power and force and so can not be an intelligent ruling individual.}]

Just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as both God and Lord,(For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord)

[{We call both the Father and the Son Lord, but we generally reserve God for that Father as the Apostles did in their writings, referring to Jesus only as Lord, since he was appointed so by the Father, the ultimate and almighty God.}]

so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
(So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords)

[{We are playing word games here. The catholic religion is not relevant. It is not an authority. The Bible is what matters and is the authority. There are relative Gods but only one absolute supreme God, the Father. The Holy Spirit is not a person so is not considered, in an absolute sense, to be God, as in a thinking rational creature.}]

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
(The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.)

[{True!}]

The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone.
(The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.)

[{Made, created, and begotten all mean the same thing. This is just lawyer nonsense. They will try to tell you that begotten can mean adopted. If that is clearly stated and without the other words being used, then you cuold say that. But the other words are used in the Bible. So it is just lies.}]

The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
(The Holy ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.)

[{Whether you call it "he" or "it," the rest is true.}]

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
(So there is one Father, not three Fathers)

there is one Son, not three sons;
(one Son, not three Sons)

there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
(one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits)

[{All true! But then this contradicts other statements in this creed which say they are basically all the same God, so that anyone can be the Father at any given time, etc.}]

Nothing in this trinity is before or after, nothing is greater or smaller;
(And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another)

[{This is not true! Jesus was born of the Father, hence the very reason why one is called the Father and one the Son. Further, the Father is greater than the Son. The trinity is not a person anyway.}]

in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other.
(But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal)

[{Co-eternal only after Jesus was created. He was not uncreated or unbegotten as the Father was. And while co-equal in a relative sense since Jesus was made to be God, in representing the Father and carrying out the will of the Father in creating all things. But in an absolute sense, Jesus is not co-equal but subject t the Father and lacking in some respects in comparison to the Father.}]

So in everything, as was said earlier, we must worship their trinity in their unity and their unity in their trinity.
(So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped)

[{Here the wording of the new version changes compared to the old one. "Their trinity" is different from just plain trinity, though only from the standpoint of a lawyer, I suppose, but we are dealing with lawyers here. Their trinity almost hints at 3 rather than 1. Trinity without "their" continues the strict definition better. But there is a lot to be said for the unity bit. If they are suggesting that they are one strictly because they are united, then they would not be wrong. But to suggest that they are all God somehow, and that Jesus is the Father, or that Jesus is Jehovah is going way beyond the scriptures.}]

Anyone then who desires to be saved should think thus about the trinity.
(He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity)

[{So we have to think about this right to be saved. Says who? Are their not lots of things that we might not quite accurately understand as we should? So we are not to be saved if we screw up? What a bunch of lies! The trinity does not even make any sense or have any support for the Bible. The word trinity is not even to be found in the Bible.}]

But it is necessary for eternal salvation
(Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation)

that one also believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
(that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ)

[{How do we believe faithfully? Do they mean accurately? Or do they mean believe exactly as we are told by them? No doubt the latter. Where do they get their authority? I believe only the Bible and my own ability to reason as God gave me.}]

Now this is the true faith:

That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and human, equally.
(For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man)

[{If we are talking about while on earth, he was not equally human and God. A Complete lie!}]

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time;
(God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds)

[{They say begotten but not made or created, right? What they mean by essence is anyone's guess. But essence used to be substance in the older version. Why the change? What did they perceive was the change. See if you can get a consistent answer on that one! But if essence is simply that Jesus is a spirit, even as God is, then they are fine. But if they suggest something more, like that Jesus is in someway, the Father, they are wrong.}]

and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time;
(and man of substance of His mother, born in the world)

[{He is flesh. That is what the Bible says.}]

completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh;
(Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting)

[{You can't be completely both. It is a contradiction and not possible!}]

equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity.
(Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood)

[{He had been granted all authority and power while on earth so we can say equal in divinity, relatively speaking. Divinity was changed from earlier Godhead. They say less than the Father as regards humanity, being a man. Yes, in the absolute sense, less than the Father, more so while on earth but also to some degree, even after having ascended into heaven or before.}]

Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one.
(Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ)

[{You can't be God and human in an absolute or literal sense. In a relative sense, yes, you could. But Jesus was called Lord, not God.}]

He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself.
(One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God)

[{This is just more lawyer BS. Both could be said to be true.}]

He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person.
(One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person)

[{I have no idea what is being said here. Is "He" Christ Or Trinity? I assume Christ. But if Christ, then what is there to argue about his unity or essence? If trinity, then it sounds like they are contradicting themselves for now they say one as in unity and not essence, which is not unreasonable to say but to call the trinity he instead of they, is unreasonable and misleading and plain wrong.}]

For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human.
(For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ)

[{Being both God and human is utterly impossible in an absolute sense.}]

He suffered for our salvation; he descended to hell; he arose from the dead;
(Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead)

[{He was in the heart of the ground so to speak, the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea, not hell. That is a mistranslation. He was dead for 3 days and nights, so to speak. He did suffer and he was resurrected on the 3rd day.}]

he ascended to heaven; he is seated at the Father's right hand;
(He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty)

[{True!}]

from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
(From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead)

[{True!}]

At his coming all people will arise bodily and give an accounting of their own deeds.
(At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account of their own works)

[{Not all will rise bodily! They will be accountable.}]

Those who have done good will enter eternal life, and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
(And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire)

[{the eternal fire is not a literal fire. Many good will go to heaven forever and even more will live on a paradise earth and have the opportunity to live forever, if they choose correctly after the 1000 year reign.}]

This is the catholic faith:
(This is the catholic faith)

one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
(which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved)

[{They have placed themselves on the throne of God and decided what we will be judged by. They may very well be wrong.}]

End of Creed

The Trinity Is a Lie!
The Nicene Debate and Athanasian Creed
Early Ecclesiastical Writers on the Trinity
Terteullian's "Against Praxeas" (Against the Trinity)
What is Spirit and Spiritualality?
How to Interpret the Bible
Tolerance and Individual Belief
The Great Apostasy
The Bible, Our Only Authority

Back to Top