Introduction

What is God? Is God a trinity? How is God one? What is the the Godhead
comprised of? We in the Living Church of God believe in the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit--but as the Bible, and not any council of men defines them.

This article will attempt to provide biblical and historical evidence on the
"binitarian nature" of God.

But first let's see what the The Living Church of God officially teaches

The Father and the Son comprise the "Godhead." There is one God (1 Corinthians
8:4 and Deuteronomy 6:4). Scripture shows that God is a divine Family which
began with two, God the Father and the Word (Official Statement of Fundamental
Beliefs. Living Church of God, March 2004).

A non-Church of God scholar explains the binitarian belief this way

The word ―binitarian‖ is typically used by scholars and theologians as a contrast to

a trinitarian theology: a theology of ―two‖ in God rather than a theology of ―three‖...
it is accurate to offer the judgment that most commonly when someone speaks of a
Christian ―binitarian‖ theology the ―two‖ in God are the Father and the Son...A
substantial amount of recent scholarship has been devoted to exploring the
implications of the fact that Jesus was ''worshipped'' by those first Jewish
Christians, since in Judaism "worship" was limited to the worship of God (Barnes
M. Early Christian Binitarianism: the Father and the Holy Spirit. Early Christian
Binitarianism – as read at NAPS 2001).

Much of the recent scholarship that M. Barnes refers to has been the result of the
translations of the Nag Hammadi and other ancient manuscripts which were not
available (or in the case of the Panarion of Epiphanius, were not available in
English) when older scholarly texts (such as W. Bousset's Kyrios Christos, 1913,
which seemed to come to a different conclusion) were written (though the Bible, of
course, was always available to them).

This article will discuss the Bible, unitarian views, trinitarian views, and the
writings of certain historians to provide biblical and historical proofs that
binitarianism should be considered to be the correct view of the Christian Godhead.

The Old Testament

The Bible starts off with the following statement:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1, NKJV throughout,
unless otherwise noted).

The Hebrew word translated as 'God' is 'elohim. Strong's defines it this way:
OT:430 'elohiym (el-o-heem'); plural of OT:433; gods in the ordinary sense; but
specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God;
occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-
Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators,
Inc.).

So the first time God is mentioned in the Bible, the indication is that God is mentioned as
plural ("indication" because in some places 'elohim can refer to singular).

And to make sure the plurality of God was known, Genesis 1:26 states,

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the
earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

Genesis 1:26 shows that 'elohim above refers to "Us". Us is also plural.

Thus, there is no doubt that from the beginning, the plurality of God was shown.
And this is accepted by both binitarians and trinitarians.

However, one unitarian assertion is,

There is no doubt that the elohim are a plural structure and that they are the
messengers in the Bible texts referred to as angels and that Christ himself was the
Angel of the Presence or the Angel of YHVH. It is thus absurd to suggest that no
angel was referred to as creator when Christ was admitted to be creator and was
also the Angel of YHVH. Moreover, there is no indication that the plural terms
involving creators were confined to two Beings which were God and Christ. This is
an unsupported assumption that is contrary to the Bible. It is, moreover, a basic
assertion of Binitarianism, which is logically absurd and conveys within its
structure the logical inevitability of Trinitarianism. This error entered the Church
some 30-40 years ago and some people cannot divest themselves of their paradigm
(Binitarianism and Trinitarianism (No. 76) (Edition 3.0 19941112-20001202).
Copyright 1994, 2000 Wade Cox. Christian Churches of God).

Colossians 1:15-17, which will be quoted later, makes clear that God created all
things through Jesus, hence the idea of God and Christ as the only two beings being
involved in the creation is not a recent concept as they are the two mentioned in
scripture (this article will document later that binitarianism is also not simply a
recent paradigm for the Church of God).

Similarly, Hebrews 1:1-4 states

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by
the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the
brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all
things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat
down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than
the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

Jesus, while He was a messenger for the Father, is NOT what is commonly called
an angel. Furthermore, the implication of one or more angels being part of Elohim
in Genesis 1 suggests that one or more angels, and not necessarily God, created all
things and that humans are in the image of angels. Yet Ezekiel 10:14 describes what
that the portion of angels called cherubim, at least, look like, "Each one had four
faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, the second face the face of a man, the
third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle"--since they have four
faces and humans have only one, it does not appear that Genesis 1:26 is referring to
humans being made in the angel image.

While it is true that elohim can refer to beings other than the Father and the Son, it
is also true that the word translated as 'god' (in both the Hebrew and the Greek) is
sometimes used of pagan gods and humans. Yet the Father and the Son still are
'God'.

Genesis 2:24 teaches, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be
joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh". This verse clearly shows that
there are ways that two different beings can be considered one by God. Thus, the
idea of two beings being part of one entity is not in any way a new concept, and, as
will shown later, is mentioned several times in the New Testament.

Showing the duality of God, David wrote "The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My
right hand" (Psalm 110:1). When Jesus commented about this He stated, "If David
then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" (Matthew 22:45), He was showing that
He was that 'Lord' and thus that there were two.

Daniel makes this point fairly clear, "I was watching in the night visions, And
behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the
Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given
dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass
away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14).

There were two. The Ancient of Days, who is in the New Testament called the
Father (Matthew 6:9) and the one like the Son of Man which is a term that Jesus
referred to Himself as (Matthew 20:18). (Note: Jesus is specifically referred to
twice in the New Testament as "One like the Son of Man", Revelation 1:13;14:14).
Also, the New Testament shows that the dominion (Jude 25) and kingdom are
given to Christ and that all peoples should serve Him (Revelation 11:15; 19:13-16). A
son becomes the same species its father. Jesus is God.

In addition, Isaiah 44:6 says there is no other god, yet it shows two:
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the
First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.'

Note that the LORD (the King of Israel) And his Redeemer (the LORD of hosts) state 'I am
the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.' Thus the Book of Isaiah clearly
shows that there are two that are somehow one. Hence, the binitarian view is taught in the
Old Testament.

While it is true that the Old Testament states, " Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God,
the LORD is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4), the term God here is also the plural term
'elohim. This verse shows that there is a one-ness about this plurality that did not
exist among pagan deities.

But did any Jews understand any of this? According to Daniel Boyarin, they
certainly did:

There is significant evidence (uncovered in large part by Segal) that in the first
century many—perhaps most—Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God (Boyarin D.
Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2006, p. 131).

Furthermore, according to some interpretations of the Talmud, even rabbinic Jewish writers
endorsed a "binitarian worship" in some of their prayers (ibid, pp. 120-124).

The New Testament

In the New Testament, John begins by making the duality of God clear when he
wrote,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and
without Him nothing was made that was made (John 1:1-3).

Thus the Word was God and was with God. And the Word, Jesus, is a lot like God
the Father, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John
1:14). It should probably be mentioned that those with a unitarian view believe this
should be translated differently, but that does not change the totality of the
scriptures on this subject--Jesus was ACTUALLY MADE FLESH and John never
refers to the Holy Spirit as God.

Paul makes the duality of God clear in every book of the Bible he wrote. All, except
the Book of Hebrews, have a version of this in the introduction (the third verse in
most books), "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ" (Romans 1:7). In Hebrews he words it quite differently, but still shows the
duality of God in the introduction, "God, who at various times and in various ways
spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us
by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made
the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His
person" (Hebrews 1:1-3). Paul, never, of course, included the Holy Spirit in these
introductions, as it is not God.

Like Paul, Peter also made the duality of God clear in the introduction of his two
books (I Peter 1:3; II Peter 1:2), where he too left out the Holy Spirit. Peter
confirmed that he knew that Jesus was part of the God Family when he said to
Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Peter also
seems to confirm that the Holy Spirit is not a person when in Acts 2:17-18 he
quotes Joel about God pouring out His Spirit.

While some holding the unitarian position have cited portions of works such as
William Bousset's Kyrios Christos (which was written in 1913), modern scholars
have concluded that Bousset's logic was flawed. One reason is that much recent
scholarship has been the result of the translations of the Nag Hammadi and other
ancient manuscripts which were not available when Bousset's and other older
scholarly texts were written.

A recently scholarly work was flatly questioning Bousset's view on the term Kyrios
not representing God when it stated,

It is clear that Kyrios was used by Greek-speaking Jews for the Hebrew
tetragrammaton (Yahweh) when reading aloud biblical texts (Hurtado LW. Lord
Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. William B. Eerdmans
Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2003, p. 21).

Yahweh is the name, in Hebrew, that God identified Himself to Moses by (Exodus
3:14, in Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and
International Bible Translators, Inc.).

Jesus

Traditionally, unitarians taught that the one called the Father is God and that is
how God is one. The trinitarians traditionally teach God is one who shows Himself
in three modes (or hypostases), Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all of the same
substance.

Jesus taught, "I and My Father are one" (John 10:30), which totally contradicts the
unitarian position that Jesus is not God (so does John 1, but that is another issue
which they tend to dispute). Matthew, who quoted Isaiah 7:14, also made Jesus'
deity clear, "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall
call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us" " (Matthew 1:23)--
Jesus thus has to be God or He would not be named "God with us"!
"And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to
him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who
have not seen and yet have believed" " (John 20:28-29). Not only did Thomas call
Jesus God, Jesus' statements confirmed the correctness of Thomas' assertion
(which happened after the resurrection).

Also after the resurrection, Paul specifically stated, "For in Him dwells all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). Jesus clearly believed He was
equal with God the Father as Paul points out, "Christ Jesus, who, being in the form
of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:5b-6).

Paul also taught, "But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom" (Hebrews 1:8). Hence
Paul says that the Son is God. Also, since Paul is quoting from Psalm 45, it is clear
then, that this duality and Christ's deity was also taught in the Old Testament
(Psalm 45:6-7).

Part of the problem of the modern trinitarian view of one God who manifests Himself in
three modes is that it demands that God could not have different wills. Yet Jesus taught,
"Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours,
be done" (Luke 22:42). Jesus is clearly stating that on this point He had a different will than
the Father. If Jesus was part of the trinity, He could not have a different will than the
Father, but since He did have a different will (see also John 5:30;7:16) and would speak
different words (John 14:24), He could not be part of the traditionally taught trinity. Jesus
also said that the Father knew things that He did not (Mark 13:32)--they thus could not be
the same as trinitarians teach. The binitarian explanation is the only one that properly
reconciles these and other scriptures that confound the trinitarians.

Of course, this does not phase the unitarians. Unlike binitarians and trinitarians, some
traditional unitarians teach that Jesus did not exist prior to His human birth. One
such example is this by Wayne Atcheson, "The Biblical Confession Is That Christ
Did Not Preexist" (Atcheson, Wayne. The Confession of 1 John 4:2 Is That Christ
Did Not Preexist. Association for Christian Development's The One God Seminar.
Tyler, Texas July 25–27, 2003), yet Paul strongly disputed this when he was
inspired to write, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all
things, and in Him all things consist" (Colossians 1:15-17).

Jesus also denied this unitarian assertion when He stated, "What then if you should
see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?" (John 6:62), as heaven is where
He came from (3:13).

One unitarian response to these verses is to suggest that they may not be reliable as
they were written after Jesus' resurrection, "But no Gospels, no epistles, and no
Apocalypse were penned until decades after Jesus was taken up into the clouds.
This fact is not debated. This point can be important when confronting the very few
scriptures in the NT that seem to reference the preexistence of a glorified Christ"
(Westby, Kenneth. Two Thrones, Two Lords, Two Saviors, One God. Association
for Christian Development's The One God Seminar. Tyler, Texas July 25–27,
2003).

Apparently he forgot that Jesus taught, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
Since Paul wrote, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man
of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (II Timothy
3:16-17), those that believe the Bible will accept its teachings over those who have
reasons to not wish to believe it.

Jesus, Himself, made His prior existence clear, while others were upset to learn
that

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Then
the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen
Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was,
I AM." Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went
out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by" (John 8:56-
59).

Paul referred to Jesus' pre-existence when he wrote, "For you know the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that
you through His poverty might become rich" (II Corinthians 8:9) because the Bible
does not record that Jesus was rich in His physical life on Earth (this verse is also
consistent with Philippians 2:5-7, which will be quoted later)--thus it was prior to
His human existence that He was rich. Paul also referred to Jesus' pre-existence
when he wrote,

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were
under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the
cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual
drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was
Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were
scattered in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples (I Corinthians
10:1-6).

Hence since Christ was the Rock in the wilderness during the time of Moses, He
clearly existed prior to His human birth.

We Are to Be One With the Father and the Son

Jesus also taught:

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their
word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they
also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory
which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one
(John 17:20-23).

Jesus is one with God the Father as He expects His people to be one. As His people
are made up of different individuals, so therefore is God. Jesus continually
emphasized the family relationship between Himself as Son and the Father.
Furthermore, Jesus' statement makes it clear that those called will be part of God's
family as well--how else will true Christians attain the same glory as
Jesus? Paul essentially reiterates this in Romans 8:28-29 (which will be quoted
later).

Matthew recorded, "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that
He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). The New Testament, thus, also clearly
shows that two can be one!

Interestingly, Paul brings both concepts together in Ephesians when he writes, "For
we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. For this reason a man
will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh." This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the
church" (Ephesians 5:30-32).

Thus Paul shows that two are one flesh and that the marital relationship pictures
Christ being one with the Church.

Which is part of what Jesus was talking about in John 17--that there is a oneness
and two-ness in the relationship between He and the Father and that there will be a
oneness between Him and Church--which is composed on many (not just two)
members. Paul also made this clear, "For as we have many members in one
body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are
one body in Christ, and individually members of one another" (Romans 12:4-6).

Although many have attempted to portray the English word 'one' to mean there are
not multiple beings in the God Family, both the Old Testament (which was written
in Hebrew) and the New Testament (which was written in Greek) show that while
God is also one, the Godhead (the term 'Godhead' could probably also be translated
as 'divinity') is currently shared by two, including Jesus (Colossians 2:9;Romans
1:20).
It is the lack of understanding of these concepts by the traditional unitarians and
trinitarians that can blind them to the plan of God. And that we are to be one with
God as the God Family (now consisting of the Father and the Son) now is one!

Modern Scholars Properly Conclude That Binitarianism is Not a New

Concept

Some, who have chosen to misinterpret these scriptures have claimed that the idea
of God consisting of two beings is a relatively recent invention. However scholars
have noted, "Earliest Christian worship specifies two figures, God and Jesus, as
recipients" (Hurtado Larry. Abstract: "The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian
Worship". International Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of
Jesus. 13-17 June 1998).

And in the New Testament and among second century Christians historians
recognize:

...there are a fairly consistent linkage and subordination of Jesus to God "the
Father" in these circles, evident even in the Christian texts from the latter decades
of the first century that are commonly regarded as a very 'high' Christology, such as
the Gospel of John and Revelation. This is why I referred to this Jesus-devotion as
a "binitarian" form of monotheism: there are two distinguishable figures (God and
Jesus), but they are posited in a relation to each other that seems intended to avoid
the ditheism of two gods, and the devotional practices show a similar concern...In
my judgment this Jesus-devotion amounts to a treatment of him as a recipient of
worship at a surprisingly early point in the first century, and is certainly a
programmatic inclusion of a second figure unparalleled in the monotheistic
tradition of the time (Hurtado LW. Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest
Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2003, pp. 52-53).

Interestingly, his book, (which at least one University of Notre Dame scholar calls
"A fantastic work! Larry Hurtado has written what may well prove to be one of the
more important works on Jesus in this generation"), demonstrates that there was a
binitarian view in Christianity that can be proven from the early first century (from
about the time of Christ's death) and that Professor Hurtado concludes that the
trinitarian view came to be dominant later (Ibid, p.651).

And while Professor Hurtado does not personally seem to clearly refer to Christ as
God, he specifically acknowledges

...the "binitarian" pattern of devotion in which both God (the "Father") and Jesus
are objects of such reverence goes back to the earliest observable stages of the
movement that became Christianity...The central place given to Jesus...and...their
concern to avoid ditheism by reverencing Jesus rather consistently with reference
to "the Father", combine to shape the proto-orthodox "binitarian" pattern of
devotion. Jesus truly is reverenced as divine" (Ibid, pp. 605, 618).
Professor Hurtado also notes that "there are numerous places where Ignatius refers
to Jesus as "God" (theos)...Yet Ignatius refers to Jesus as theos while still
portraying him as subordinate to the ""Father"" (Ibid. pp.637, 638), which is a
binitarian view . I would suggest that the early Christians were careful about
avoiding the charge of ditheism because they were reinforcing the binitarian
position that God is one family, currently consisting of the Father and the Son--a
family relationship, in which the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28).

Furthermore another scholar noted,

The argument that Christianity is not binitarian but trinitarian, hence could not be
perceived as a two-powers heresy, ignores the fact that it is not so much what
Christianity thought of itself that counts but how it appeared to its rabbinic critics.
And there we see clearly that it was often described as binitarian or dualistic rather
than trinitarian (Summary of response by Alan F. Segal. International Conference
on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. 13-17 June 1998).

Hence, the early Jewish rabbis recognized early Christianity as binitarian, not
trinitarian or unitarian. But this observation is not limited to critics of the Christian
religion.

Another scholar has noted:

While Paul engages in a great deal of legitimation for his view of Torah, there is no
indication that he felt the need to defend himself against charges of ‗two powers‘
heresy. Paul's view of the exalted Christ's investiture with the divine name
(Phil.2:9-11) must be viewed in relation to non-Christian Jewish texts such as the
Apocalypse of Abraham. This work refers to an exalted angel, Yahoel, who bears the
divine name (Apoc.Abr.10:3,8). There is simply no evidence that belief in a
supreme mediator or agent of God, one that might later be called a ‗second power,‘
was controversial at any point during the first century CE. This is not to be
explained by the lack of any universally recognized authority which could speak for
Jewish ‗orthodoxy‘ in this period. Even within the context of first century Jewish
diversity, parties in conflict with one another took seriously the objections of their
opponents and sought to respond to them. In the case of Paul's claims about the
exalted Christ and of Philo's view of the Logos as a second god, there is nothing to
indicate that their contemporaries found them to be heretical or controversial...the
Tosefta contains several references to Christians as minim (‗heretics‘). The lack of
explicit reference to ‗two powers‘ cannot be explained as a lack of interest in
Christianity, since the rabbis who composed the Tosefta took the trouble to
polemicize against Christians. So, if Christian belief in ‗two powers in heaven‘ was
an issue at that time, it is quite surprising that the Mishnah and the Tosefta do not
mention it" (James McGrath (Alliance Theological Seminary) with Jerry Truex
(Tabor College). TWO POWERS‘ AND EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN
MONOTHEISM
http://www.iwu.edu/~religion/ejcm/McGrath_SBL2001_TwoPowers.htm
9/18/04).
This writing, thus suggests, that certain binitarian ideas were not necessarily
foreign to the Jewish religion at that time.

Regarding the New Testament, a trinitarian scholar has admitted:

The binitarian formulas are found in Rom. 8:11, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1
Tim 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:21, and 2 John 1:13...No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense
is present in the New Testament...There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict
sense in the Apostolic Fathers...(Rusch W.G. The Trinitarian Controversy. Fortress
Press, Phil., 1980, pp. 2-3).

Early, Post New Testament, Writers

Many of us in the true Church of God believe that the churches in Revelation 2 and
3 show the succession of the dominant true church throughout history (click here
for the article Why the Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Matter). As shown earlier in
this article, it is clear that the New Testament Church, the one called Ephesus in
Revelation 2, was binitarian. (More information on the early church can be found
in the article Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and
Rome).

In "the oldest complete Christian sermon that has survived" (Holmes M.W. The
Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books,
Grand Rapids, 2004, p. 102)--outside those in the Bible--sometimes erroneously
referred to as Second Letter of Clement, it seems to support binitarianism.

It was given perhaps with a year or so of John's death (thus may be towards the end
of the time of Ephesus), begins with the following:

Brothers, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ, as of God, as "Judge of the living and
the dead (An Ancient Christian Sermon (2 Clement), 1:1. In Holmes M.W. The
Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books,
Grand Rapids, 2004, p. 107)

So then, brothers, if we do the will of God our Father...(An Ancient Christian

Sermon (2 Clement), 14:1. In Holmes M.W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and
English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2004, p.121).

Now the church, being spiritual was revealed in the flesh of Christ, thereby showing
us that if any of us guard her in the flesh and do not corrupt her, he will receive her
back again in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is a copy of the Spirit. No one,
therefore, who corrupts the copy, will share in the original. This, therefore, is what
he means, brothers: guard the flesh, in order that you may receive of the Spirit.
Now if we say that the flesh is the church and the Spirit is Christ, then the one who
abuses the flesh hath abuses the church. Consequently such a person will not
receive the Spirit, which is Christ. So great is the life and immortality which this
flesh is able to receive, if the Holy Spirit is closely joined with it, that no one is able
to proclaim or to tell "what things the Lord hath prepared" for his chosen ones (An
Ancient Christian Sermon (2 Clement), 14:3-5. In Holmes M.W. The Apostolic
Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books, Grand
Rapids, 2004, p.121).

Thus the oldest preserved sermon (which can be found in its entirety at Ancient
"Christian" Sermon) says to think of Jesus as God and that the Father is God, but it
never indicates that the Holy Spirit is God. This is consistent with the binitarian
view.

The next church in Revelation 2, following Ephesus, was Smyrna. Polycarp was
known as the Bishop of Smyrna and probably the first physical head (under Jesus
Christ) of the era when Smyrna dominated. He was neither trinitarian nor
unitarian according to various historical documents. The following quote attributed
to him (c. 135 A.D.) shows that he (and thus by inference the rest of Smyrna) was
not unitarian,

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High-priest
Himself, the [Son of] God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth, and in all
gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath and in forbearance and long suffering and
in patient endurance and in purity; and may He grant unto you a lot and portion
among His saints, and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall
believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father (The Epistle of
Polycarp to the Philippians in APOSTOLIC FATHERS (as translated by J.B.
LIGHTFOOT) 12:6,7).

It probably should be noted that Dr. Lightfoot left out "Son of" in his translation,
which is in the Latin. It should also be pointed out that I am aware of another
translation of this section by Roberts and Donaldson in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol, 1
which omitted the term "God" before Jesus Christ, but I verified that the term
"deum" is in the Latin version of this epistle {the original Greek versions did not
survive pass chapter 10}. Dr. Lightfoot's translation "our Lord and God Jesus
Christ" is a literal translation of the Latin "dominum nostrum et deum Iesum
Christum". The University of Notre Dame Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid
states "deus -i m. [a god , deity]". The term "deum" is the masculine accusatory
form of the word "deus". Since traditional unitarians do not call Jesus God, it
appears clear that Polycarp clearly was not one of them. Furthermore, he did not
ever call the Holy Spirit God.

Also, Ignatius, who was known by Polycarp (and praised in this same Polycarp
epistle, which is known as Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians), wrote around 108-
120 A.D.,

For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of
David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit. He was born and baptized so that by His
submission He might purify the water (Ignatius of Antioch, Letters to the Ephesians 18,2--
note this is translated the same by at least three separate translations as done by Dr.
Lightfoot, J.H. Srawley, and Roberts & Donaldson).

…the fullness of God the Father…and of Jesus Christ our God…God appeared in human
form to bring newness of eternal life (Ignatius. Letter the Ephesians, 0.0; 19,3. In Holmes:
The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids
(MI), 2004, pp. 137, 149).

Hence, Ignatius (who apparently lived in the times dominated by both the Ephesus
and Smyrna eras of the Church), who received Polycarp's praise, also recognized
Jesus as God, and thus could not have been a traditional unitarian. His statements
are binitarian.

Ignatius stated:

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness
through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the
ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true
passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church
which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ
Jesus and in blameless joy (Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians, Verse 0. In Apostolic
Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation).

He also stated something similar to the Smyrnaeans:

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God the Father and of Jesus
Christ the Beloved, which hath been mercifully endowed with every grace, being
filled with faith and love and lacking in no grace, most reverend and bearing holy
treasures; to the church which is in Smyrna of Asia, in a blameless spirit and in the
word of God abundant greeting. I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed
such wisdom upon you" (Ignatius' Letter to the Symrnaeans, Verses 0-1.1. In
Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation).

It is important to note that Ignatius referred to both the Father and the Son as God
in both places (and I verified that it is in the original Greek), but he never called the
Holy Spirit 'God'. The Holy Spirit he referred to as "rope" (Ignatius. Letter the Ephesians,
9,1. In Holmes: The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker
Books, Grand Rapids (MI), 2004, p. 143).

A second century apologist named Athenagoras wrote the following:

And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power
of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of
God...The Holy Spirit...which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence
of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun...Who,
then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of
God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians,
Chapter X. Translated by B.P. Pratten. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition,
1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Thus Athenagoras explained that the Father and the Son are God, have a onesness
of power and spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is the effluence of God. He never called
the Holy Spirit God. And he stated that both, the Father and the Son (the term in
English refers to two), are both God and distinct--this is a binitarian view.

Near the end of the second century, Melito of Sardis (whom Catholics and others
consider to be a saint) wrote

No eye can see Him, nor thought apprehend Him, nor language describe Him; and
those who love Him speak of Him thus: `Father, and God of Truth" (Melito. A
Discourse Which Was in the Presence of Antoninus Caesar).

Melito also wrote, "For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially
His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His
flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise...He concealed the
signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages" (Melito.
On the Nature of Christ. From Roberts and Donaldson).

This clearly shows that Melito considered Christ to be God (though with part of His
deity concealed), as well as the Father. There is no indication in any of the
surviving writings of Melito that he considered that the Holy Spirit was also God,
hence he seemed to hold a binitarian view. Actually, like most binitarians, his
writings suggest that the Holy Spirit was simply the power of God as he wrote:

The finger of the Lord-the Holy Spirit, by whose operation the tables of the law in
Exodus are said to have been written (Melito. From the Oration on Our Lord's
Passion. Online version copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html 9/10/05).

Also near the end of the second century (Circa 180), Irenaeus (who is also
considered to have been a saint by the Roman Catholics) wrote this in his famous
paper against heresies:

...there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the
Son, and those who possess the adoption (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV,
Preface, Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by
Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition
Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Notice that Irenaeus states that only the Father, the Son, and those who possess the
adoption (Christians) are God. This is a binitarian, not a trinitarian view.
Christianity Today (a Protestant publication) records this piece of Church history
involving the Catholic Origen:

The great third-century theologian Origen, for example, pressed a bishop named
Heraclides to define the relationship of Christ to God the Father. After much
careful questioning, Heraclides admitted to believing in two Gods but clarified that
"the power is one." Origen reminded Heraclides that some Christians would "take
offense at the statement that there are two Gods. We must express the doctrine
carefully to show in what sense they are two, and in what sense the two are one
God." (Did You Know? Unusual facts about the Council of Nicea. Church History
2005. Christianity Today.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2005/001/4.2.html).

Hence even the Catholic and Protestant scholars must know that binitarianism was
the earliest prevailing position among those who professed Christ.

Interestingly, Tertullian (often called "the father of Latin theology"), around 213
A.D. wrote

Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created,
at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared (Against
Praxeas 13:1).

Tertullian also wrote:

The simple...are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and
three gods...

Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able
to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of
their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up
the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up -- and in like manner, He who subjected
(all things), and He to whom they were subjected -- must necessarily be two different
Beings. But since they will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed
to be the same as the Son...For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation
and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the
Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father
is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son (Tertullian. Against Praxeas, Chapters
3,4-5,9. Translated by Peter Holmes. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3.
Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online
Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Around the same time Hippolytus (who, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia "was the
most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in
the pre-Constantinian era") wrote:
These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the
testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and
acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was
also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed
speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy
(disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are
two Persons, because there is also the Son (Hippolytus. Against Noetus, Chapter 14.
Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Thus from Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, Irenaeus, Tertullian (although he himself did
not hold a binitarian view), Origen and Hippolytus, we have strong evidence that
some sort of binitarian view was held during the time of Smyrna (the second, third,
and early fourth centuries).

The Methodist Review reported in 1903:

University of Halle, Germany. Loofs is a professor of Church history...He has introduced

into theology a new term which may lead to almost endless discussion—the term
binitarianism...In the study of the earliest developments of Christology he sees, as he
imagines, a form of belief that is neither trinitarian nor unitarian, but that may be named
binitarian...He thinks he sees this doctrine, among the earliest Christian writers, most
plainly in the shepherd of Hennas, but also in Barnabas, the Second Epistle of Clement, and
in Tertullian. He thinks the genuine form of this binitarian doctrine was local to Asia
Minor, and that it was found in Asia Minor in Marcellus of Ancyra, who died 372 A. D.
From Asia Minor it spread to the West through Ignatius and Irenaeus, and in the fourth
century it was still more or less current in the West in the person of Hilary, bishop of
Poitiers, who died in 368. {Waldemar}Macholz does not lay claim to originality, but,
taking up the investigations of his master, Loofs, he carries the researches into more remote
regions of Christian thought, and thinks he finds evidence that many writers were affected
by binitarianism. For example, he thinks that Tertullian was a binitarian until the
Montanists taught him trlnitarianism. How much truth, now, is there in all this? Simply this
much, that the doctrine of the Spirit was late in developing...Binitarianism was opposed to
unitarianism...(Methodist review, Volume 85, September 1903. Original from the
University of California, Digitized Jan 2, 2008, p. 820)

Early Christians absolutely did NOT believe that Jesus was a co-equal member of any
trinity. Notice the following 2003 observation by Professor Hurtado:

In the first two centuries, all texts from, and affirmed in, the developing proto-orthodox
tradition, from the New Testament writings onwards, reflect subordination Christology, the
Son understood as the unique agent of the Father, serving the will of the Father, and leading
the redeemed to the Father...I emphasize...this...belief about God was accompanied by and
expressed by a "binitarian" pattern of devotional practice...(Hurtado LW. Lord Jesus
Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
Grand Rapids, 2003, pp. 647, 651)
The binitarian explantion of the Godhead with the Son subservient to the Father was not
only scriptural (Luke 22:42; John 14:28), it was documented in all the early writings that
the Greco-Romans currently accept according to Professor Hurtado.

Furthermore, it perhaps should be mentioned that not just regular writings, but the sacra
nomina (generally two-letter abbreviations, perhaps intended to identify the documents as
―Christian‖) found on early documents associated Christianity is also believed to support
the position that those that professed Christ in the second century were binitarian. Larry
Hurtado observed:

The Christian nomina sacra…differ in form from any Jewish scribal devices…Most
significantly, the four earliest Christian nomina sacra are the two key words for God
(Theos and Kyrios) and key designations for Jesus (Iēosus, Christos, and Kyrios). If
therefore, as is usually believed, the nomina sacra practice represents an expression of
piety and reverence, it is a striking departure from pre-Christian Jewish scribal practice to
extend to these designations of Jesus the same scribal treatment given to key designations
for God. That is, the four earliest Christian nomina sacra collectively manifest one
noteworthy expression of what I have called the “binitarian shape” of earliest
Christian piety and devotion (Hurtado LW. The Earliest Christian Artifacts. William B.
Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids (MI), 2006, pp. 105-106).

In Emperor Constantine's time, Pergamos (the next church in Revelation 2) began

to become predominant. Many were known as 'Paulicians', 'Bogomils', 'Cathars',
and 'Patarenes', with those towards to end sometimes known as 'Albigensians'
(although most referred by those names were not in the true Church).

The Nationmaster Encyclopedia states,

The Albigensians and other Bogomil heretics...denied the third person of the Holy
Trinity.

Perhaps it should be added that most historians do understand that early Christian
writings (nearly all prior to the third century) were more supportive of
binitarianism that trinitarianism. Interestingly, this is even acknowledged by a
booklet against binitarianism that states:

There was an early heresy in the church known as Binitarianism. Binitarianism is a belief in
the Deity of the Father and Son but not the Holy Spirit...The Binitarian heresy never gained
much acceptance. (Stewart D. Is The Holy Spirit Merely Another Name For Jesus?
(Binitarianism). http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/337.html 7/07/06).

Of course, since binitarianism existed from the beginning, it was not a heresy. Notice
carefully that the above writer acknowledges that Binitarianism existed from an early
time. I would add that the fact that the true Church of God is, and always has been, small,
is not proof that it or our doctrines, such as binitarianism are in error. The plain truth is that
unlike binitarianism, trinitarianism was not documented to exist in the true church ever, or
even mainstream Christianity before the third century (though two universally recognized
heretics, Montanus and Valentinus, espoused some version of it).

Actually, binitarianism was the main form of Christianity. It mainly declined in overall
popularity as the separation between true Christians (often referred to by scholars as
Nazarenes and Jewish Christians) widened. Because in the first two centuries, both true
Christians and those that were more Roman Catholic and/or Eastern Orthodox in their
views were binitarian. People in those three groups are often referred to as "proto-
orthodox".

..."Nazarene" Christianity, had a view of Jesus fully compatible with the beliefs favored by
the proto-orthodox (indeed, they could be considered part of the circles that made up proto-
orthodox Christianity of the time). Pritz contended that this Nazarene Christianity was the
dominant form of Christianity in the first and second centuries...the devotional stance
toward Jesus that characterized most of the Jewish Christians of the first and second
centuries seems to have been congruent with proto-orthodox devotion to Jesus...the proto-
orthodox "binitarian" pattern of devotion. (Hurtado LW. Lord Jesus Christ,
Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand
Rapids, 2003, pp. 560-561,618).

However, as the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox became less like original Christianity,
they also adopted a different (a trinitarian) view of the Godhead. "Nazarene" Christianity
completely separated from Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox "Christianity" by the end of
the third century, with most of the separation occuring in the second century (please see the
articles Apostolic Succession and The Smyrna Church Era).

Dr. Arius

Arius was a teacher (which is what the word "doctor" means, whether he is formally
considered to be a doctor is unclear) from Alexandria who held to the belief that
God the Father was supreme in authority to Jesus, and that the Holy Spirit was not
the third member of the Godhead. However, he did hold at least one belief that
binitarians did not hold--he believed that Jesus had a beginning, while binitarians
do not accept that.

Regarding Arius, here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia records:

He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the
First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things
else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine
perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was
without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed.
For all that has origin must begin to be (Barry W. Transcribed by Anthony A.
Killeen. Arianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by
Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil
Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal
Farley, Archbishop of New York).
And while true Christians will understand that Christ is God and accepts the Son
being under the authority of God the Father, we do not accept that He had a
beginning (see Hebrews 7:3).

Perhaps, I should add what Herbert W. Armstrong wrote about Arius:

...another controversy was raging, between a Dr. Arius, of Alexandria, a Christian

leader who died A.D. 336, and other bishops, over calling God a Trinity. Dr. Arius
stoutly opposed the Trinity doctrine, but introduced errors of his own (Armstrong
HW. Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1985, p. 54).

Herbert Armstrong is essentially stating that Dr. Arius' understanding was

imperfect--and that would be at least on the point of Jesus at one time not existing.

Many people know that there was a great debate at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Although he did not wish to go to this meeting, Emperor Constantine summoned
and forced Dr. Arius to attend the pagan Emperor's council.

According to historical accounts, the attendees at this council were split into three
factions:

1) Arians - Supporters of the position of Dr. Arius, about 10% of the attendees.
2) In-Between - Those who held a position between the Arians and Trinitarians,
about 75% of the attendees. Eusebius was the main spokesperson for them.
3) Trinitarians - Those who supported the views of Athanasius, about 15% of the
attendees.

Anyway, although Eusebius led the biggest group, after an impassioned speech by
Athanasius, Emperor Constantine arose. And since he was the Emperor (plus he
was dressed as a golden "angel"), his standing was noticed by the bulk of the
attendees who correctly interpreted the Emperor as now supporting Athanasius.
And because of Athanasius' speech and the Emperor's approval, the bulk of the
attendees decided to come up with a statement that the Arians could not support.

This solved the Emperor's concern about unity of his version of Christianity, and
pretty much drove the Arians out.

Semi-Arians

The true Church of God opposed the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church at this
time to become strictly trinitarian and, shortly after the Council of Nicea, most had
to go into exile. Historical records at the time show that some version of
binitarianism was a belief held by many professing Christians then (including many
not actually in the Church of God). Some who are unitarians believe they have
conflicting evidence, but part of the problem is that while it is true that Dr. Arius
held a version of the unitarian position (which differs dramatically from certain
current traditional unitarians), it is also true that the binitarians were considered to
be 'semi-Arians' (even though there were different definitions of semi-Arians as well).

The leading Catholic historian of the Constantine era, Eusebius, was a Semi-Arian bishop
who was succeeded by another Semi-Arian:

When in 338, Eusebius died in Caesarea he was succeeded by his disciple Acacius, who
shared the semi-Arianism of his master (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene
Hoade. The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, Part 1, Chapter 1. Nihil obstat: Ignatius
Mancini. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 28 Februarii
1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, p. 49).

In 359, there was even a "semi-Arian council of Seleucia (359)" attended by Greco-
Roman church leaders (Ibid, p. 56). And "in 335, the semi-Arian bishops, returning from
the council of Tyre" consecrated a basilica (Ibid, p. 59). In other words, even among the
Greco-Roman bishops, many were "semi-Arians".

And at least one now claimed to be Pope (Liberius) was believed to have been Semi-Arian.
Notice what The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:

The second Formula of Sirmium (357) stated the doctrine of the Anomoeans, or extreme
Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of
their leader Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the
Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, though
silent on the term "homousios", consecrated by the Council of Nicaea, was signed by a few
orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius, being, in fact, capable of an orthodox
interpretation. The Emperor Constantius cherished at that time the hope of restoring peace
between the orthodox and the Semi-Arians by convoking a general council (Benigni,
Umberto. "Council of Rimini." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert
Appleton Company, 1912. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13057b.htm>).

Pneumatomachi…The majority of this sect were clearly orthodox on the Consubstantiality

of the Son; they had sent a deputation from the Semi-Arian council of Lampsacus (364
A.D.) to Pope Liberius, who after some hesitation acknowledged the soundness of their
faith; but with regard to the Third Person, both pope and bishops were satisfied with the
phrase: "We believe in the Holy Ghost" (Arendzen, John. "Pneumatomachi." The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 11 Jul. 2008
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174a.htm>)

"In the Council of Rimini, 359 A.D...nearly all bishops present, 400 in number" decided "to
sign a semi-Arian creed" (Kramer H.B. L. The Book of Destiny. Nihil Obstat: J.S.
Considine, O.P., Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: +Joseph M. Mueller, Bishop of Sioux
City, Iowa, January 26, 1956. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 165).

Hence, the idea that the majority in the 4th century were semi-Arian has a lot of support in
Greco-Roman writings. Also, the fact that 400 bishops who met in Rimini, Italy in 359
A.D. signed a "semi-Arian creed" indicates that the majority of leaders in West accepted
some type of non-trinitarian position on the Godhead.

The Council of Rimini was also called the Council of Ariminum. Notice what Sozomen
reported about it:

The partisans of Acacius remained some time at Constantinople, and invited thither several
bishops of Bithynia, among whom were Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, and Ulfilas, bishop of
the Goths. These prelates having assembled together, in number about fifty, they confirmed
the formulary read at the council of Ariminum, adding this provision, that the terms
"substance" and "hypostasis" should never again be used in reference to God. They also
declared that all other formularies set forth in times past, as likewise those that might be
compiled at any future period, should be condemned (Sozomen, Book IV, Chapter 24 ).

Socrates Scholasticus reported the following as part of the declaration of that Council:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty…And in…Christ our Lord and God…

But since the term ούσία, substance or essence which was used by the fathers in a very
simple and intelligible sense, but not being understood by the people, has been a cause of
offense, we have thought proper to reject it, as it is not contained even in the sacred
writings; and that no mention of it should be made in future, inasmuch as the holy
Scriptures have nowhere mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. Nor ought
the "subsistence" of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to be even named.
But we affirm that the Son is like the Father, in such a manner as the sacred Scriptures
declare and teach (Socrates Scholasticus, Book II, Chapter 41, pp. 221,222).

The same Council also taught this about the Holy Spirit:

We believe also in the Holy Spirit…as the Comforter; according to how it is written, the
Spirit of truth (Ibid, p. 221).

So while Semi-Arians believe that there is a Holy Spirit, they tend to limit their beliefs to
what the Bible says about it—they do not declare it to be the third co-equal person of a non-
existent Greco-Roman trinity.

In 359, there was also a semi-Arian council of Seleucia (359) attended by Greco-Roman
church leaders (Bagatti, The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, p.56). And "in 335, the
semi-Arian bishops, returning from the council of Tyre" consecrated a basilica (Bagatti,
The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, p.59). In other words, even among the Greco-
Roman bishops, many were "Semi-Arians".

Here is another important semi-Arian bishop according to The Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, born about 315;
died probably 18 March, 386… He appeared at the Council of Seleucia in 359, in which the
Semi-Arian party was triumphant… He belonged to the Semi-Arian, or Homoean party,
and is content to declare that the Son is "in all things like the Father" (Chapman, John. St.
Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor.
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1908. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm>

While some have questioned if Cyril was semi-Arian, it is also known that Maximus II
(who preceded him as bishop of Jerusalem) had semi-Arian views.

The Catholic Saint Jerome, while discussing Arian and anti-Arian writings wrote:

Fortunatianus, an African by birth, bishop of Aquilia during the reign of Constantius,

composed brief Commentaries on the gospels arranged by chapters, written in a rustic style,
and is held in detestation because, when Liberius bishop of Rome was driven into exile for
the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy (Jerome.
De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Chapter 97).

Here is more modern Catholic writing about Pope Liberius:

Liberius (352-366)…the signing of a document that contained a formulation very close to

the Arian thesis…he was criticized by many (Athanasius, Hilary of Poiters, Jerome) who
saw this submission as a weakness due to fear of death (Lopes A. Translation by Charles
Nopar. The Popes. Pontifical Administration, Rome, 1997, p.12).

Even the Orthodox bishop of Constantinople in the fourth century held to some form of
Semi-Arian view:

Towards the middle of the fourth century, Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and,
after him a number of Semi-Arians, while apparently admitting the Divinity of the Word,
denied that of the Holy Ghost (Forget J. Transcribed by W.S. French, Jr. Holy Ghost. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company.
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort,
S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Macedonius... denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and was made Bishop of
Constantinople A. D. 342 or 343 (Chrystal James. Authoritative Christianity: The First
Ecumenical Council ... which was Held A.D. at Nicaea in Bithynia. Published by J.
Chrystal, 1891 Item notes: v.1 Original from the New York Public Library Digitized Jul 11,
2006, p. 316).

Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople in the middle of the 4th century, denied that the
Holy Ghost was equal in essence and dignity to God the Father. The Council of Alexandria
in 363 declared this bishop and his adherents, the Pneumatomachists, teachers of heresy
(Beach F.C. The Americana: A Universal Reference Library, Comprising the Arts and
Sciences, Literature, History, Biography, Geography, Commerce, Etc., of the World.
Published by Scientific American compiling department, 1912 Item notes: v.10 Original
from the University of California Digitized May 8, 2008).

Perhaps it should also be noted that Socrates Scholasticus reported that Macedonius had
long been a deacon before his election as Bishop of Constantinople, that he was aged, and
that he was elected by the Arians (Socrates Scholasticus, Book II, Chapter 6 ) (sometimes
"semi-Arians" are inaccurately referred to as Arians in certain Greco-Roman writings).
Thus, the "semi-Arian" view should not be considered as something that simply happened
in the fourth century. Instead, semiarianism was a teaching that ended up being replaced by
the Greco-Roman trinity in the latter part of that century. Furthermore, even the official
website of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople admits that the arians/semi-
semiarians ruled that ―see‖ for at least ―forty years‖ in the fourth century (Gregory I of
Nazianzen 379-381. © 2010 The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/former-patriarchs/gregory-i-of-nazianzen viewed
04/17/10). However, it should be understood that there is no evidence that Constantinople
had any ―bishops‖ prior to the fourth century who were actual trinitarians. The reality is
that amongst most of the Eastern Orthodox, they and their leaders had always held some
type of semi-Arian/binitarian view of the Godhead.

The historian Sozomen reported:

Liberius...Constantius urged him, in the presence of the deputies of the Eastern bishops,
and of the other priests who were at the camp, to confess that the Son is not of the same
substance as the Father. He was instigated to this measure by Basil, Eustathius, and
Eusebius, who possessed great influence over him. They had formed a compilation, in one
document, of the decrees against Paul of Samosata, and Photinus, bishop of Sirmium; to
which they subjoined a formulary of faith drawn up at Antioch at the consecration of the
church, as if certain persons had, under the pretext of the term consubstantial, attempted to
establish a heresy of their own. Liberius, Athanasius, Alexander, Severianus, and Crescens,
a priest of Africa, were induced to assent to this document, as were likewise Ursacius,
Germanius, bishop of Sirmium, Valens, bishop of Mursa, and as many of the Eastern
bishops as were present (Sozomen. Translated by Chester D. Hartranft. Ecclesiastical
History (Book IV), Chapter 15. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol.
2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing
Co., 1890.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26024.htm>).

So, apparently even Athanasius ―compromised‖ his beliefs for a time. Gregory of
Cappadocia was semi-Arian, and although many of the Orthodox no longer count him as
legitimate successor, he was appointed, and ruled, as the Bishop of Alexandria. And those
that do not accept him (and even those that do) normally accept that Athanasius was a
legitmate successor, even though Athanasius taught his opponents ―ought to be held in
universal hatred‖ (Jones W. The history of the Christian church: from the birth of Christ to
the eighteenth century, including the very interesting account of the Waldenses and
Albigenses, Volume 1, 3rd edition. R.W. Pomeroy, 1832. Original from the University of
Wisconsin – Madison. Digitized, Mar 13, 2008, p. 177). This is not the sign of a real
Christian leader as by stating what he did, Athanasius was being unfaithful to what Jesus
taught about opponents (Matthew 5:44).

Most of the bishops of Antioch in the 4th century were either Arian or semi-Arian until the
Council of Constantinople (Patriarchs of Antioch. Chronological List. Syriac Orthodox
Resources. http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html viewed 04/12/10. The
preceding identified seven ―successors‖ as Arian, but failed to mention that several others
were semi-Arian). Gregory of Cappadocia was semi-Arian, and although many of the
Orthodox no longer count him as legitimate successor, he was the Bishop of Alexandria
(Gibbon, p. 496).

Thus, into the middle of the fourth century, many major leaders of the Greco-Roman
churches endorsed Semi-Arian, non-trinitarian positions (and both churches trace their so-
called apostolic succession through them). They represented all of the so-called five Greco-
Roman "apostolic sees" How then can the Greco-Romans and Protestants claim then that
the trinity was the original view of the church? It is a historical fact that it was NOT.

Over time, however, the trinitarian bishops gained more influence however. But some
offended the Semi-Arians.

Certain Catholics wanted to get their type of semi-Arians back more into the fold and that is
significantly why they convened the Council of Constantinople in May of 381. Notice what
The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

First Council of Constantinople (SECOND GENERAL COUNCIL.) This council was

called in May, 381, by Emperor Theodosius, to provide for a Catholic succession in the
patriarchal See of Constantinople, to confirm the Nicene Faith, to reconcile the semi-Arians
with the Church...(Shahan TJ. Transcribed by Sean Hyland. First Council of
Constantinople. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Published 1908. New York:
Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M.
Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Yet, the Council of Constantinople so offended the semi-Arians that many of them walked
out. Then, that council also "anathematized" the "semi-Arians" (Latourette K.S. A History
of Christianity, Volume 1, Beginnings to 1500. Harper Collins, San Francisco, 1975,
p.163).

The following, is also from the late fourth century, but by Gregory of Nyssa. It suggests
that even after the Greco-Roman alliance finally accepted the trinity as now taught, not
everyone did. Gregory wrote that the Manichaean/Paulicians did accept the Father and Son
as God, but not the Holy Spirit, hence this additional evidence that they still held a
binitarian/Semi-Arian view:

I am aware, too, that the Manichees go about vaunting the name of Christ. Because they
hold revered the Name to which we bow the knee, shall we therefore number them amongst
Christians? So, too, he who both believes in the Father and receives the Son, but sets aside
the Majesty of the Spirit, has "denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel," and belies the
name of Christ which he bears (Gregory of Nyssa. On the Holy Spirit, Against the
Macedonians. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 5.
Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1893. Online Edition
Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Did you realize that this "semi-arian" matter was so big?

Here is how one author defined those who were semi-arian:

Semi Arianism...They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a
different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the
Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was "of one substance (homoousios) with the
Father." Semi Arians taught that Christ was similar ( homoios) to the Father, or of
like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate" (Pfandl, Gerhard. THE
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AMONG ADVENTISTS. Biblical Research Institute
Silver Spring, MD June 1999,
http://www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/trinity.html,
7/12/04).

This is consistent with Jesus' statements about Himself and that He was subordinate to the
Father (John 14:28; Luke 4:43) as well as Paul's statements (I Corinthians 15:27-28).

The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches this about the Semi-Arians,

A name frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth
century...showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance...rejected the
Divinity of the Holy Ghost (Chapman, John. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. Semiarians
and Semiarianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII. Published 1912. New York:
Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor.
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Thus, Catholic-approved writings acknowledge that the majority of those who professed
Christ in Asia Minor (the East) in the 4th century were "Semi-Arians" and that the
Pope along with about 400 other Western bishops acknowledged that the doctrines of the
those that did not believe that the Holy Spirit was God (the Pneumatomachi) were sound.

Did you know this before?

Sabbath-Keeping Semi-Arians

There were Semi-Arians in Armenia in the late fourth century who also kept the seventh-
day Sabbath:

Eustathius was succeeded by Erius, a...semi-Arian...he urged a purer morality and a stricter
observance of the Sabbath (Davis, Tamar. A General History of the Sabbatarian Churches.
1851; Reprinted 1995 by Commonwealth Publishing, Salt Lake City, p. 20) .
After several Greco-Roman councils in the late fourth century, the Greco-Romans changed
and had a different majority view of the Godhead. Once they had that, they began to turn
more and more against those who held to a binitarian/Semi-Arian view of the Godhead.

Although Catholic writers have had many definitions of "Semi-Arians" (most of

which disagree with the Church of God position), one that somewhat defines the
binitarian view taken in this article would possibly be this one from Epiphanius in
the late-4th Century,

Semi-Arians...hold the truly orthodox view of the Son, that he was forever with the
Father...but has been begotten without beginning and not in time...But all of these
blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and do not count him in the Godhead with the Father
and the Son (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III
(Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 1,1 and 1,3. Translated by Frank
Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp.471-472).

The above description is somewhat consistent with those held by the Living Church
of God. We believe Jesus was always God and forever with the Father, but once
begotten, became the Son. By not considering that the Holy Spirit is a separate
Being, some form of binitarians were called the Pneumatomachi as a subset of
Semi-Arians. The Catholic historian Epiphanius described them as

A sort of monstrous, half-formed people of two natures" (Epiphanius. The Panarion

of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI,
Verses 1,1 and 1,3. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, p.471).

Hence, binitarians have long been subject to criticism by those who accepted the
Nicene and later Councils.

Another in the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa, describes the beliefs of non-
trinitarians as follows:

But they reveal more clearly the aim of their argument. As regards the Father, they
admit the fact that He is God, and that the Son likewise is honoured with the
attribute of Godhead; but the Spirit, Who is reckoned with the Father and the Son,
they cannot include in their conception of Godhead, but hold that the power of the
Godhead, issuing from the Father to the Son, and there halting, separates the
nature of the Spirit from the Divine glory ( On the Holy Trinity. Excerpted from
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 5. Edited by Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace. American Edition, 1893. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K.
Knight).

Around 600 A.D. some true, non-trinitarian, Christians were known as Paulicians
by their opponents and since they believed "Christ came down from heaven"
(Herzog, ―Paulicians,‖ Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of
Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn, Vol. 2. Toronto,
New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894. pp.1776-1777,
http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/h_paul.html, 7/14/04), it appears they at least
accepted the pre-existence of Christ and other evidence suggests that they most
likely were also binitarian.

Continuing Throughout History

The next church in succession in Revelation 2 was Thyatira. Documents throughout

its predominate time show that it was not trinitarian:

A heresy during the middle ages that developed in the town Albi in Southern
France. This error taught that there were two gods...The Albigenses taught that
Jesus was God but that He only appeared as a man while on earth (Albigenes.
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY.
http://www.carm.org/heresy/albigensis.htm 9/03/05).

Note: Most Albigenses were not in the Church of God (COG), though some COG
critics called COG members Albigenses at that time. And the COG believes Jesus
was a man while on the earth (and did not just appear to be so). It seems that some
remnant of Thyatira remained in the Transcarpathian mountain regions, and at
least some of them (in the Ukraine portion at least, who are affiliated with the
United Church of God) are (and probably were previously) binitarian.

It should be pointed out that there are differences in opinion of what happened to
this era, as many who may have been associated with it apparently became
unitarians--the fact that many have historically left the true church for other
doctrines does not make the other doctrines correct.

The next church in succession, beginning with the first verse of Revelation 3, was
Sardis--later essentially incorporated as the Church of God, Seventh Day (CG7). It
seems to have come from the binitarian portion of the Anabaptist movement--
which traced itself back to the Paulicians (Lee. F. The Anabaptists and their
Stepchildren. http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_002.html,
7/14/04) .

The next church in succession, beginning with the first verse of Revelation 3, was
Sardis. The Sardis era of the Church ended up having some members in what is
now the United Kingdom with parts such as the London Mill Yard Church. After
migration to the what is now the U.S.A., most faithful ones here eventually
essentially incorporated as the Church of God, Seventh Day (CG7). It seems to have
come from the binitarian portion of the Anabaptist movement--which traced itself
back to the Paulicians (Lee. F. The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren.
http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_002.html, 7/14/04).

Richard Nickels noted this about one from Sardis era in the late 17th century:

Joseph Davis, Sr., a member of the London Mill Yard Church, wrote in 1670 that he
believed in one God the Father, one Lord Christ, and that the Holy Spirit is the
power of God, not part of a "Trinity" (Nickels R. We are Sabbath-Keepers, Not
Seventh-Day Adventists.
http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/sda/064.sda.html 03/10/06).

Although some of CG7's current leadership is apparently leaning towards

trinitarianism, it was (and officially to some degree, still is) binitarian. It
acknowledges the deity of both the Father and the Son, but specifically has taught
against the divinity of the Holy Spirit (Dugger A.N., Todd C.O. A History of True
Religion). Actually one of the earlier published statement under a section titled
False Doctrines is "About the year 379 the apostate church began to seek
Scriptures to teach the erroneous doctrine of the deity of the Holy Ghost" (Ibid,
p.87)--so the trend in CG7 to be more accepting of the trinity is not only disturbing,
it absolutely conflicts with its past teachings.

The Seventh Day Adventists

The Seventh Day Adventists are one example of a group formed from people who
once affiliated with the true Church of God, but essentially tried to take over (they
actually did takeover, which is what caused CG7 to leave and form) and change
doctrine--in the 1800s, although they remained Sabbatarians, they rejected the
name 'Church of God', and adopted non-COG doctrines--the trinity became
doctrine when Ellen White published a pamphlet in 1897 declaring the Holy Spirit
"the third person of the Godhead"--Andrews University suggests the SDAs were
binitarians before this).

Essentially, SDA scholars admit that the pioneers of the SDA church were
binitarian/Semi-Arian, that James and Ellen White were at first, but that over a
forty year span of time, Ellen White (and hence the SDA church) became essentially
trinitarian, and that this was ratified officially about 100 years after the SDAs
infiltrated the COG.

SDA scholar, G. Pfandl, wrote this about the Semi-Arians (a title that somewhat applies to
those in the COGs):

While the Seventh day Adventist Church today espouses the doctrine of the Trinity, this has
not always been so. The evidence from a study of Adventist history indicates that from the
earliest years of our church to the 1890's a whole stream of writers took an Arian or semi
Arian position (Pfandl, Gerhard. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AMONG
ADVENTISTS. Biblical Research Institute Silver Spring, MD June 1999,
http://www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/trinity.html, 5/12/06).

SDA scholar Dr. Jerry Moon wrote:

In 1846 James White dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity as "the old unscriptural
trinitarian creed."2 A century later, in 1946, the denomination he co-founded voted a
"Fundamental Beliefs" statement that specifically endorsed the doctrine of the Trinity. That
most of the early leaders among Seventh-day Adventists held an antitrinitarian theology,
and that a major shift has since occured, has become standard Adventist history...That
Gane's characterization of Ellen White as a "trinitarian monotheist" is accurate regarding
her mature concept of God, from 1898 onward. In the 1840s, however, she did not yet have
all the components of that view in place. Her mature view developed through a 40-year
process that can be extensively documented...At the core of the debate is the question
whether Ellen White's position on the Trinity ever changed. Some assume that she never
changed, that either she always believed in the Trinity or never believed in the Trinity.9
There is ample evidence, however, that Ellen White's beliefs did change...Brick by
conceptual brick, (perhaps without even being aware of it herself) she was slowly but
surely dismantling the substructure of the antitrinitarian view, and building a trinitarian
view. In another clear break with the prevailing semi-Arian consensus, she declared in 1878
that Christ was the "eternal Son."41...In 1890, she followed up her 1888 affirmation of
Christ's unity with the Father (in nature, character, and purpose) with perhaps her last major
statement that can still be read ambiguously. "The Son of God shared the Father's throne,
and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both."46 Retrospectively, this
phrase harmonizes perfectly with her later statements (especially Desire of Ages, 530) that
Christ is "self-existent" and that His Deity is not "derived" from the Father. It is also
possible, however, to read the sentence from a binitarian (two-person Godhead) or even
semi-Arian (Christ inferior to the Father) perspective...A pamphlet published in 1897
carried the next major component in her developing doctrine of God, that the Holy Spirit is
"the third person of the Godhead." This concept would receive wider attention and more
permanent form in The Desire of Ages (1898), where she repeated and emphasized the
previous two points: "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived," and the Holy
Spirit is the "Third Person of the Godhead."49 In 1899 she confirmed the other side of the
paradox, that in His "person," Christ was "distinct" from the Father.50 Here the essential
trinitarian paradox of the unity of God in a plurality of persons is clearly articulated, and
her trinitarianism is essentially complete. All that remains for her capstone statements of
1901 and 1905 is to affirm most explicitly that the three "eternal heavenly dignitaries," the
"three highest powers in heaven," the "three living persons of the heavenly trio," are one in
nature, character, and purpose, but not in person.51...

In the first part of our study we noted that the 1946 General Conference session voted the
first officially Adventist endorsement of belief in the Trinity,81 just 100 years after James
White's strong rejection of that idea in the 1846 Day-Star. This change was not a simple
reversal. The evidence is that Ellen White agreed with the essential positive point of
James's belief, namely that "the Father and the Son" are "two distinct, literal, tangible
persons." Subsequent evidence shows that she also agreed with James's negative point: that
the traditional, philosophical concepts held by many trinitarians did "spiritualize away" the
personal reality of the Father and the Son.82

Soon after this she added the conviction, based on visions, that both Christ and the Father
have tangible forms. She progressively affirmed the eternal equality of Christ and the
Father, that Christ was not created, and by 1888, that an adequate concept of the atonement
demands the full and eternal Deity of Christ. Only in the 1890s did she become aware of
the full individuality and personhood of the Holy Spirit, but when she did, she referred to
the Holy Spirit in literal and tangible terms much like those she had used in 1850 to
describe the Father and the Son. For instance, at Avondale in 1899 she declared, "the Holy
Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds,
unseen by human eyes; . . . He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the
mind."83

This confirms the fourfold hypothesis with which this article opened. First, E. R. Gane's
characterization of Ellen White as a "trinitarian monotheist" is accurate regarding her
mature concept of God, from 1898 onward. (Moon J. "Ellen White and the Trinity"1.
ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 150. June 27, 2006).

Dr. Moon is admitting that the early Adventists were Semi-Arian, that is a Binitarian View!
The view held by the faithful Church of God. So Dr. Moon admits that it was Ellen White
who made a break with semi-arianism, but that even her writings at first seemed to support
binitarianism. It also should be added that Dr. Moon also stated, "her husband James in
1846 when he condemned the "old unscriptural trinitarian creed" for "spiritualiz[ing] away
the existence of the Father and the Son, as two distinct, literal, tangible persons."" In other
words, Dr. Moon says that history shows that James White originally believed that the
trinity was false, and the the Godhead consisted of the Father and the Son--a binitarian
view!

Ellen White, the Trinity, and 666 are important ways that the SDAs differ from the COGs.

Philadelphia and Beyond

The next church in succession in Revelation 3 was Philadelphia. Most outside of the
Sardis era of the Church of God, who believe in Church eras, believe that this was
what was once known as the Radio Church of God, and for most, the Worldwide
Church of God (WCG) under Herbert W. Armstrong. A major portion of the
remnant of this era became the old Global Church of God and then the current
Living Church of God (LCG). As the beginning of this article has pointed out, LCG
is clearly binitarian (as was quoted in the beginning of this article) as was the Radio
Church of God and the old WCG. In the letter to the angel of the church in
Philadelphia, Jesus states, "you have not denied my name" (Revelation 3:8). And
while this also has something to do with governance, this may also be
distinguishing the fact that the true portion of the Philadelphia church never denies
Jesus' deity (perhaps, unlike some who might be part of other eras).

The last church in succession in Revelation 3 is Laodicea. This is to be the

predominate church at the time of the end. While its major branches, splinters, and
independents are binitarian, it may be possible that it may contain some confused
unitarians, though this may be doubtful (see Acts 4:12).

The fact is that the duality within the Family of God was made clear in the Bible
from the beginning. Moses wrote about it, David wrote about it, Daniel wrote about
it, John wrote about it, Jesus declared it, and Paul and others wrote about it. The
true Church of God still declares it.

Only God Can Be Worshipped

While traditional unitarians teach that Jesus was somehow special, they deny He
was God. However, only God is supposed to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10;
Revelation 19:10,22:8-9). And although He emptied Himself of His divinity on
Earth (Philippians 2:7) and in that respect was a man (as indicated in Acts 2:22),
Jesus still allowed Himself to be worshipped (Matthew
8:2;9:18;.14:33;15:25;28:8,17; Mark 5:6; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). Of course the fact
that Jesus then emptied Himself of His divinity on Earth (Philippians 2:7), also
shows that He was divine (and part of the Godhead), prior to His human birth.

Jesus specifically taught,

...all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does
not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him" (John 5:23).

Since the Father is honored as God, so the Son should be also--this statement from
Jesus conclusively proves that Christ is God as the Father is God.

The Book of Revelation also shows a binitarian view that the two are essentially
equally honored:

The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His
Christ (Revelation 11:15).

The Bible records that the Apostle Peter (Acts 10:25) would not allow himself to be
worshipped because he was a man (note the same Greek word for worship,
proskuneo, is in all the previously cited verses). Paul and Barnabas had a similar
incident as well (Acts 14:11-18) were they had to stop the worship through sacrifices
to themselves. Angels, also, are not allowed to be worshiped (Matthew 4:9-
10;Colossians 2:18; Revelation 19:10,22:8-9).

Thus, even though Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity (Philippians 2:7), He still
was representing God as He allowed Himself to be worshipped.

But Was Jesus Fully God?

Most binitarians do not believe that Jesus "was fully human and fully God", which
is a major position held by most trinitarians. There are four major claims to
support that position:

1. Binitarians believe that Jesus emptied Himself of His Divinity while in the flesh.
2 Corinthians 8:9 teaches that Jesus became poor, yet God is rich (Haggai 2:8).
Philippians 2:7 specifically teaches, "...Christ Jesus, who subsisting in (the) form of
God thought (it) not robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking (the)
form of a slave, becoming in (the) likeness of men" (Literal translation. Green J.P.
ed. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 3rd ed. Baker Books, Grand Rapids
(MI), 1996, p. 607). Note that "emptied Himself" is the literal translation in the
Greek (the Roman Catholic Church also teaches that Jesus "emptied Himself"--see
Catechism of the Catholic Church, #461. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 129). Thus Jesus was not fully God (though God
in the flesh) when He became a human.

2. Since Jesus repeatedly taught that He of Himself "could do nothing" prior to His
resurrection (John 5:19,30;8:28), that He claimed He had "[a]ll authority" after the
resurrection (Matthew 28:18), He was not fully God when He could do nothing. He
also was not "fully God" when He could not do mighty works in an area because of
unbelief (Mark 6:5)--God can do whatever He wills irrespective of human belief.

3. The Bible states that Jesus was tempted in all points as humans are (Hebrews
4:15) and that "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). "Therefore, in all
things He had to be made like His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). Since "scripture
cannot be broken" (John 10:35) He could not have been fully God while in the
flesh.

4. Jesus was not called God in the flesh until after His resurrection (John 20:28).

Thus while Jesus was what God would be like in the flesh, He simply was not fully
God then prior to His resurrection.

By being empty of His divinity, Jesus simply did not have the direct powers (John
14:10), the inability to somehow die (and the Father raised him, He did not raise
Himself--Acts 13:30-34; Romans 10:9; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians
2:12), the inability to be tempted (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 4:15), and the glory that
He had prior to His human birth and after His resurrection--thus Jesus was not
"fully God and fully human" while in the flesh as the trinitarians tend to believe.
The fact that Jesus actually died, and that one who is fully God cannot, also shows
that Jesus was not "fully God" while on Earth.

Jesus made His lack of such direct powers on Earth clear in scriptures previously
quoted in this article as well as various comments He made about angels. For
example, while human He stated, "do you think that I cannot now pray to My
Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew
26:53). Yet in various prophecies He said that later He had charge over the angels
(Matthew 13:41) and that He would have the Father's glory (Matthew 16:27;25:31).
Also, prior to His resurrection had limited authority on His own (John 5:27-30)--
this differs from after the resurrection when He was given back all authority
(Matthew 28:18). (It should be added that Jesus suggested that the miracles He
performed while human had to do with faith, not His own power; see Mark
9:23;11:22-24.)

John wrote, "every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the
flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard
was coming, and is now already in the world" (I John 4:3). The trinitarian teaching
that Jesus was still fully God while on Earth suggests that Jesus did not actually
empty Himself of His divinity and that He truly was not in all things made like His
brethren (this is consistent with the trinitarian teaching that the same God exists
simultaneously in three manifestations, always having the same power and will).
The trinitarian teachings thus deny that Jesus truly came in the flesh (for more
information, please see the article Some Doctrines of Antichrist). And sadly, as
John points out, this heresy was around even in his time. The unitarian position
that Jesus is not God would also seem to be condemned by the I John 4:3
statement.

But because both Roman Catholics and the Protestants teach that Jesus was 'fully
human and fully God', they reject that He emptied Himself of His divinity
(Philippians 2:7), thus they deny that He has truly came in the flesh.

A passage cited to support the view that Jesus was fully God would be Colossians
2:9-10 which states, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and
you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." While this
is an excellent description of the risen Christ, who stated that He had all authority
(Matthew 28:18), Jesus simply did not have all the powers of God on earth prior to
His resurrection.

As someone else once put it, "During the time Jesus lived on earth, He was the
same WHO (identity and history) He had always been, but he was not the same
WHAT (immortal, invincible, all-knowing, etc.) that He had always been. After
living (and dying) as our example, the resurrection restored Him to what He had
been."

Perhaps it should be noted that even what is believed to be the most ancient
Christian complete sermon ever found, teaches that Jesus was Spirit and became
flesh:

If Christ, the Lord who saved us, became flesh (even though he was originally
spirit) and in that state called us...(Holmes M.W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek
Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed, 9:5. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2004, p.
115).

This ancient sermon is saying that Jesus was originally spirit and became flesh like
us! Thus, confirming the general binitarian position that Jesus, in fact, did fully
empty Himself of His divinity while on Earth.

Furthermore, Irenaeus apparently agreed with this as he noted:

Vain indeed are those who allege that He appeared in mere seeming. For these
things were not done in appearance only, but in actual reality. But if He did appear
as a man, when He was not a man, neither could the Holy Spirit have rested upon
Him -- an occurrence which did actually take place -- as the Spirit is invisible; nor,
[in that case], was there any degree of truth in Him, for He was not that which He
seemed to be...And I have proved already, that it is the same thing to say that He
appeared merely to outward seeming, and [to affirm] that He received nothing
from Mary. For He would not have been one truly possessing flesh and blood, by
which He redeemed us, unless He had summed up in Himself the ancient
formation of Adam. Vain therefore are the disciples of Valentinus who put forth
this opinion, in order that they my exclude the flesh from salvation, and cast aside
what God has fashioned (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Chapter 1 , Verse 2.
Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts &
James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K.
Knight).

Irenaeus is essentially saying that Jesus, while on earth, was in the same basic
situation as the Old Testament prophets. They were men who had the Holy Spirit
rest upon them. And that is correct.

He is also condemning Valentinus, the one who came up with the concept that God
existed in three hypostasis (please see article on the Trinity). Which is a concept
that truly contradicts the view that Jesus was fully human on the earth.

Also notice that Melito of Sardis confirmed that Jesus was man when He was
buried, but then truly became God:

The sheep was corruptible, but the Lord is incorruptible, who was crushed as a
lamb, but who was resurrected as God....For the one who was born as Son, and led
to slaughter as a lamb, and sacrificed as a sheep, and buried as a man, rose up from
the dead as God, since he is by nature both God and man (Melito of Sardis. On the
Passover, Verses 4 & 8. Translation from Kerux: The Journal of Northwest
Theological Seminary, Vol.4,1;May 1989).

Jesus' nature is that He was fully God before being made fully man, and now He is fully
God who had been man. But at no point was He both fully God and fully man--not did
Melito teach that. Melito, like us in the Church of God understood that while Jesus was
"God with us" He was not fully God while on the earth, though He had the nature of God.

Even one that Roman Catholic scholars have referred to as one of the greatest early
theologians, Hippolytus, understood that Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity
and received it back after His resurrection. Notice what Hippolytus wrote (early third
century):

The word of prophecy passes again to Immanuel Himself. For, in my opinion, what is
intended by it is just what has been already stated in the words, "giving increase of beauty
in the case of the shoot." For he means that He increased and grew up into that which He
had been from the beginning, and indicates the return to the glory which He had by nature.
This, if we apprehend it correctly, is (we should say) just "restored" to Him. For as the only
begotten Word of God, being God of God, emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures,
humbling Himself of His own will to that which He was not before, and took unto Himself
this vile flesh, and appeared in the "form of a servant," and "became obedient to God the
Father, even unto death," so hereafter He is said to be "highly exalted;" and as if well-nigh
He had it not by reason of His humanity, and as if it were in the way of grace, He "receives
the name which is above every name," according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the
matter, in truth, was not a "giving," as for the first time, of what He had not by nature; far
otherwise. But rather we must understand a return and restoration to that which existed in
Him at the beginning, essentially and inseparably (Hippolytus. Translated by S. D. F.
Salmond. The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm 04/17/06)..

Thus, the idea that Jesus truly emptied Himself of His divinity was long known.

Don't Trinitarians Notice That the Bible Makes it Clear that Logically Speaking, Jesus
Could Not Have Been Fully God?

By now, you may have asked yourself, if the Bible makes it clear that logically speaking,
Jesus could not have been fully God, how do trinitarians justify this?

Well, they do it basically by claiming that the God the trinitarians worship is a mystery.

This section will include are some admissions from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox,
and Protestant scholars.

Let's start with the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia:

IV. THE TRINITY AS A MYSTERY The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to
be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which
we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even
when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of
darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only
partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine messege {sic} (Joyce G. H. The
Blessed Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert
Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October
1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of
New York).

Notice these admissions from the Eastern Orthodox:

Orthodoxy professes its faith in a simple trinity...If we speak of a simple Trinity, this self-
contradictory expression means the distinctions...God is unknowable about what he is
(Clendenin D.B. ed. Eastern Orthodox Theology, 2nd ed. Baker Academic, 2003, pp.
175,177).

Notice what one Protestant scholar (who is himself a trinitarian) wrote:

For Luther, as for the German mystics, God is Deus absconditus, the "hidden God,"
inaccessible to human reason...
By emphasizing the sole authority of Scripture and downgrading the work of the church
fathers and the decisions of the ecumenical councils, Luther created a problem for his
followers. One the one hand, Luther wanted to affirm traditional theology with respect
to the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ, but on the other those doctrines are not
explicit in Scripture. They are the product of church fathers and the councils (Brown
HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 314).

In a lecture I listened to by a Protestant theologian, he correctly and specifically taught that

Philippians 2:7 shows that Jesus emptied Himself (the Greek word for emptied is kenosis).
And while he did not quote it from the ASV, the ASV is one of the few common
translations that has a correct rendering of that passage, which states (beginning with verse
5):

Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God,
counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7, ASV).

Anyway, the following is the quote from the Protestant theologian:

Kenosis: Literally means to empty.

This is correct, yet then he incorrectly asserted that Christ did not cease to be God, while
correctly admitting that Jesus did not have all the divine privileges He had prior to the
incarnation. This admission that Jesus did not have all His divine privileges proves that
Jesus was not ―fully God‖ while on earth.

And the contradictions continued. He contradicted himself by asserting that Jesus could not
sin because God cannot sin—he referred to, but did not quote, James 1:13 as proof that
Jesus was God. But let's look at that passage:

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by
evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone (James 1:13).

Notice that verse says that God cannot be tempted. However, the Greek word for tempted
(peirazo) is the same as the one used in Hebrews:

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in
all points tempted as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

Thus, there is a contradiction in the Protestant theologian's logic here. By comparing James
1:13 to Hebrews 4:15 it is clear that since the Bible shows Jesus was tempted on earth (and
this is repeated in many places in the New Testament) and that God cannot be tempted, that
while on earth, Jesus was not fully God (though God in the flesh). Jesus was not God with
all the godly attributes - but God in the flesh. God in the flesh is limited to the flesh. God in
the flesh is subject to temptation to sin. The Word, prior to emptying Himself, was God
UNlimited. While on earth He was limited, yet still God - but God in the flesh. The main
difference between He and us is that He had the Holy Spirit, apparently without measure,
from birth--and that He never sinned.

Furthermore, since we humans can sin, either Jesus was capable of sinning (which He was)
or He was not tempted as we are. This also demonstrates that while on earth, Jesus was not
fully God. However, as scripture shows, Jesus now is God--and was prior to His
incarnation. It is a clear biblical truth that Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity to become
a man prior to the resurrection.

Another trinitarian writer (S.C. Nair) goes so far as to list many reasons that are in conflict
with the ―Jesus was fully human and fully God‖ belief he has, and yet simply rationalizes
them by referring to this situation as a "mystery‖. Notice the following:

How can we understand this mystery? To put this in simple words, if at all this possible we
could affirm the following:

1. God is the subject of the Incarnation. The word became flesh and dwelt among us
(Jn.1.14). But the humanity in Him had no existence apart from His deity. At the same time
the humanity is elevated and glorified by its union with the deity in the person of the Son of
God.

2. In Incarnation Jesus took upon him sinless, perfect humanity. The Holy One born was
the Son of God (Lk.1.35).

3. The Divine and the human in Jesus Christ were never in conflict but acted as one. He
always identified Himself as "I" and not as "we".

4. He was tired and asleep in the boat but he is the omnipotent God

5. He gives water of life freely, but he said "I thirst". It is God who gives life, but it is man
who is thirsty.

6. He is the Light of the World, but He hung in darkness. It is God who is light, but the man
who is in darkness

7. God cannot be tempted, but Jesus Christ was tempted of the devil

8. He is God who cannot die, but He died

9. He dwells in unapproachable light, but calls us to himself

10. He is God who is a consuming fire, but his touch heals

Yet in all these it is the God-Man, Jesus Christ, who is the subject (Nair, Silas C.
Christology. Indus School of Apologetics and Theology Resource 108A1, 2006 available
edition).

The truth is that several of the above statements are not mysteries, but are contradictions
with the basic trinitarian contention that Jesus was fully God and fully human while on
earth, prior to the resurrection.

Trinitarians understand that their God cannot be truly understood and that their position
about Jesus being both fully human and fully God while on earth is in logical conflict. The
real mystery is why people who claim to be logical accept that rules of logic do not apply in
their concept of God.

Yet, they also generally teach that anyone that does not accept their trinity is either in a cult
or is not a Christian.

What Difference Does it Make?

Some will decide that they do not think this issue is of sufficient importance to care
about. Others have taken a different view.

Wade Cox, who claims to be a traditional unitarian alleges:

If you are a Binitarian or a Trinitarian you are not in the first resurrection
(Binitarianism and Trinitarianism (No. 76) (Edition 3.0 19941112-20001202).
Copyright 1994, 2000 Wade Cox. Christian Churches of God).

By this, he clearly means that one is not a true Christian.

The Tkach-era WCG had a booklet called God Is which essentially took the
trinitarian position that you can never understand the nature of God, but that God
was one being with three hypostases.

Traditional Roman Catholics' believe:

It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the

Trinity...Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed
explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple,
so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace
had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity (The
Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Second and Revised Edition, 1920.
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition
Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight. Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P.,
S.T.M., Censor. Theol. Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis.
Westmonasterii. APPROBATIO ORDINIS. Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P.,
S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L. Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L.,
A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ).
And Protestants?

Luther called the Athansen Creed the grandest production of the Christian Church
since the times of the apostles (Mueller, John Theodore. The Lutheran Confessions.
circa 1953, p.5).

The Athansen Creed discusses the belief in the Trinity and the writing about it
concludes with "This is the catholic (general) faith; which except a man believe
faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved" (p.6).

Thus, the position of the Roman Catholics and the founder of the Protestant
Reformation seems to be that salvation is not possible for those who do not accept
the trinity. And it is a position of at least one unitarian that accepting that Christ is
God stops one from being a true Christian.

Therefore this is an important subject.

Ramifications

Another problem with the unitarian and the trinitarian positions is that they
normally limit who can truly be part of the God Family. Since those positions hold
that there is only truly one God being--and that is all there ever can be--they
essentially believe it is blasphemous to consider that God is reproducing Himself
and intends to add others to His family.

Of course, just as the Son is under the authority of the Father, those added to God's
family will be under the authority of the Father and Son.

The proper binitarian position is that God is reproducing Himself.

LCG's last statement in its Official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is

MANKIND‘S ORIGIN, INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL AND ULTIMATE DESTINY

God created mankind out of the "dust of the earth" (Genesis 2:7). Human beings
are made in God‘s "image [and] likeness" (Genesis 1:26; cf. 5:3); they are also given
a God-like mind and emotions. God planned that those who repent of their sins and
are baptized shall receive God‘s Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; John 3:16). At Christ‘s second
coming, all of those converted in this life, whether dead or alive, will be given
immortality—born as full "sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke
20:36). "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5; cf.
Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34). "He who overcomes shall inherit all things [the
universe]" (Revelation 21:7). According to all the prophecies and promises of the
Bible, God‘s "firstfruits" (those called in this age) will be rewarded with a place or
position of rulership in God‘s Kingdom (John 14:1-3; Revelation 3:21; 20:4-6),
right here on this earth (Revelation 2:26-27; 5:10; Daniel 2:44). The true saints will
become full sons of God—"sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:36). God‘s purpose is
that He is reproducing Himself and that those converted, ultimately, become full
members of the Family of God, under the authority of the Father and the Son (1
John 3:1-3). They will share divine glory in the resurrection. Jesus prayed, "And the
glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are
one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the
world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved
Me" (John 17:22-23).

Paul knew this when he wrote, " And we know that all things work together for
good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His
Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:28-
29). We are to be Christ's brethren.

Most of those who do not believe in the concept of One Family of God, currently
with two beings, will not truly accept or understand this (it should be noted that the
Eastern Orthodox Church, although trinitarian, do accept the idea that Christians
are to become God). Nor will various other aspects of God's plan of salvation be
understood by them as well.

Perhaps, I should add here that the idea of Christians becoming God is NOT a COG
invention, but was written about even in the second century, as Theophilus of
Antioch wrote:

When thou shalt have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall thou
see God worthily. For God will raise thy flesh immortal with thy soul; and then,
having become immortal, thou shalt see the Immortal, if now you believe on Him;
and then you shall know that you have. spoken unjustly against Him (Theophilus of
Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter VI. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M.
Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts &
James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K.
Knight).

For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him
God...so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the
commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and
should become God...For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and
every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can
inherit incorruption (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXVII.
Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2.
Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online
Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Theophilus basically argues that humans become God when they are immortal. That is the
"threeness", if you will, about the Family of God.

Conclusion
The dual nature of the current Godhead, binitarianism, has significant biblical and
historical evidence for being the correct position that those who profess Christ
should hold to.

From Genesis (the first book of the Bible) and throughout the Old Testament, the
concept that God is one consisting now of more than one person is confirmed.

The fact that the Father and the Son are God is clear from the New Testament.
There are no direct references to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament that show
that it is a person or anything outside the power of the Godhead which can be given
to true believers.

Even the most ancient complete sermon ascribed to Christianity teaches that Jesus
should be thought of as God and that the Father is God. But the Holy Spirit is
shown as something given to true Christians.

Ignatius, Polycarp, and Melito, all major church leaders in the second century, refer
to the Father as God, Jesus as God, but never the Holy Spirit as God. It was only
from a heretic that the idea of three hypostasis developed, and even that idea is
admitted as to coming from paganism.

All known early documents by real Christians and those accepted by others that way
support the view that early Christians were binitarian and believed that Jesus was not co-
equal to the Father.

Biblical scholars and historians can trace the binitarian belief that the Father and
Son, but not the Holy Spirit, are separate persons throughout the history of those
who profess Christ.

And it is the correct position from the Bible. Those who do not understand it
correctly, simply do not understand the Bible correctly.

Ending Comment: While I have read articles from the Jehovah's Witnesses (or
other unitarians) correctly arguing that the trinity is false or from the various
trinitarians explaining why the unitarian position that Jesus was not God is false,
they almost always overlook the binitarian position that the Bible clearly teaches
that the Father and Son are God, but does not clearly teach that the Holy Spirit is
God. Of course, the truth is that the Bible and the facts of early church history do
support the basic binitarian view (the belief that God the Father is supreme in
authority to Jesus, God the Son , and that the Holy Spirit is not the third member
of the Godhead. ). It is distressing to me that so many will discount the biblical
teachings on this subject (as well as others), but sadly most do.