Doctrine of the Trinity

Trinitarians often claim that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures never actually say that God is one “Person” like our English word Person. Therefore, they insist that it is possible for God to exist as three divine persons even though no scripture ever says that God is three persons. Yet just as God is not spoken of in scripture as a “Person” with our precise English rendering of that word in Hebrew and Greek, so the original languages of the Bible do not use the precise word for our English word “person” when referencing people either. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that God exists as one Divine Person in a similar way that individual human beings exist as one person.

Although the original languages of the Bible do not use the word “person” when referencing the one true God, the Bible does utilize similar words in Hebrew and Greek which do have the same essential meaning as the English word person. In order to rightly divide the word of truth, we must ask what words Hebrew and Greek speaking people used to describe a person that would indicate the same thing as our English word “person.” The answer to this question will prove how many persons God really is.

Hebrew and Greek scholars have noted that the Hebrew and Greek words for heart and soul do have the same essential meaning of the English word person. Interestingly, the Hebrew and Greek words for “heart” and “soul” are equally used for both God and for individual men. Therefore, the Trinitarian claim that God might be more than one person because the word person is not used in scripture is very misleading.

Whenever the Bible uses the Hebrew word “nephesh” (translated into English as a “Soul”) to describe God or an individual human being, it always speaks of God and individual human beings as a single soul just like the singular English word person described a single individual. For the Hebrew word “nephesh” can be translated as a “soul” or as a “person.” Hence, it is an undeniable fact that the ancient Hebrews and Greeks used words to describe God and man which are translated into English as “heart,” “mind,” and “soul” to describe what English speaking people normally call a “person.”

Genesis 8:21, “Yahweh said IN HIS HEART (leb = “heart,” by ext. “inner person”), ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of MAN’S HEART (leb = “heart,” by ext. “inner person”) is evil from his youth.’”

Genesis 2:7 KJV, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh = “a soul, living being, life, self,
person” – NAS Concordance).”

Notice that in Genesis 8:21, Yahweh God spoke of Himself as having a single “heart” just like a human being has a single “heart” or “inner person” within the same sentence of inspired scripture. God further said in 1 Samuel 2:35 that He has a single “heart” and a single “Soul” in the self-same verse.

“And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in MY HEART (leb = “heart,” by ext. “inner person”) and My SOUL (nephesh = “Person”).”

Here we can clearly see that the same Hebrew words for the soul (nephesh) and heart (leb) of God is also used for the soul (nephesh) and heart (leb) of a man. Since God is not a human person (Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man”), many sincere Christians believe that God should not be called “a person” at all. However, the English word person has the same essential meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words used for God such as “heart” (Heb. Leb = “heart” or “inner person”-Strong’s – Gen. 8: 1 Sam. 2:35) and “soul” (Heb. “nephesh” and Greek “psuché” = “person” (Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell)). Even the King James Version calls God a “Person” in Hebrews 1:3 because “Hypostasis” for God’s Substance or Essence of Being literally means a single “Essence of Being” as one “Person” (Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son is “the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person.” The context proves that Jesus is the Father’s Person who became a man person). In like manner, the Amplified Bible says that “God is One Person” (Galatians 3:20).

The Scriptures are replete with examples to show us that God has one “Mind,” one “Heart,” one “Spirit,” and one “Soul” just like a man has. In fact, the same Hebrew and Greek words are used for the Mind, Heart, Spirit, and Soul of God as the mind, heart, spirit, and soul of a man.

God said in Jer. 32:35, “… nor had it entered MY MIND (leb = “heart,” by ext. “inner person”, Strong’s)
that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”

In Genesis 8:21, “Yahweh said IN HIS HEART (according to Strong’s, leb = “heart,” by ext. “inner person”),
“I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of MAN’S HEART (leb =“heart,” by ext. “inner person”, Strong’s) is evil from his youth.”

Just as a single human person is called a person because he has an invisible spiritual heart, so God spoke of Himself as having an invisible Spiritual Heart. Hence, the heart of man and the heart of God speak of a single spirit of a man and a single Spirit of God.

John 4:24 (KJV), “God is a Spirit (pneuma): and they that worship Him (as a single Spirit Person)must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.”

James 2:26 (NASB), “For just as the body without the spirit (pneuma) is dead, so also faith
without works is dead.”

Notice that the same Greek word for the “Spirit” of God is the same Greek word for “the spirit” of a man. It is nonsensical to believe that the Spirit of God would be a third God Person distinct from two other distinct God Persons. For how could two of the three alleged distinct God Persons not have their own distinct Hearts or Spirits while remaining distinct Persons? For even a God Person must have His own distinct Heart or Spirit in order to be called a Person. Thus, it is completely ridiculous to affirm that God is a single Spirit while two of the alleged Divine Persons lack their own individual Spirits.

God said in Leviticus 26:30, “And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and
cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols, and MY SOUL (nephesh = “a soul, living being,
life, self, person” – NAS Concordance) shall abhor you.”

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh = “a soul, living being, life, self, person” – NAS oncordance).” Genesis 2:7 KJV

“Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being (nephesh = “a soul, living being, life, self, person”
– NAS Concordance).” Genesis 2:7 NIV

“Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person (nephesh = “a soul, living being, life, self, person” – NAS Concordance).” Genesis 2:7 NLT

Here we can clearly see that the Hebrew word for “soul” used for the Most High God and for man has the same basic meaning as our English word “person.” This is a scriptural fact that is backed up even by Trinitarian scholars. Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology says that the Hebrew word for “soul” means an “individual” (“in the plural form it indicates a number of individuals”), a “being” as a “self,” “I” or “me.”

Bakers Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology says, “Frequently in the Old Testament nephes [v,p,n] designates the individual (Lev 17:10; 23:30). In its plural form it indicates a number of individuals such as Abraham’s party ( Gen 12:5 ), the remnant left behind in Judah ( Jer. 43:6 ), and the offspring of Leah ( en 46:15 ) …Frequently nephes [v,p,n] takes the place of a personal or reflexive pronoun ( Psalm 54:4 ; Prov. 18:7 ). Admittedly this movement from the nominal to the pronominal is without an exact borderline. The Revised Standard Version reflects the above understanding of nepes [v,p,n] by replacing the King James Version “soul” with such translations as “being,” “one,” “self,” “I/me.” (Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Under the definition of soul, Edited by Walter A. Elwell)

Lutheran scholar Gustav Friedrich Oehler wrote that the Hebrew word for soul means “the whole person.”

“…naphshi (“my soul”), naphshekha (“thy soul”) may be rendered in Latin egomet, tu ipse; but not ruchi (“my spirit”), ruchakha (“thy spirit”)–soul standing for the whole person, as in Genesis 12:5; 17:14; Ezekiel 18:4, etc.” (Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 217)

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology clearly states that both the Hebrew and Greek words for “soul” can also mean “person.”

“Psuché, as its Old Testament counterpart, can indicate the person (Acts 2:41 ; 27:37 ). It also serves as the reflexive pronoun designating the self (“I’ll say to myself” Luke 12:19 ; “as my witness” 2 Cor. 1:23 ; “share our lives” 1 Thess. 2:8 ).” (Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell)

Since the Hebrew and Greek words for “soul” have the same essential meaning of our English word “person” or “self,” the Most High God has to be One Divine Person with a single “Self” existence. It is interesting to note that even the Divine Name of Yahweh essentially means, “The Self Existent One” (Brown-Driver-Briggs defines Yahweh as, “…the one who is: i.e. the absolute and unchangeable one, Ri; the existing, ever living, as self-consistent…”). Why would the Most High God call Himself “The Self Existent One” while existing as “Three Self Existent Ones?” If God really exists as three coequally distinct true God Persons, then God Himself misled His people by calling Himself only One “Self Existent One.”

When God became a man “He had to be made like them”, “fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17 NIV), in order to save humanity. Since God is not ontologically a man (Numbers 23:19), we know that the Son of God could not be God as God, but only God with us a true and legitimate man.

Wherefore, inspired scripture proves that the Holy Spirit of God who became a man via incarnation through the virgin was made exactly like all men, with a human spirit as well as a human body.

This explains how Jesus had a true human nature who could actually experience temptations. This also explains how Jesus had a genuine ability to pray and have a loving relationship with God as his Father just as any true man could.

The historical designation for the Oneness Pentecostal view was once known as “Modalistic Monarchianism” within the first few centuries of the Christians era. According to the historical evidence, the Modalistic Monarchians were once known as “the majority of believers” (Tertullian, Against Praxeus 3) and as “the general run of Christians” (Origen, Commentary of the Gospel of John, book 1, chapter 23) in the early days of Christianity. Moreover, the Oneness Modalists were the only Christians to believe in the full divinity of Jesus Christ before the Trinity doctrine later developed.

Merriam Webster succinctly Defines Modalism as, “Three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself.” Monarchianism simply means a belief in “One Ruler.” Monarch comes from “mono”, meaning “One” and “arch”, meaning “Ruler.” Hence, Modalistic Monarchianism is the belief in God as One Monarch [Ruler] who has manifested Himself in three modes of activity.

Prominent Oneness theologians like David K. Bernard have rightly affirmed that modern
day Oneness Pentecostals believe the same basic tenants of faith as the early Modalistic
Monarchian Christian majority of the first three hundred years of Christian history (David Bernard wrote, “Basically, Modalism is the same as the modern doctrine of Oneness” – The Oneness of God p.318 ). Even the opponents of the ancient Oneness Modalists wrote that the Modalistic Monarchians were “always the majority of believers” (Tertullian in Against Praxeus chapter 3 – late 2nd century into the early 3rd) in the West, and “the general run of Christians” in the East (Origen’s Commentary to the Gospel of John, book 1, chapter 23 – early to mid-3rd century). Tertullian of Carthage not only acknowledged that the Oneness Modalists were “the majority” in his day (170-225 AD), he also affirmed that this was “always” the case as far back as he knew (“they that always make up the majority of believers” – Against Praxeus 3 / Adolph Harnack wrote that “Modalistic Monarchianism” was once “embraced by the great majority of all Christians” – Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, London: Williams & Norgate, 1897, III, 51-54.). Although we are now persecuted as a minority, we still believe the same basic theology of “the great majority of all Christians” in the first three hundred years of Christian history.

Oneness believers affirm that God is a single “Monarch,” “Ruler,” and “King” (Monarchianism) who has manifested Himself (Modalism) as our Heavenly Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit as the Father’s own Spirit in action. For God the Father’s own Holy Spirit came down from heaven (Luke 1:35-“the Holy Spirit shall come upon you”; Matthew 1:20-NLB-“the child within her was conceived of the Holy Spirit”; John 6:38-“I came down from heaven”) and His own word was made flesh (John 1:14) to become the Christ child (Acts 4:27-BSB-“God has made this Jesus”). Thus, Oneness adherents believe that our One God who is the Holy Spirit of the Father (John 4:23-24 -“God is a Spirit”; 1 Tim. 3:16-“God was manifested in the flesh”; Ephesians 4:4-6-“One Lord … One Spirit … One God and Father above all, through all, and in you all”) also became one man (Heb. 2:17 “made fully human in every way”-NIV; Gal. 4:4 “made of a woman;” Acts 2:36) who is the Son in order to “save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:23).”

Unfortunately, most of our critics erroneously believe that we are affirming that Jesus Christ is God the Father with us as God the Father with the erroneous assumption that God merely indwelt a physical body of human flesh with no inward human nature of his own. Thus they erroneously believe that we are saying that “the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5)” was God tempted as God, God praying to God, and God dying on the cross as God which would be a clear contradiction of the words of inspired scripture (James 1:13-NASB-“God cannot be tempted by evil”; Numbers 23:19-“God is not a man”). Nothing could be further from the truth! For Oneness theologians teach that God as God cannot pray, God as God cannot be tempted, and God as God cannot suffer and die. Yet, in contradistinction, Emmanuel “God with us” (Matthew 1:23) as a true human son with a distinct human “life in himself (John 5:26)” could pray, could be tempted, and could suffer and die for our sins. Wherefore, knowledgeable Oneness theologians teach that God entered into our world as a true human being via incarnation in the virgin just like all human beings are made with a 100% complete human spirit, a 100 % complete human soul, and a 100% complete human nature (“made like unto his brethren”-Heb. 2:17; 1 Cor. 15:45 calls Jesus is “the last Adam”-“The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam a life-giving spirit”).

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19 NASB). No text of scripture ever states that an angelic figure was ever in Christ Jesus (the doctrine of Arianism: Jehovah’s Witnesses). Nor does any text of scripture ever state that an alleged God the Son, or God the Christ was in Christ (the doctrine of Trinitarianism) because God the Father is always spoken of in scripture as being in the Son (the doctrine of Oneness Modalism: John 10:38; 14:10 “the Father abiding in me does His works”) and being seen through the Son (“He that sees me sees the One who sent me”- John 12:45; “He who has seen me has seen the Father”- 14:7-9). That is why Jesus as the Son of God is called “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians1:15) as the image of the invisible Father (Heb. 1:3-“the express image of His Person” = the Father’s Person). Therefore, only the Oneness view of God in Christ Jesus perfectly fits all of the scriptural data.

The words, “God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6), or similar designations such as “God our Father” (Philippians 1:2; Ephesians 1:2), and “God and Father” (Ephesians 4:6) appear more than thirty times in the New Testament, but we never find a single example of an alleged God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit ever occurring in inspired scripture, not even once. There is a reason why God always led the apostles and prophets to write God the Father rather than God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. For our Heavenly Father is “the only true God” (John 17:3) and there are no true God’s beside Him (“there is no God beside Me”- Isaiah 45:5). Thus, the man Christ Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) as the image of the invisible Father. Hence, the scriptures teach only One Divine Individual as our Heavenly Father (the Oneness doctrine) who has only one divine Mind, one divine Will, one divine Soul, one divine Spirit, and one divine Consciousness rather than three divine Conscious Minds, three divine Wills, and three divine Souls (the Trinitarian doctrine).

Moreover, the Son of God is the same Individual God who entered into His creation to become a true man with a distinct human mind, a distinct human will, a distinct human soul, a distinct human spirit, and a distinct human consciousness. This is precisely what we would expect if we are to believe that the Spirit of God came down from heaven (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you (the virgin) …and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” – Luke 1:35 / “I came down from heaven” – John 6:38) to become a true man who could pray and be tempted (“Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil” – Math. 4:1; Heb. 4:15) as a true man in the incarnation through the Hebrew virgin (Oneness theologian Jason Dulle accurately affirmed Oneness Theology when he wrote, “We believe that Jesus was God from His birth because it was God who became a man.” –Article by Jason Dulle, Did God Become a Man or Indwell a Man? OnenessPentecostal.com).

Some Trinitarian apologists have suggested that early Modalistic Monarchian theology (known as Oneness Theology) developed from the early Gnostic idea of the “demiurge” of Platonic Greek Philosophy. Yet the overwhelming historical evidence proves that it was the early Semi-Arian and Semi-Trinitarian theologies which developed from the Platonic and Gnostic idea of a “demiurge” rather than early Modalistic Monarchian theology. Is there a shred of historical evidence to support the Trinitarian claim?

There are three main reasons why some Trinitarians are suggesting that Modalism developed from Gnosticism.

1. Firstly, Simon Magus, the sorcerer who was converted in Samaria in Acts chapter eight, later taught that he himself was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Some Trinitarians have alleged that Simon Magus was the first to teach the idea of Modalism. However, it is more likely that Simon learned the theology of Oneness Modalism from the first century apostles and then later exalted himself as if he was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one person. For if the apostles had taught the divinity of God to be One Individual as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then Simon likely copied the theology of the apostles by alleging that he himself was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one individual person.

It is hard to imagine that Simon would not have been somewhat influenced by the teachings of the apostles. If the apostles were teaching three divine persons of a Trinity in the first century, then Simon would likely have claimed that he was one of the alleged three persons rather than one person manifesting himself as all three. Hence, it is very unlikely that Simon Magus would have come up with the concept of one individual person manifesting himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit unless he was influenced by the first century apostolic teaching.

[…]

In my book entitled, “The Origin of the Trinity”, I presented a great deal of historical data showing pagan trinities worshiped together as one. For example, James Hastings wrote in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in
Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus … Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic views of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality which is triadically represented.”

Some Trinitarians have responded to my allegations that the Trinity idea came from paganism, by alleging that Satan copied the Trinity by perverting it into three pagan gods. Now if Satan could have allegedly copied and perverted a so called Monotheistic Trinity, then it is equally possible for Satan to have copied and perverted Monotheistic Modalism through Simon Magus. Since Oneness Modalism does not teach that any man other than Jesus Christ is God, and since Modalism does not believe in practicing “magic arts,” Simon Magus obviously perverted the Oneness Theology of the Apostles by exalting himself as the God of the Bible.

2. Secondly, some Trinitarian Scholars Are Falsely Alleging That Sabellius Taught Gnosticism By Using The Sun And It’s Rays As An Example Of The Father Sending The Son As A Ray Of Himself (like a “demiurge”).

On a YouTube Video (“Was Sabellius A Oneness Pentecostal or a Gnostic?” https://youtu.be/nX2_hd65ado), Dr R. C. Sproul purposefully misleads people into believing that there is a connection between Gnosticism and the teachings of Sabellius because Sabellius used the sun as an analogy for the Father sending out His own ray of light to the earth as the Son in the incarnation. Both Trinitarian and Oneness teachers have taught the poor example of water being in liquid form, vapour form, and as ice to explain God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet no one would allege that water emanating into vapour, or vapour emanating into water or ice shows that any of us believe in the emanations of early Gnosticism. The same is true with a ray of the sun as an example of the incarnation.

The only analogy that Sabellius gave was the analogy of the sun as an example of the Father and one of its rays as the son. Dr Sproul gave no historical data in his lecture to show that Sabellius taught pantheism. Nor did Dr Sproul submit any historical data to show that Sabellius ever used rocks as an example of the incarnation of God manifested in the flesh as the Son.

Moreover, Trinitarians often falsely allege that Sabellius (who ministered in the early to mid-third century) was the first to use the analogy of the sun as an illustration of the Father sending His Son as a ray of Himself in the incarnation as a man. Yet we find that earlier Christians were using the same illustration of the sun that Sabellius had used one hundred years later (second century). Thus we have a clear historical link to prove that Sabellius received his Oneness Modalistic Theology from Christians who had lived one hundred years before the time of Sabellius (third century).

In Justin’s First Apology 63 (written about 140-160 AD), Justin (a Semi Arian) referred to contemporary Christians who affirmed that the Son is the Father. “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son …”

Justin further spoke of these Oneness believers within the second century in his Dialogue with Trypho 128. According to Justin, second century Christians believed that the Son is inseparable from the Father, “just as the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the skies.”

“But SOME TEACH (other Christians) that this power (the Son) is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the skies; for, when the sun sets, its light disappears from the earth. SO THEY CLAIM (other Christians), the Father by His will, can cause His power to go forth and, whenever He wishes, to return again …”

Here we find that early Oneness believing Christians had used the same analogy of the sun (140-160) that Sabellius had used about one hundred years later (200-250) as an example of the Spirit of God the Father becoming incarnate as a human son like a ray of the sun beaming down to earth.

The historical evidence proves that the concept of “the demiurge” was first taught in Platonic Greek Philosophy starting in about 310 BC. The Gnostics later borrowed the concept of “the demiurge” from Greek Philosophy as a “subordinate deity” emanating from a higher deity. Merriam Webster Defined “Demiurge” as: A) A Platonic subordinate deity who fashions the sensible world in the light of eternal ideas. B) A Gnostic subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world.

Everyone knows that the Modalists were not teaching that the Son was a “subordinate deity.” Thus Hippolytus condemned himself when he accused the Modalists of teaching the same thing as “Heraclitus” because he and other “Semi-Arians” like him (such as Tertullian), were alleging that the Son is a subordinate divine person who was produced by the Father before the creation of the world. The Modalists taught that the Son is the same substance of the Father and that He who became the Son was always the eternal Father. In contradistinction, Hippolytus and the “Semi-Arians” believed in a subordinate Son who was formed before the world was made. Thus we can see that the teachings of Hippolytus and the Semi-Arians is linked with the idea of a “demiurge” (a subordinate divine person) employed by some of the Platonic Greek Philosophers, while “demiurge” has no connection with the
teachings of Modalism!

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge plainly documents the historical influence that Greek Philosophy had on the development of the Trinity:

“The doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who … were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy … that errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be denied.”

The book entitled, The Church of the First Three Centuries says, “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation … it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; … it grew up, and was engrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”

The historical evidence proves that the founding fathers of the Trinity doctrine were known as “Greek fathers” because they were “influenced” “by Platonic philosophy” from Plato and other Greek philosophers who were teaching the “demiurge” idea of a lesser deity emanating from a higher deity. It is no wonder that Paul gave a prophetic warning to the Greek city of Colossae to “beware lest any man cheat you through PHILOSOPHY (Colossians 2:8-12) …”

It is hypocritical to claim that Modalism arose from the demiurge of pagan Greek Philosophy when all of the historical evidence proves that it was the Arian and Trinitarian doctrines that came from that pagan philosophy. It amazes me that Trinitarians deny the clear documented historical evidence proving that Justin, Hippolytus, Origen, and to a lesser extent, Tertullian, were influenced by the “demiurge” “emanation” theory of Pagan Greek Philosophy. It is even more astonishing when Trinitarians not only deny the historical evidence, but they have the audacity to falsely allege that it was the Modalists who received their doctrine from the “demiurge” of Greek Philosophy without presenting a shred of historical
evidence to justify their claim. Therefore I challenge all Trinitarian historians, scholars, and apologists to cite a single early Christian Modalist who ever referenced or cited any of the Greek Philosophers.

Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Origen were the most influential men that sowed the Greek Philosophical seeds which developed the doctrine of the Trinity, but these men are known as “Semi-Arians” because they believed that the Son is a subordinate deity who was created by the Father (Olson, Roger E.; Hall, Christopher A. (2002), The Trinity, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., ISBN 0-8028-4827-3). Although Origen later taught eternal Sonship, which contradicted his teaching that the Son was created, he nevertheless held onto the subordinate idea of the Son being the “demiurge” as taught by the Greek Philosophers. Wherefore, although the Trinitarian doctrine emerged from the “demiurge” concept of Greek Philosophy (a subordinate lesser deity springing from a higher Deity), Trinitarians have the hypocrisy to falsely accuse the early Modalists for the very thing that the early Catholic fathers did.

Origen and all of the so called orthodox Semi-Trinitarians (they were more Semi-Arian than Trinitarian) were subordinationists who believed that the Son was created rather than timeless because “at the time when Origen was alive, ORTHODOX VIEWS ON THE TRINITY HAD NOT YET BEEN FORMULATED and Subordinationism was not yet considered heretical.”

[…]

Oneness believers ask our Trinitarian friends how Trinitarian theology could be orthodox when it took more than three hundred years to develop? From the inception of Christianity, the Modalistic Monarchian Christian majority always taught that the divinity of Jesus could never have been created. The Modalistic Christian majority always taught that when God also became a man via virgin conception and birth that the Father’s new human mode or manifestation of His existence as a true man had to be subordinate or he would not have been a true man at all. This explains how “the man Christ Jesus” could pray, be tempted, and experience human sufferings.

3. Thirdly, Some Trinitarians Scholars Cite Hippolytus’s Book, Against All Heresies (Book 9,
chapter 5) To Show That Modalism Originated From Heraclitus (A Pagan Greek Philosopher
from 535-475 BC).

Hippolytus falsely charged that Noetus and other Monarchian teachers received their teachings from a fifth century BC Greek philosopher named Heraclitus. The only legitimate historical connection that Trinitarians have to allege that Modalism sprang from Gnosticism is from Hippolytus’ work, “Against All Heresies”, book 9, Chapter 5 (early third century).

[…]

Hippolytus had no evidence for his false accusation that the Modalists received their teaching from an ancient pagan philosopher named Heraclitus. None of the Modalists ever wrote or said that “God is day, night, winter …” and so forth. Nor is there a record of Heraclitus or the Modalists ever using the word “demiurge” as the later Platonic philosophers and Gnostics had. Thus, there is no connection between the Gnostics and the Modalists, nor is there a shred of historical evidence to suggest that any of the Gnostics and Modalists were ever in fellowship with each other.

Irenaeus described the various Gnostic sects throughout the Roman Empire which flourished during the same time as Praxeus and Noetus (Modalists) and the early Modalistic bishops of Rome in the late second and early third century. Irenaeus appeared to regard the Modalistic Monarchians as orthodox because he visited the Roman Bishop Eleutherius in 178 AD. Tertullian admitted that the Roman Bishop Eleutherius gladly received the Modalistic theology of Praxeus (Against Praxeus chapter 1) in 178 AD. If Irenaeus believed that the Modalists were influenced by Gnostic beliefs, then surely he would have included the Modalists in “Against Heresies.” Since Irenaeus wrote nothing against the Modalists as a Gnostic group, there is no evidence to suggest that the Gnostics and Modalists held similar beliefs.

Moreover, according to Wikipedia, “demiurge” was not employed by the Greek Philosophers until the Platonic period (310 BC), but Heraclitus lived from 535-475 BC which disconnects him from the use of the word “demiurge” among the Greek Philosophers.

[…]

Wherefore, the Gnostics borrowed the idea of the “demiurge” from Platonic Greek Philosophy in which a higher transcendent God produced a “subordinate deity” to create the material world. Everyone knows that the Modalists never taught that the Son was a “subordinate deity.” Therefore, Hippolytus condemned himself because he and other “Semi-Arians” like him (such as Tertullian), were alleging that the Son is a subordinate divine person who was produced by the Father before the creation of the world.

The early Modalists had taught that the Son is the same substance of the Father and that the God who became the Son was always the eternal Father. In contradistinction, Hippolytus believed in a Son who was formed as a “subordinate” Son before the world was made. Thus we can see that the teachings of Hippolytus and the Semi-Arians is linked with the idea of a “demiurge” (a subordinate divine person) employed by some of the Platonic Greek Philosophers, while the use of the word “demiurge” has no connection with the teachings of Modalism!

In Contra Noetus 10-11 Hippolytus wrote,

“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to
create the world. And conceiving the world in mind, and willing and uttering the Word, HE
MADE IT; and straightway IT APPEARED, FORMED AS IT HAD PLEASED HIM. For us, then, it is
sufficient to know that THERE WAS NOTHING CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH GOD. BESIDE HIM
THERE WAS NOTHING; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality. For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel. All things were in Him, and He was the All … He begat the Word [and] uttering the voice first, and begetting Him as Light of Light, He set Him forth to the world as its Lord … And thus THERE APPEARED ANOTHER BESIDE HIMSELF.” (Cited by Trinitarian historian Johannes Quasten, Patrology Vol. 2, Page 200)

The context of the above quote from Hippolytus proves that Hippolytus actually taught that the Word (logos) was “made” and “born” before “the word was made flesh” (John 1:14) which is clearly a created Arian Son. That is why even Johannes Quasten, an Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian historian, sharply rejected Hippolytus’ idea of the word (logos) being “made” and “born” before the incarnation.

After citing Hippolytus, Quasten commented on the same page (Page 200),

“Thus Pope Callistus was correct in dubbing Hippolytus and his adherents DITHEISTS or worshipers of two gods, although Hippolytus resented this bitterly (Refutation of all Heresies 9:12).”

Under Arianism, The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia cited Hippolytus and Tertullian among the “Semi-Arians.” Then the New Advent Encyclopedia says,

“Semi Arians … affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind.”

Hippolytus also wrote in “Against All Heresies” Book 9, Part 5,

“For in this manner he (Noetus) thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance – “homousious”), NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCED FROM A DIFFERENT ONE, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times.”

The Nicene Creed says that Jesus is “begotten (born) not made (not created), of one substance (homoosioun) with the Father” but Tertullian and Hippolytus were teaching that Jesus was created as a Son before his virgin conception and birth as “one individual produced from a different one.” Hence, the Oneness Modalists were teaching that the Father became the Son so that the Son was “begotten” (the human aspect of the son was made) while the Deity who became the Son had not been created because the deity of the Son is the Father’s substance of Being (“hypostasis” – Heb. 1:3). In contradistinction to the Nicene Creed, Hippolytus actually taught that the Son was produced (created) and was not of the same “substance (homoosioun)” of the Father. Therefore the early Modalistic Monarchian theology of Noetus and Praxeus was more harmonious with the early Nicene Creed of 325 than the theology of the
“Semi-Arians” such as Hippolytus and Tertullian because their Semi-Arian teachings were diametrically opposed to the Nicene Creed.

Since Hippolytus clearly taught that the Father and Son are not “the same (substance)” and that the Son was “produced,” the Modalists were upholding the Nicene Creed of 325 AD before it was written, while the “Semi-Arians” like Hippolytus and Tertullian were teaching that the Son was produced as an inferior, subordinate person under the Father (an Arian concept).

Hippolytus, in “Refutation of all Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 5” condemns Noetus and the Modalists,

“Now it is evident to all that the silly successors of Noetus, and the champions of his heresy, even though they have not been hearers of the discourses of Heraclitus, nevertheless, at any rate when they adopt the opinions of Noetus, undisguisedly acknowledge these (Heraclitean) tenets. For they advance statements after this manner–that one and the same God is the Creator and Father of all things; and that when it pleased Him, He nevertheless appeared, (though invisible,) to just men of old. For when He is not seen He is invisible; and He is incomprehensible when He does not wish to be comprehended, but comprehensible when he is comprehended. Wherefore it is that, according to the same account, He is invisible and visible, unbegotten and begotten, immortal and mortal. How shall not persons holding this
description of opinions be proved to be disciples of Heraclitus? Did not (Heraclitus) the obscure anticipate Noetus in framing a system of philosophy, according to identical modes of expression?” (Hippolytus, in Against All Heresies, book 9, chapter 5)

Can any Trinitarian scholar or historian prove the above assertions made by Hippolytus? What quote did Hippolytus submit from Heraclitus to show that Heraclitus believed that God became His own Son as a man? I find nothing at all in the fragments of writings that have survived from the ancient philosopher who predated the Platonic philosophers by about 200 years. Hippolytus himself admitted that the Modalists had “not been the hearers of the discourses of Heraclitus.” Yet the historical evidence irrefutably proves that those who held Hippolytus’ theology from 140 – 300 AD were those who were immersing themselves in the writings of Heraclitus and other Greek Philosophers.

No Trinitarian scholar or historian can find a shred of evidence to suggest that the Modalists were avid readers of the Greek Philosophers such as Heraclitus and Plato. In contradistinction, it was the so called orthodox Semi-Arians and Semi-Trinitarians who believed that Greek Philosophy had something to offer Christianity.

Church Historian Jaroslav Pelikan wrote that “Neo-platonic elements were unmistakably present” in the Trinitarian definition of One God in ‘three persons.’”

“The doctrine of the Trinity … must be interpreted in a manner that would be consistent with this a priori definition of the deity of God (One essence, three persons). Neoplatonic elements were unmistakably present in this definition …” (Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, Vol. 1.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 10, page 335 admits: “Christian thought was strongly influenced by Neo-platonic philosophy and mysticism.”

Church historian Edwin Hatch, wrote in “The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity”, Page 134, “And Hippolytus … is himself saturated with the philosophical conceptions and philosophical literature.” This explains why Hippolytus could quote from Heraclitus in his polemic against the Modalists. If Hippolytus was not immersing himself in pagan Greek Philosophy, then how did he know what Heraclitus said?

Church historian, Edwin Hatch, referenced Clement of Alexandria (another Semi-Arian who held the same beliefs as Hippolytus) for believing in the tenets of “Heraclides” and “the Stoics in various forms” (The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Page 175 – Footnote 1, Stromaties 5:14). Clement of Alexandria was no Modalist. Clement of Alexandria had taught Origen before Origen succeeded him in Alexandria. The historical evidence proves that both Clement of Alexandria and Origen were steeped in Greek Philosophy.

Clement of Alexandria wrote in Stromaties 5:14,

“For there was always a natural manifestation of the one Almighty God, among all rightthinking men; and the most, who had not quite divested themselves of shame with respect to the truth, apprehended the eternal beneficence in divine providence. In fine, then, Xenocrates the Chalcedonian was not quite without hope that the notion of the Divinity existed even in the irrational creatures. And Democritus, though against his will, will make this avowal by the consequences of his dogmas; for he represents the same images as issuing, from the divine essence, on men and on the irrational animals. Far from destitute of a divine idea is man, who, it is written in Genesis, partook of inspiration, being endowed with a purer essence than the other animate creatures. Hence the Pythagoreans say that mind comes to man by divine providence, as Plato and Aristotle avow; but we assert that the Holy Spirit inspires him who has believed. The Platonists hold that mind is an effluence of divine dispensation in the soul, and they place the soul in the body. For it is expressly said by Joel, one of the twelve prophets, ‘And it shall come to pass after these things, I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.’ But it is not as a portion of God that the Spirit is in each of us. But how this dispensation takes place, and what the Holy Spirit is, shall be shown by us in the books on prophecy, and in those on the soul. But ‘incredulity is good at concealing the depths of knowledge,’ according to Heraclitus; ‘for incredulity escapes from ignorance.’”

We know that Justin (who is also called Justin Martyr) ministered in Ephesus, Rome, and other parts of the Roman Empire from about 140-165. Justin continued to ware his philosophers garb after allegedly becoming a Christian. Justin was not ashamed to state that he read Heraclitus, as well as many other Greek philosophers, as did Clement and Origen of Alexandria, and to a lesser extent, Tertullian of Carthage, all of which were influential in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Justin praised “Heraclitus” as a man who lived “according to part …of the word (logos of God) diffused among men …” in his second Apology, chapter eight.

“And those of the Stoic school—since, so far as their moral teaching went, they were admirable, as were also the poets in some particulars, on account of the seed of reason [the Logos] implanted in every race of men—were, we know, hated and put to death,—Heraclitus for instance, and, among those of our own time, Musonius and others … who live not according to a part only of the word diffused [among men] but by the knowledge and contemplation of the whole Word, which is Christ.” (Justin 2nd Apology, 8)

In like manner, Tertullian spoke highly of Heraclitus in his Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 2,

“Heraclitus was quite right, when, observing the thick darkness which obscured the researches of the inquirers about the soul, and wearied with their interminable questions, he declared that he had certainly not explored the limits of the soul, although he had traversed every road in her domains.”

Church Historians know that Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian of Carthage were not Modalists. Their theology was in close harmony with that of Justin, Hippolytus, and Origen who were all guilty of delving into the wisdom of the Greeks while attempting to explain Christian Scriptures. So when Hippolytus condemned the Modalists for allegedly following the teachings of Heraclitus, Hippolytus was actually condemning his own Semi-Arian camp of professing Christianity because it was the Semi-Arians who were reading and incorporating the ideas of Heraclitus and the subsequent Greek philosophers, not the Modalistic Monarchians.

No one has been able to cite a shred of historical evidence to show that any of the early Modalists were reading or incorporating the teachings of Pagan Greek Philosophers. In contradistinction, I have cited ample historical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the so called “orthodox” Semi-Arians were reading and incorporating the ideas of Pagan Greek Philosophers. Hippolytus even wrote that the Modalists “have not been the hearers of the discourses of Heraclitus” which proves that the ancient Modalists rejected the notion that Christians should read the Greek philosophers for spiritual enlightenment. Since I have documented the historical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Semi-Arians and emerging Semi-Trinitarians who were guilty of mixing Greek Philosophy with scripture, the Trinitarian argument against Oneness Modalistic Theology turns on its heels.

[…]

Justin wrote in his first Apology, chapter 20, “We teach the same as the Greeks …”

Justin wrote in his second Apology, 2:13, “The teachings of Plato, are not alien to those of Christ, though not in all respects similar … for all the writers of antiquity were able to have a dim vision of the realities by means of the seed of the implanted word.”

Eusebius cited one of the early Modalistic Monarchian leaders in Rome who condemned
the influence of Greek philosophy within the lifetimes of Hippolytus and Tertullian (likely from
the Modalistic Monarchian Roman Bishop Callistus or Zephyrinus) but the original work was lost
or destroyed.

“These men have fearlessly perverted the divine scriptures, and set aside the rule of the ancient faith, and have not known Christ … And having deserted the holy scriptures of God, they study geometry, being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and ignoring Him who comes from above. Some of them, give their minds to Euclid; some of them are admiring disciples of Aristotle and Theophrastus (Greek Philosophers) …” (Cited by Eusebius H. E. 5, 28:13 / The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Page 131)

It is interesting that almost all of the Modalistic Monarchian writings from the second century onward have been lost or destroyed while the Semi-Arian writings have survived. Could it be that the later Roman Catholic Church destroyed the writings of the Modalists because they contained damning evidence against their developed Trinitarian doctrine? The historical evidence proves that the Modalistic Monarchian congregations were faithful to the words of God while the Semi-Arian and Gnostic assemblies were immersing themselves in pagan Greek Philosophy.

[…]

Trinitarian historians and scholars admit that Justin was one of the earliest Christian writers who held “subordinational” Semi-Arian views. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, under “St. Justin Martyr,” informs us what Justin actually believed.

According to Justin, “… The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dial., xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, lvi, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, cxiii, cxv, cxxv, cxxvi, cxviii). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does he worship which is rendered to Him (I Apol., vi; cf. lxi, 13; Teder, “Justins des Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus”, Freiburg im Br., 1906, 103-19). The Father engendered (produced) Him by a free and voluntary act (Dial., lxi, c, cxxvii, cxxviii; cf. Teder, op. cit., 104), at the beginning of all His works (Dial., lxi, lxii, II Apol., vi, 3); … Two influences are plainly discernible in the aforesaid body of doctrine. It is, of course, to Christian revelation that Justin owes his concept of the distinct personality of the Word, His Divinity and Incarnation; but philosophic speculation is responsible for his unfortunate concepts of the TEMPORAL and voluntary GENERATION (begetting) of the Word, and for the SUBORDINATIONISM of Justin’s theology.”

Justin’s First Apology Chapter 13 says, “… we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all …”

Justin clearly taught that the Word (the Son) was produced or birthed by the Father before creation. Rather than having a timeless existence, Justin taught that he had a “temporal” existence by being “engendered (produced)” as a subordinate creation of the Father before his second birth in Bethlehem. Thus we can see that Justin was an Arian rather than a true Trinitarian. Justin was one of the first Semi-Arians who began contending with the Modalistic Christian majority in the mid-second century.

Tertullian was also somewhat influenced by Greek Philosophy. Tertullian wrote (in De Testim Animae 1.) “Some of our number, who are versed in ancient literature, have composed books by means of which it may be clearly seen that we have embraced nothing new or monstrous, nothing in which we have not the support of common and public literature.” (Cited in “The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity”, Edwin Hatch, Page 126)

Edwin Hatch wrote that Tertullian believed that he was teaching the same thing as the Greek Philosophers.

“Elsewhere, the same writer (Tertullian) founds an argument for the toleration of Christianity on the fact that its opponents maintained it to be a kind of philosophy, teaching the very same doctrines as the philosophers …” (The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Edwin Hatch, page 126 – Apol. 46)

[…]

It is no secret that Origen loved to read the Greek Philosophers and required his students in his school at Caesaria, to regularly read the Greek Philosophers. It is therefore no surprise to find that some of the students of Origen’s school in Caesaria were later called the Cappadocian fathers who were influential in developing the Trinity (Note: Origen’s influence continued through his writings and school long after his death at around 253).

In the introduction to Origen of Alexandria, Looklex Encyclopedia informs us that Origen was influenced by Platonic philosophy and Gnosticism.

“As one of the earliest theologians, his non-Christian tools are most transparent in his work; both Platonic philosophy and Gnostic concepts came to play a central role in his understanding of Christian texts.”

Under Theology, Looklex Encyclopedia states:

“Origen is considered the founder of the allegorical method of scriptural interpretation. He aimed at reconciling Greek philosophy with Christianity, himself mainly of the Platonist school.”

Under Criticism And Influence, Looklex says:

“He had a background with Platonic philosophy with the belief in an eternal soul in contrast to the temporary, imperfect material world. Other controversial ideas were the preexistence of the soul, a universal salvation and a trinity as a hierarchy where Jesus inferior to God (corresponding with Arianism), defining the resurrection of the body as mainly spiritual and having removed the original concept of hell.”

No Trinitarian apologist or scholar can prove that the early Modalists were teaching the philosophical speculations of Heraclitus or the Platonic Greek Philosophers. The evidence overwhelmingly proves that the Semi-Arians were the ones who were guilty of immersing themselves in the writings of Heraclitus and the subsequent Greek Philosophers in order to explain the words of inspired scripture. In contradistinction, the Modalistic Christian majority rejected the idea that Greek philosophers could offer any enlightenment to Christianity or to the words of inspired scripture.

Most people do not know that both Tertullian in the West and Origen in the East admitted that the Oneness Modalists greatly outnumbered the Semi-Arian congregations. Since most of the Oneness writings have been destroyed, many have falsely believed that the Semi-Arian form of Semi-Trinitarian theology was more prevalent, but the historical facts prove otherwise. By the time of the Council of Nicaea (325), it appears that there were four main camps of Christians: (1) Modalists (2) Semi-Arians, (3) Arians, (4) Semi-Trinitarian.

The Nicene Creed says that the Deity who became the Son was “begotten (born) not made, of one substance with the Father …” Modalism teaches that the Father became the Son and is the same substance and Person of the Divinity of the Father. Thus He who became the Son was “born” but not made. Therefore, the historical evidence reveals that the Semi-Arians (who were denying the full deity of Christ) were engaged in a heated debate with the Modalistic majority which were the only group of Christians on record to uphold the full deity of Christ within the first two and a half centuries of Christian history.

Origen’s wrote in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23,

“… I wonder at the stupidity THE GENERAL RUN OF CHRISTIANS in this matter. I do not mince matters; it is nothing but stupidity … THEY PROCEED DIFFERENTLY AND ASK, WHAT IS THE SON OF GOD WHEN CALLED THE WORD? … AND THEY IMAGINE THE SON TO BE THE UTTERANCE OF THE FATHER DEPOSITED, as it were, in words … THEY DO NOT ALLOW HIM … ANY INDEPENDENT HYPOSTASIS (Essence of Being), nor are they clear about His essence. I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having an essence of His own (Origen’s view). For NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WHICH IS SAID TO BE THE WORD CAN BE A SON. AND SUCH AN ANIMATED WORD, NOT BEING A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE FATHER … God the Word IS A SEPARATE BEING AND HAS AN ESSENCE (homoisious) OF HIS OWN.” (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23)

Origen contrasted his theological teaching from “the general run of Christians (the Modalists)” by saying, “God the Word IS A SEPARATE BEING AND HAS AN ESSENCE (‘homoiusias’) OF HIS OWN.” Origen identified “the general run of Christians” as those who believed that the Father’s Essence of Being is the same Essence of Being as the Son. Origen did not believe that the Son is the same “homousias” as the Father because Origen taught that the Son has a “homoiusias” of his own – as “a separate entity from the Father.” Therefore Origen clearly taught against the later Nicene Creed of 325 while only the ancient Modalists were affirming the core theology of the Nicene Creed in the centuries preceding the Council of
Nicaea.

If I were to say that the Modalists were “the general run of Christians” in the twenty first century, my Trinitarian opponents would rightly laugh and ridicule me for lying. Yet even though Origen himself, as an ardent opponent of Modalism, admitted that the Modalists were “the general run of Christians” in the early third century, hard hearted Trinitarians always deny it. Thus the historical evidence proves that the Modalists were the original Christians affirming that the essence of being of the Son (homousias) was the same essence of being (homousias) of the Father, whereas the Semi-Arians denied Christ’s true deity. It is no wonder why the latter Roman Catholic Church condemned the writings of Origen.

Origen wrote that the Modalists were among the multitudes of believers calling Jesus the Most High God while the Semi-Arian tendencies of Origen denied Christ’s full deity.

“Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, ‘The Father who sent Me is greater than I.’” (Origen, Contra Celsus 8:14)

Origen and other “Semi-Arians” like him did not believe like the Modalists because the Modalists were saying that Jesus “is the Most High God” while Origen’s group had taught that Jesus is a lesser god under the One True God the Father. According to Johannes Quasten, Origen’s later doctrine of a timeless eternal Son was “a remarkable advance in the development of theology and had a far reaching influence on ecclesiastical teaching” (Patrology Vol. 2, Page 78). Although Origen was the first to clearly teach that the Son always existed as a Son throughout eternity past, he often contradicted his timeless son theory while teaching “that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him” (Contra Celsus 8:15 – Patrology Vol. 2, Page 79).

Although the doctrine of Eternal Sonship was first taught by Origen in the third century (Patrology Vol. 2, Quasten, Pg. 79.), Origen vacillated in his teaching about an eternal son and a created son. Under the title, “Christ as Creature,” Pelikan wrote, “In Origen’s doctrine of the Logos, however, there were two sets of ideas … In one sense, the logic of Origen’s anti-Sabellian exegesis led to the insistence that the Logos was distinct from the Father, but eternal, so that none could ‘dare lay down a beginning for the Son’ (Origen, Principiis. 4 4:1) … But at the same time Origen interpreted the passages of derivation and distinction in such a way as to make the Logos A CREATURE and SUBORDINATE to God, ‘the firstborn of all creation, a thing CREATED, wisdom (Origen Princ. 4 4:1). And in support of this latter interpretation his chief proof was Proverbs 8:22-31.” (The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, Vol. 1, Pg. 191 – Pelikan)

Origen is the first Christian writer on record to come up with an eternal Son in his rhetoric that “Wisdom” is always being “generated” and that the Son is “without any beginning.” Origen wrote, “And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power indeed, but–what cannot be said of God without impiety–was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of
the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.” (Origen Principiis Book 1, 2:2)

Origen contradicted his eternal Son theory by writing in his Commentary of the Gospel of John, Book 1:18, that THE FATHER IS THE BEGINNING OF THE SON.

“This meaning of the term “beginning,” as of origin, will serve us also in the passage in which Wisdom speaks in the Proverbs. “God,” we read, “created me the beginning of His ways, for His works.” Here the term could be interpreted as in the first application we spoke of, that of a way: “The Lord,” it says, “created me the beginning of His ways.” One might assert, and with reason, that God Himself is the beginning of all things, and might go on to say, as is plain, that THE FATHER IS THE BEGINNING OF THE SON; and the demiurge (Greek Platonism) the beginning of the works of the demiurge (Platonism), and that God in a word is the beginning of all that exists. This view is supported by our: “In the beginning was the Word.” In the Word one may see the Son, and because He is in the Father He may be said to be in the beginning.”

Origen’s Commentary of the Gospel of John, Book 1:19, says, “THE FATHER IS THE BEGINNING OF CHRIST. Origen wrote, “In addition to these meanings there is that in which we speak of a beginning, according to form; thus if the first-born of every creature is the image of the invisible God, then the Father is his beginning. In the same way Christ is the beginning of those who are made according to the image of God. For if men are according to the image, but the image according to the Father; in the first case, THE FATHER IS THE BEGINNING OF CHRIST, and in the other Christ is the beginning of men, and men are made, not according to that of which he is the image, but according to the image. With this example our passage will agree: “In the beginning was the Word (Origen, Commentary of John, book 1:19).”

Church historians such as Pelikan have identified two contradictory views held by Origen. Pelikan wrote, “In Origen’s doctrine of the Logos, however, there were two sets of ideas … In one sense, the logic of Origen’s anti-Sabellian exegesis led to the insistence that the Logos was distinct from the Father, but eternal, so that none could ‘dare lay down a beginning for the Son’ (Origen, Principiis. 4 4:1) … But at the same time Origen interpreted the passages of derivation and distinction in such a way as to make the Logos A CREATURE and SUBORDINATE to God, ‘the firstborn of all creation, a thing CREATED, wisdom (Origen Princ. 4 4:1). And in support of this latter interpretation his chief proof was Proverbs 8:22-31.” (The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, Vol. 1, Pg. 191 – Pelikan)

Unlike his predecessors, Origen of Alexandria advanced the development of Trinitarian theology by developing the idea that the Son never had a beginning. Yet Origin continued to teach like the rest of the semi Arians of that time that the Son is a subordinate god who was created in time under the Most High God (the Father).

Origen clearly taught that the Son was created,

“…we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: ‘The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He rounded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.’ He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’ The firstborn, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same.” (Origen Principiis Book 1, 2:1)

Since Origen identified the personified wisdom of God as actually being the living Son of God before his birth, Origen was teaching Arianism. For Origen clearly stated that God created the Son literally before his birth in Bethlehem in the above quote. In contradistinction, Oneness theology believes that God first created Christ in His mind and plan as a human son. It is in this sense that Jesus said that he was “the beginning of the creation of God” in Rev. 3:14, and “the firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1:15. Thus Origen clearly taught that Wisdom is “the onlybegotten Son” who was literally “created … in the beginning.” It is no wonder that Origen’s successor and pupil, Dionysius of Alexandria, declared that “The Son of God is a creature and something made” (Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, Vol. 1, Pg. 192 / Ath. Dion. 4:2, 10-11). In like manner, this is why Eustathius (an early fourth century Modalist who signed the Nicene Creed), blasted the writings of Origen in his polemic as containing “the roots of Arianism” (www.theopedia.com/eusebius).

Trinitarian historians themselves have cited the students of Origen’s later school which moved from Alexandria to Caesarea as those who later developed the Trinity doctrine. The three Cappadocian fathers from the school of Origen were responsible for further developing the Trinitarian doctrine of Eternal and Coequal Sonship (a Timeless Son). Other students of Origen’s school such as Eusebius took the other side of Origen’s rhetoric, teaching that a subordinate pre-incarnate Son was created. Thus Origen sowed the seeds of both Arianism and Trinitarianism in his style of rhetoric which cannot be denied (Note: Origen’s influence continued through his school long after his death as his writings were used as the main source of his school’s teachings). Therefore the students of Origen became both Semi-Trinitarians and Semi-Arians.

Semi-Arian Pupils of Origen: Eusebius and Dionysius of Alexandria. Many others were influenced into Arianism by Origen’s writings.

Semi-Trinitarian Pupils of Origen: “Gregory Thuamaturgos … and the Cappadocians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, were inspired by Alexandrian theology (Origen’s theology).” (Patrology 2, Pg. 121, Johannes Quasten)

Under “Christian Philosophy,” Wikipedia informs us that Clement and Origen of Alexandria were heavily influenced by Greek Philosophy.

“Clement of Alexandria: Theologian and apologist who wrote on Greek philosophy, using ideas from pagan literature, Stoic and Platonic philosophy, and Gnosticism to argue for Christianity.”
“Origen: Origen was influential in integrating elements of Platonism into Christianity. He incorporated Platonic idealism into his conceptions of the Logos, and the two churches, one ideal and one real. He also held a strongly Platonic view of God, describing him as the perfect, incorporeal ideal.”

Wikipedia informs us that the later catholic fathers continued to be influenced by “Neo-Platonism” (New Platonic Greek Philosophy): “Certain central tenets of Neo-Platonism served as a philosophical interim for the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo.”

It should alarm professing Arian and Trinitarian Christians that almost every single early Christian writer that was influential in the development of Arianism and Trinitarianism was at least partially influenced by elements of Greek Philosophy. In contradistinction, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the Modalistic Monarchians were influenced by Greek Philosophy. In fact, the evidence proves that they condemned it!

Wherefore, the historical evidence proves the following four facts about early Christian history.

1. The Semi-Arians were the founding fathers of both the Arian and the Trinitarian doctrines and these founding fathers were influenced by Greek philosophy and the Pagan Greek Platonic idea of the “demiurge” which was also borrowed by the Gnostics.

2. It was the pre-Nicene Modalists who were defending the deity of Christ against the Semi-Arian theologies of Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen long before the Nicene Creed was written.

3. The Modalist Christians outnumbered the Semi-Arian Christians in the early days of Christianity.

4. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the Modalists were influenced by Greek or Gnostic Philosophy while the historical evidence overwhelmingly proves that it was the Semi-Arians, Arians, and Trinitarians who were influenced by Platonic Greek Philosophy (Colossians 2:8-12 warns that the entrance of Greek Philosophy would spoil the church of God).

The God of the Bible never said that He is more than One Divine Person. Yet Trinitarians insist on speculating that God is One Being as Three distinct Divine Persons. Trinitarian theologians and apologists love to try to make a distinction between the words “being” and “person” as if God is only One Being while existing as three alleged divine “persons.” However, the word “being” essentially means the same thing as a “person” and the word “person” essentially means the same thing as “being.”

Merriam Webster defines the word BEING as “a living thing; especially: A PERSON.”
Merriam Webster defines the word PERSON as “a human BEING: a person.”

An individual human person is an individual human being and an individual human being is an individual human person. How can God be One Being and three Persons at the same time when “Being” means “a living … Person” and Person means “a human being?” Such Trinitarian mumbo jumbo is not only non-sensible, it contradicts the true meaning of Being and Person in all normative languages of the earth.

Some Greek scholars agree that the original Greek text used in Galatians 3:20 proves that God is One Individual as “One Person.” R. G. Brachter translated Gal 3:20 as God being “One Person,” “Now a go between is not needed with one person, and GOD IS ONE PERSON.”

Wuest’s Word Pictures of the Greek New Testament translated Gal 3:20 as God being “One Individual, “Now a mediator is not a go between representing the interest of one individual, but GOD IS ONE INDIVIDUAL.”

The Amplified Bible [Classic Edition] translated Galatians 3:20 as God being “One Person”:

“Now a go between and inter-mediator has to do with and implies more than one party. There can be no mediator with just one person, yet GOD IS ONE PERSON.”

Since Greek scholars have proved that the original Greek text in Galatians 3:20 states that God is only ONE DIVINE INDIVIDUAL PERSON, we must acknowledge that the Trinitarian concept of God being a plurality of divine persons could not be correct.