Tag: Heresy

Responding to Arguments for Biblical Unitarianism (Non-Trinitarianism)

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

Unitarianism is the belief that God is not Trinitarian in nature.

This belief can take many forms, such as Modalism: the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are “modes” in which God sometimes manifests, or in Partialism: the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are “parts” of who God is.

Other unitarians believe that Jesus is not divine and that there was a time when Jesus was not, i.e. that at one point in time, Jesus came into being – and that he has not existed from eternity past, as the Father has. Further, unitarians might believe that the Holy Spirit is either essentially the Father, or that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force, but not a “person” of the Trinity.

The following is a list of responses to common Unitarian claims, written by Pastor Jason Cralley, Executive Pastor at White Fields Community Church.

Creeds show progression of development towards the Trinity. 

False. The creeds were developed to fight heresy. As one heresy appears, they created a creed to address it. When another heresy appeared around the same topic, they would change the creed to make it more specific. According to the earliest Christian writings it is very clear that they believed in the trinity. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, and others all church fathers that wrote about the Trinity long before the first creed was ever written.

The Old Testament foretold that Jesus would be a human being. 

True. But it also said he would be God. Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 7:14 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” As Matthew 1:23 points out, Immanuel means “God with us.” The Biblical Unitarians argue that the Jews never understood that these meant the Messiah would be God. True. But as we knew they misunderstood most of the prophecies about Jesus. They thought he would come and set up an earthly kingdom. We cannot take what they believed as truth.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus was a man. 

True. But it also teaches that Jesus was God. We have to take the Bible as a whole and not take some verses to make a theology and leave others out. Jesus has divine attributes that only God possesses: he is omnipresent (Matt. 28:20), Omniscient (Mark 2:8, John 6:64; 16:30; 21:17), Omnipotent (Matt. 28:18, Mark 4:37-41; 6:30-44), Created all things (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17), he keeps the universe going by his power (Heb. 1:3). Jesus thought himself as God: he forgave sins (Mark 2:3-12) and the everyone knew that was something only God could do as they tried to kill him (Luke 7:48-50), he accepted worship as God and never rejected it (Matt. 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; 20:28), He stated he was God (John 10:30-33, Mark 14: 61-62, Rev. 1:8).

The Bible teaches that Jesus was a created being. 

False. Jesus explains his own preexistence ((John 3:13; 6:33, 38, 62; 8:23; 16:28) and that he existed before Abraham (John 8:58). God sent his Son proving that Jesus existed before his incarnation (Rom. 8:3; 1 John 1:2; Gal. 4:4). He didn’t create a son but sent the one that already existed.The New Testament teaches that Jesus is eternal: He existed before creation (John 1:1-3; 17:5), Jesus holds all creation together therefore he had to preexist before his birth (Col. 1:17), Jesus has always been and always will be (Heb. 13:8, Rev. 1:8), created all things meaning he was there before creation (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17), he keeps the universe going by his power so he had to be preexistent (Heb. 1:3).

The Bible teaches that Jesus has a God. 

True and False. Jesus has two natures: fully human (Gal. 4:4) and fully divine (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8). When he came down to earth he humbled himself and cooperated with the limitations of being a human (Phil 2:5-8, Heb. 2:9). Jesus the man had someone he would call his God (the Father). Jesus still has a human nature (1 Tim. 2:5; Col. 2:9). Jesus will always have a human nature and will therefore always call the Father God. This does not mean that Jesus doesn’t share the same divine nature as God the Father. 

Biblical Unitarianism commits the logical fallacy of equivocation where the meaning of a word changes as it is used. Saying “The Trinity is the teaching that the one God of all existence, consists of three divine persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is not the same as “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.” The first sentence uses God as a quantitate, dealing with how many gods there are. The second sentence is qualitative, dealing with the nature of divinity. The Unitarians are confusing the qualitative with the quantitative. Jesus is qualitatively stating that the Father is God. He is not quantitatively stating that only the Father is God, and he is not. 

Jesus Called the Father the only true God. 

True. But Jesus claims that the Father and he are one (John 10:30) which his opponents knew to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God and picked up stones to kill him (John 10:31). He later states the Father is in him, and he is in the Father (John 10:36-38). So, if the Father is the one true God, then so is he. The Triune God is the one true God.The Holy Spirit is simply the Father. False. The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father. The Father sent the Spirit (John 14:26). The Spirit does the will of the Father (Rom. 8:27). The Holy Spirit is mentioned with the Father and Son (Matt. 28:19). If the Father was the Spirit, none of these would make sense.

What is Biblical Unitarianism? – Considering the Best Arguments For and Against It

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

In this episode of the Theology for the People podcast, Nick Cady and Jason Cralley respond to the best arguments for Biblical Unitarianism, which is the a non-Trinitarian interpretation of biblical texts about who God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are.

In doing this, we look at the history of Arianism and Trinitarian formulations of who God is, including a discussion about Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea, and the Nicene Creed.

Further, we look into the arguments put forth regarding certain Biblical passages that Unitarians point to as evidence of God’s non-trinitarian, or unitarian nature, and give a defense for trinitarian beliefs.

Below, you can find a link to the video mentioned in the episode about Bad Trinitarian Analogies.

Click here to listen to the episode or listen in the embedded player below.

What is Biblical Unitarianism? – Considering the Best Arguments For and Against It – Theology for the People

In this episode, Nick Cady and Jason Cralley respond to the best arguments for Biblical Unitarianism, the a non-Trinitarian interpretation of biblical texts about who God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are. In doing this, they look at the history of Arianism and Trinitarian formulations of who God is, including a discussion about Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea, and the Nicene Creed. Further, they look into the arguments put forth regarding certain Biblical passages that Unitarians point to as evidence of God's non-trinitarian, or unitarian nature, and give a defense for trinitarian beliefs. Make sure to visit the Theology for the People website at nickcady.org

At What Point is a Different Interpretation of the Bible “False Teaching”?

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

In 2 Peter 1:20, Peter states, “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” Then in 2 Peter 2, Peter addresses the issue of false prophets and false teachers who, like wolves, infiltrate, ingratiate, isolate, and then destroy by introducing “destructive heresies.”

At the same time, different Christian groups interpret some parts of the Bible differently, such as eschatology (things regarding the “end times”), pneumatology (things regarding the Holy Spirit), and ordinances or sacraments such as baptism and communion.

See: Is There Only One Correct Way to Interpret a Given Passage of Scripture?

And yet, the question is: at what point does a difference in interpretation of particular scriptural text or principle constitute “false teaching,” i.e. a “destructive heresy”?

I answered that question both in the video linked below, and in the sermon: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing (2 Peter 2:1-22)

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Benefits of Studying Church History

Published on by nickcady1 Comment

adult blur books close up

In his book, Preaching and Preachers, Martyn Lloyd-Jones discusses the following benefits of studying church history:

Church History Guards Us Against Error

Most of the theological discussions that people have today, as well as most heresies that exist today, were already discussed, debated and settled within the first 500 years of Christian history. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are basically neo-arians, and their view of Jesus is the same one which led to the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. The modern heresies of today are really just rebranding and recycling older ideas which the church has already spent a lot of time addressing.

For more on Arius and Arianism, check out: Was It Necessary for Our Salvation that Jesus be God? 

Lloyd-Jones says this:

The way to safeguard yourself…is to learn something about heresies—how they arose in the past generally through very good and conscientious men. History shows how subtle it all is, and how many a man lacking balance, or by failing to maintain the proportion of faith, and the interrelationship of the various parts of the whole message, has been pressed by the devil to put too much emphasis on one particular aspect, and eventually pressed so far as to be in a position in which he is really contradicting the Truth and has become a heretic. So Church history is invaluable… It is not the preserve of the academics. I would say that Church history is one of the most essential studies for the [believer] were it merely to show him this terrible danger of slipping into heresy, or into error, without realising that anything has happened to him.

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Preaching and Preachers (pp. 128-129).

Church History is a Source of Encouragement

Some people think about studying church history as being kind of like a visit to a sausage factory: the finished product might be great, but the way it was made wasn’t pretty. On the contrary, I would say that church history should cause us to be filled with wonder and amazement that in spite of human folly, errors, and mistakes, God has providentially guided and protected His Bride, because He loves her and is devoted to her.

Lloyd-Jones says this:

I know of nothing, in my own experience, that has been more exhilarating and helpful, and that has acted more frequently as a tonic to me, than the history of Revivals.

Take the time we are living in. What discouraging days they are, so discouraging that even a man with an open Bible which he believes, and with the Spirit in him, may at times be discouraged and cast down almost to the depths of despair. There is no better tonic in such a condition than to familiarise yourselves with previous eras in the history of the Church which have been similar, and how God has dealt with them.

The French novelist Anatole France used to say, whenever he felt tired and jaded with a tendency to be depressed and downcast, ‘I never go into the country for a change of air and a holiday, I always go instead into the eighteenth century.’ I have often said exactly the same thing, but not in the same sense in which he meant it, of course. When I get discouraged and over-tired and weary I also invariably go to the eighteenth century. I have never found George Whitefield to fail me. Go to the eighteenth century! In other words read the stories of the great tides and movements of the Spirit experienced in that century. It is the most exhilarating experience, the finest tonic you will ever know.

For a preacher it is absolutely invaluable; there is nothing to compare with it. The more he learns in this way about the history of the Church the better preacher he will be. At the same time let him, of course, during this training become familiar with the stories of the great men of the past, the great saints and preachers. It will not only act as a wonderful tonic to him in times of depression, it will keep him humble when tempted to pride and a spirit of elation.

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Preaching and Preachers (p. 129).

Where to Begin?

There are a lot of really great books on church history. If you know a good one, please feel free to post it in the comments section.

I think a great place to start, with a book that is accessible, substantial, and enjoyable to read, is From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya by Ruth Tucker.

Also check out this great free online lecture series on church history from David Guzik at Enduring Word.

Another great resource is Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister McGrath, which doesn’t sound like a church history book by the title, but approaches theology by looking at it through the development of Christian beliefs over the course of history.

We also offer a class at White Fields on church history. Check out our School of Ministry page, and if you’re interested in the class, shoot us an email at the address listed on that page, and we’ll keep you posted on when we will be hosting that class again.

Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies

Published on by nickcady9 Comments

Christianity Today posted this article about surveys done of evangelical Christians, which revealed how many American evangelicals hold views condemned as heretical by some of the most important councils of the early church.

Here’s the article:

New Poll Finds Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies: Survey finds many American evangelicals hold unorthodox views on the Trinity, salvation, and other doctrines.

It’s worth reading. Here are a few of the poll results:

The concluding statements were also very insightful and worth taking note of:

Beth Felker Jones, professor of theology at Wheaton College, said, “Orthodoxy is life-giving, and God’s people need access to it.” Participants who gave unorthdox answers are not heretics, but probably lacked quality resources, she said. “Church leaders need to be able to teach the truth of the faith clearly and accurately, and we need to be able to show people why this matters for our lives.”

For Nichols, one way forward in understanding God and ourselves is to consult the historic church. “While slightly over half see value in church history, [nearly] 70 percent have no place for creeds in their personal discipleship,” he said. For Nichols, the church’s knowledge of its past will determine its future. Knowing heresies and how they were overcome, he says, will help the church stay on the right track theologically.

Thoughts?