Were the Cappadocian Fathers Loving God When They Ratified the Unscriptural Word Homoousion To Establish the Trinity?

Or, How to Love God and How not to Love God

This website, OriginalChristianity.net, examines primitive, original Christianity; how it developed over time into innumerable denominations and divisions; and how original Christianity compares with different movements and developments within those movements. Today, we will do just that regarding the Cappadocian Fathers’ contributions to the development of Trinitarian doctrine.

As is common on this website, this is a call to return to pure, properly handled scripture in this area of the knowledge of God.

More specifically, we will examine how Scripture describes the revelation of the word of God and compare it with some of the philosophical processes used to construct the Trinity and other orthodox doctrines. In the process, we will discuss how philosophically oriented theologians dismiss Christians who follow Paul’s warning against philosophy by calling them zealots. We will focus on the development and final acceptance of the unscriptural word “homoousion” as a keystone in accepting Trinitarian doctrine. And, even if you don’t think you care about things in Philosophy, we will talk about why it is important for you and I to know something about philosophy, also called world wisdom in scripture.  Here’s a hint that we will talk about more later:

Be careful that you don’t let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.
(Colossians 2:8)

We will compare world wisdom, aka philosophy, with the wisdom that God provides to his people.

And, the greatest commandment is to love God with all of our heart, with all of our soul, with all of our might.

You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.
(Deuteronomy 6:5 )

We will discuss how this huge topic affects our love for God.

But first, a little story.

Have you heard the story of the four little ants talking with each other, trying to figure out where they all were in relation to where each other was?

Four tiny ants were signaling each other about where they were finding food. They couldn’t see each other or even the edges of their own surroundings, so they started signaling to let the others know their location. The first ant said he thought he was on a very thick tree, and partway up, he found a squashed piece of fruit. The second said he saw some nut pieces on what he thought was a little hill. The third said he must be on a high hill with various things growing because he was so high. The fourth said he thought he was on a snake, and there were bits of dead leaves on the snake’s body as it slithered around in a circular motion. With that, a couple of ants said they thought they saw a snake-like shape orbiting the sky around where they lived. They agreed that the fourth one must be on an orbiting moon.[1]

Boy, were they wrong!

The thing was that all four ants were on a big old elephant. The first was on the elephant’s leg, the second on the back, the third on the head, and the fourth on the tail, swinging around the body to swat flies. The animal was so much bigger than they were that they had no idea they were on the same creature.

Well, we’re like ants on an elephant. And God is the elephant. Only this elephant is bigger than the universe because he made the universe.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1)

Just as the ants on the elephant couldn’t understand the creature hosting them, our God is so big that we can’t understand him either.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not my ways,” says Yahweh. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:8-9)

And just in case you think scripture wouldn’t compare us to insects, look at this:

Haven’t you known? Haven’t you heard? Haven’t you been told from the beginning? Haven’t you understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing; who makes the judges of the earth like meaningless.
(Isaiah 40:21-23)

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and received a Catholic education through high school. I don’t remember the details of many lessons from my school years, but I have a vivid memory of a grade school teacher; I don’t remember her name, but she was made to come in and apologize to our class for her poor explanation of the Trinity.

Kids had asked her to explain the Trinity, saying they couldn’t understand. She used the potato analogy, where the potato has white meat inside, skin on the outside, and eyes. She said those three parts were like three different “persons”, but they were all the same potato. I remember that other kids offered other analogies, and there was a considerable discussion in class. She was just trying to help some confused kids, and I thought this was helpful myself.

But this lesson was told to the Monsignor, the head of our parish, who resided one building over, and who called her to account. Over sixty years later, I still remember seeing her with glassy eyes, bravely standing and, as cheerfully as she could, saying that she had been wrong in giving her analogy. She said there were no good analogies. She explained that in this area of the Trinity, fine points had taken many years and councils to resolve, and the only way to explain them was to recite the creeds, sticking to the wording exactly.

I think we eventually finished the lesson reciting the Nicene Creed. I remember reciting the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed a lot. I remember one of my teachers explaining that we pledged allegiance to the country with the Pledge of Allegiance, and to the Church by reciting creeds.

The Nicene Creed depends on the word Homoousion, which we will be discussing today.  Homoousion, translated “consubstantial” or “of one substance,” supplies the logic the Nicene Creed uses to say, “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”  There is no Nicene Creed without Homoousion. 

In recanting, my teacher explained that three parts of a potato differ from three persons. A potato is not a person, and so it is not a good example. The potato is one potato, not three; the meat, skin, and eyes of the potato are different parts of one potato, not three potatoes in one potato, which is what would have to happen for there to be a good analogy.

I think she said that her potato analogy was teaching the heresy called Modalism; she named a number of heresies concerning the Trinity in her explanation.  She looked troubled, and I felt troubled as she said the word “heresy” numerous times.  There was a real fear there.

She emphasized that there was only one way to explain the Trinity, and that was using the wording taught in the creed. She said it was a mystery that the best men in the church had worked out, and no one understood it. Mysteries are not understandable, she said; that’s why they are called mysteries: they were just something we commit to memory.

Her discomfort was so palpable that I can still feel it to this day. I felt for that woman in that instance. I personally felt overpowered, and further discussion of the Trinity was over. When I talked about the Trinity after that, I used the same wording my teacher did in her recantation.

In my Catholic school, the tenets of Catholic doctrine were regularly taught in a similar way, emphasizing exact wording through rote memorization and reiteration until they became second nature to recall. The danger of speaking heresy was regularly reinforced.  Of course, behind that discussion was the danger of eternal hellfire.

Not long after that class, the Monsignor came to the class to test us on our knowledge of the catechism. Now, there were kind priests and nuns that many of us looked forward to seeing, but the Monsignor wasn’t one of them, as far as I remember. Others later told me he did have a nicer side, but my experiences with him were mainly unpleasant. He was stern and “in charge”. On that day, he started questioning us with catechism questions. He pressed for correct answers. We timid souls in the seats squeaked out our responses as best we could, but he became angry. Scanning the class with his eyes, he announced we were not allowed to receive the sacraments until we could do better than that and stormed out of the room.

Now, each class at our school goes to Mass and receives Communion one day a week. Some of us were concerned because the Monsignor had not returned to release us from his ban against the sacraments. The teacher said not to worry about it, and we took Holy Communion. Later, the scuttlebutt was that the Monsignor was old, sometimes drank too much, and was close to retirement. People said not to worry about it, but some of us were bothered by it.

One thing that was reinforced in Catholic school was that the wording of the doctrines of the faith was critically important, and you better get it right. And it wasn’t what was in Scripture; it was what was in the catechism. It was explained to me that it wasn’t that scripture was wrong, but while it may look different, Catholic doctrine was developed so that it superseded scripture.  That training to think that way started on day one of Catholic education, and for me, that was at five years old.

Despite falling away somewhat during my teens and early twenties, I still defended Catholicism, including the Pope, crusades, the Trinity, Sacraments, et al., into my twenties.   Catholicism works to build a deep-rooted loyalty, which I did not give up easily. I never would have imagined then that half a century later I would have a deeper, more genuine faith by committing to pure, properly handled Scripture and rejecting anything that could not be found there.  And I mean anything.

My relationship with Jesus and with Yahweh is so much more than anything I ever saw in Catholicism. Jesus is real.  I have the holy spirit. And I love Yahweh with all my heart, all my soul, and all my might.

Some Christians and churches state that the Bible is the only rule for faith and practice. For example, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says on its website that the Scriptures are “the sole authority for faith and practice” for Southern Baptists.[2] Many churches make similar statements.

Scripture itself declares that it is the sum of the truth we must follow as believers.

The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever.
(Psalms 119:160)

This article is written with the view that the Scriptures are God’s word revealed to us as our guide for living.

But, soon after the Apostles, Christianity began integrating with philosophy. Justin Martyr is one of the earliest writers to write that the philosophers were inspired by the Logos just as the Jewish prophets were, and acceptance of philosophy grew from there, not without detractors, but it grew nonetheless. (See 01.3.1 Justin Martyr on the Logos – the Integration of Original Christianity with Greek Philosophy for more.)

Even if you have a hard time following the philosophical reasoning to different things, if you believe that the Scriptures are our guide for faith and practice or should be, then you need to see how, after the original apostles, philosophical reasoning dominated the development of Christian doctrine to the point that even if Scripture didn’t say something, theologians and philosophers used unscriptural philosophical arguments and extra-biblical terms to justify their conclusions as to the nature of God and other things. But you can’t say that the Scriptures are the only rules for faith and practice, and use philosophy warned against in the Scriptures, especially with terms not in the Scriptures, to prove your point.

As usual, our approach will be to follow Jesus’ example with the Pharisees.  This article will compare the Cappadocian Fathers’ traditions with the word of God to see whether the tradition is consistent with the revelation of God’s word or nullifies it in one or more respects.

To begin with, we will read a relevant section in the gospel of Mark.

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is unwashed, hands, they found fault. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews, don’t eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. They don’t eat when they come from the marketplace unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?” He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.” He said to them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother;’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God”;’ then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.”
(Mark 7:1-13)

This section begins with a discussion of Jewish traditions that have been carried on for centuries. The Scriptures record that the Jews were given the law from Moses on Mount Sinai. However, the Jews were not satisfied with the law itself, saying that it was incomplete. They established a tradition known as the oral law, which developed into the Talmud. So, while the Jews were given the Scriptures in the Torah, their religion continued to develop as the Talmud was compiled. They use passages from the Torah to claim they were empowered to do this. On the way, numerous new traditions were established.

These traditions include washing hands and forearms before eating, bathing after coming home from the market, and many others, including washing dishes, pots, and couches. The Pharisees chastised Jesus for not teaching his disciples those traditions.

Jesus counters with Isaiah’s prophecy that the people honor Yahweh with their lips, but their hearts are far from Yahweh. He tells them that they are teaching as commandments of God the commandments of men. Jesus cites the example of the practice of Jews being led to give to the temple what should be earmarked for the care of their parents in adhering to the commandment to honor your father and mother.

Jesus’s reproof includes the fact that these Jewish traditions established under the Pharisees and other religious leaders led people to reject the word of God regarding honoring their parents in this case and different parts of the word of God in many other instances. Jesus calls this process one where tradition makes the word of God void in people’s lives.

Christian leaders, after the apostles, did the same. Jesus came and taught and established his church, led by his apostles. The Scriptures say that the word of God was given to us by his apostles and prophets. But, just like the Jews, shortly after the passing of the apostles, Christian leaders, also tracing their authority to actual Scriptures, claimed that they were in charge of developing Christian doctrine because the original writings of the apostles were also incomplete, a similar process to how Jewish tradition developed. Doctrine in the Catholic Church and the whole Christian Orthodox tradition is a combination of reliance on Scripture, traditions developed after the apostles, and the magisterium, which is similar to the Jewish reliance on actual Scripture, traditions developed after Moses, and the Talmud.

We need to focus on what it means to the people in the pews when it says that these traditions make the word of God void in our lives. At this point, it’s important to emphasize that many sincere, kind individuals are in various churches. These same sincere, kind individuals may believe different things because different Churches teach different things in many areas. When discussing errors in a church, I always distinguish between individuals in the pews and church leadership teaching doctrines that may have taken many years to develop. People in the pews are called sheep in Scripture because people tend to herd together and follow leaders they trust.  It’s the leadership, the people actually running the show, that are the ones teaching the error. In Indoctrination and Deception Part 2 – The Trinity and Other Doctrines That Christians are Indoctrinated With – Not All Things Are Better Caught Than Taught, I talk about how I accepted many Catholic Orthodox doctrines growing up because I was led to believe them. I was in my early 20s before someone had the love and patience to spend a number of hours patiently working with me to see that what I had been taught was different than what was in the Scriptures.

Our concern is for believers who believe unscriptural doctrines and for what happens to their abundant life, both now and forever. Perhaps what these sheep receive is not the full truth, but they are still able to have Christ in their hearts and to walk in some of the fellowship available to believers. That’s not the best, but they are still saved and have some of the knowledge of God. In the worst case, however, Jesus warned that these religious leaders could even divert believers from being part of the kingdom to being what he called a son of Gehenna. (In the Scriptures, Gehenna is sometimes translated hell.) Look at this:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of Gehenna as yourselves.
(Matthew 23:15)

I will say that when I started getting involved with pure Scripture-based theology, it was not always a bed of roses. I was shocked at how different Scripture-based Christian fellowship was compared to the sacramental liturgical life I was indoctrinated into.

Please forgive me if this topic is disturbing to you; I sincerely want for all of us to love God with the like mind that the scriptures say is available.

Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
(Philippians 2:2 KJV)

The record above in Mark, where Jesus says that many things in these developed traditions make void the word of God and gives examples, is our guiding light to compare traditions and teachings developed after the apostles to the Scriptures to see where the tradition is either in alignment with God’s word or makes the word of God void.

Scripture alone, under the guidance of the holy spirit, is the source of the truth of God’s word.  We will look at the scriptural overview of the verses used to show that.  But first,

I have said these things to you, while still living with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
(John 14:25-26)

Do you see in the verses above that Jesus says the Holy Spirit will guide us in understanding his words? Now, in a minute, we will look at Colossians 2:8, which says that philosophies, traditions of men, and elements of the world will rob us of the truth.  The Holy Spirit can lead us if we rely solely on properly handled Scripture and the Spirit. But worldly philosophy, traditions, and elements of the world will rob us by leading us astray. The problem is that these philosophies, traditions, and elements of the world can be so integrated into our belief systems that we are deceived into believing they are also the truth of God’s word. Some of them may have been indoctrinated into our Christian experience somewhere along the way.

Scripture calls what God has revealed the knowledge of God.

That you may walk worthily of the Lord, to please him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
(Colossians 1:10)

Scripture says that God’s word was revealed through prophets and apostles. And it was done via the spirit.

Which in other generations was not made known to the children of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
(Ephesians 3:5)

Scripture says that God’s word is to be handled properly.  “Properly handling” in the following verse is the Greek word orthotomeo, which means to cut straight. It is translated as “rightly divided” in the King James Version.

Give diligence to present yourself approved by God, a workman who doesn’t need to be ashamed, properly handling the Word of Truth.
(2 Timothy 2:15)

Proper handling is discussed in the context of the above verse. Look at the verse immediately before it.

Remind them of these things, charging them in the sight of the Lord, that they don’t argue about words, to no profit, to the subverting of those who hear.
(2 Timothy 2:14)

Do you see “that they don’t argue about words, to no profit, to the subverting of those who hear?” In the context of the verse that says that one thing a workman needs to handle the word of truth properly is the charge not to squabble about the meanings of words. One of the words in today’s topic, homoousion, was argued over for many years, is not even found in the Bible, and helped lead the church in the wrong direction.

Proper handling includes steering clear of worldly philosophies, man-made traditions, and other “elements of the world”. Improper handling works against people’s faith, leading them astray.

Be careful that you don’t let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.
(Colossians 2:8)

Worldly philosophies, the traditions of men, the elements of the world, rob us of the truth. That’s what Scripture says, and that’s what it means.

Some people don’t realize that philosophy and religion overlapped as philosophy was being developed.  Plato, for example, made numerous statements about God and living a virtuous life. Plato discussed logos, the same term used in the Gospel of John, albeit in a different sense.

Philosophy began about six centuries before Christ as men began proposing theories about the world, the universe, how life works, and man’s relationship with gods.[17] It has always been an alternative to the revelation given to the Old Testament prophets and, later, the New Testament apostles and prophets.

As stated above, some have argued that the philosophers were, in effect, prophets to the Greeks, like Israel’s prophets. However, making the case that the philosophers were somehow prophets in their attempts to integrate their writings with Scripture violates the verse above. Using the philosophers’ writings to understand the prophets’ and apostles’ writings puts them on par with prophets and apostles, which they absolutely are not, as Scripture rejects these worldly philosophies.

Scripture flat-out speaks disdainfully of the wisdom of the wise, including the world’s philosophies.

For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing.”
(1 Corinthians 1:19)

In contrast, the wisdom of God is a tree of life. Look at these verses from Proverbs:

Happy is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gets understanding. For her good profit is better than getting silver, and her return is better than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies. None of the things you can desire are to be compared to her. Length of days is in her right hand. In her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness. All her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her. Happy is everyone who retains her. By wisdom Yahweh founded the earth. By understanding, he established the heavens. By his knowledge, the depths were broken up, and the skies drop down the dew. My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion: so they will be life to your soul, and grace for your neck. Then you shall walk in your way securely. Your foot won’t stumble. When you lie down, you will not be afraid. Yes, you will lie down, and your sleep will be sweet.
Proverbs 3:13-24)

To get this wisdom, we need to take in the pure word of God, properly handled and untwisted scripture.  Understanding the proper handling of the word of God goes all the way back to understanding what Scripture says about how these revelations to the apostles and prophets are to be handled by the apostles and prophets themselves.

But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, … that same prophet shall die.”
(Deuteronomy 18:20)

Thank God that in our day and time, no one is put to death, but the sin of presumption is still a serious matter.

Speaking presumptuously means speaking something other than the words God placed in a prophet’s mouth or giving them different meanings.  It’s presuming to know something about the message that God didn’t mean.

Scripture describes the process of a prophet prophesying as Yahweh placing words in the prophet’s mouth.

Then Yahweh stretched out his hand, and touched my mouth. Then Yahweh said to me, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.
(Jeremiah 1:9)

The process described above shows that the prophet’s mind is not involved in the construction of the message. The prophecy is not a conclusion that the prophet reached. The prophecy is not the prophets’ thinking on a matter; that would be speaking presumptuously, as described in Deuteronomy 18:20 above.  Some may argue that the mind must be involved because the prophecy comes out in a language that the prophet understands, and that is true. Surely, Yahweh knows what the prophet can understand enough to say, as well as what the minds of the recipients of the prophecy will be able to understand. And from that perspective, the process is not removed from the minds of either the prophet or the hearers of the prophecy. But the prophecy is God’s words put in the prophet’s mouth, which he just delivers as given.

Scripture describes this process of how we are given the scriptures into us as “God breathing.” God breathes his word into his apostles and prophets.

From infancy, you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that each person who belongs to God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:15-17)

Scripture gives more detail about God “revealing” things to people in first Corinthians.

For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another faith, by the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, by the same Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discerning of spirits; to another different kinds of languages; and to another the interpretation of languages.
(1 Corinthians 12:8-10)

If I say, “I want to have a word with you,” you understand that I want to relay some information to you. Well, do you see “word of wisdom,” “word of knowledge” in the verses above? Those are bits of information that God places in our minds via our spiritual connection to him. When Scripture talks about the revelation of Jesus Christ, that’s what it’s talking about. Our mediator, Jesus Christ, facilitates the process where our loving heavenly Father reveals things. If it’s just information, that’s word of knowledge. If it’s the best way to handle something, that’s word of wisdom.

As far as the accuracy of Scripture is concerned, of course, there are errors in translation as well as different versions of Scripture that sometimes must be evaluated as to which is the most accurate, but that goes beyond the scope of this article. Look at the numerous articles on the website about Scripture translation and interpretation to learn more.

Moses received the word of God on Mount Sinai and brought it to the people. When the Scriptures speak of the word, they refer to Moses’ books as well as the writings of the prophets. Some things, such as Psalms and Proverbs, are included because they were written by prophets, including David and Solomon.

Jesus rejects the other parts of the Jewish religion, namely the Talmud and the many traditions constructed by Jewish leaders, like the washing of hands and forearms, using Corban to divert money away from parents to the temple, and so forth.

As we just discussed, the apostles’ writings were given to the church by revelation. The writings of the church fathers were not given by revelation and must therefore be compared with Scripture to determine whether they align with the word of God. The church fathers have no authority to develop new doctrine. No one does unless they are God’s prophets or apostles. And, the magisterium, that huge body of teaching that the Catholic Church compiled to form the basis for the “development of Christian thought” that has been allowed to rule Christianity for the most part, has no authority either.

The Roman Catholic Church, in developing doctrine through tradition and the magisterium, followed a pattern similar to that of the Jews in developing the oral law, the Mishnah, the Gemara, and other Jewish traditions that Jesus refers to in the Gospels.

The overriding principle in evaluating the word of God is whether it originated in revelation to apostles and prophets. If it contradicts what the apostles and prophets wrote, it nullifies the word of God.

That’s what the Scriptures teach. But the vast bulk of people who call themselves Christian are in the Roman Catholic Church, and they certainly don’t hold to this. Many people in various Protestant denominations follow a similar pattern to the Roman Catholic and don’t really believe that the Bible is the sole authority of faith.

After seriously looking at the competing doctrines taught by many denominations, I am not alone in not trusting traditions, creeds, statements of faith, and especially philosophies as authoritative sources of faith. Only God’s word is truth.

Finally, we must look at what Scripture says about the teaching process. Here are a few critical verses for understanding the nature of being a teacher of God’s word. When the word of God was found in Nehemiah’s time, here is how it was taught.

Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law; and the people stayed in their place. They read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading.
(Nehemiah 8:7-8)

The key to being a good teacher of God’s word is to help people understand the meaning of what God meant when he gave the words to the apostles and prophets.

Scripture warns against twisting the Scriptures, which is using a Scripture to promote a doctrine other than what the Scripture genuinely says. In the Book of Acts, Paul says this will happen after he’s gone, and in writing to Timothy, he says that false teachers will teach devilish versions of the truth.

and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
(Acts 20:30)

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,
(1 Timothy 4:1)

Do you see that it says that these men will speak twisted things to draw people after them? One motive for people to say twisted things is to get others to follow them, their ideas, and their leadership.   That means we need to look at the teachings of the people who took control, initially the Roman Catholic Church, and then include the various splinter denominations as the years went on.

“To draw people after them” refers to the powerful motivation of some people to become leaders. There is no place in Scripture where the Roman church was the lead church. But, evidently, the Roman church saw itself as the leader in Christianity in the early centuries. It claimed more and more power and authority over time, to the point that, centuries after the apostles, the claim arose that the Roman bishop was supreme, i.e., the Pope, and that the Roman Catholic Church became the supreme leader on earth, the final judge of what was to be considered true Christian doctrine.

The scriptural basis for the supremacy of the Roman papacy simply isn’t there; it is a fable, a made-up story. It appears to have been a story built by combining different traditions a long time after the apostles. Wikipedia says the first lists of popes were not written for at least a century after the apostles. They “combined contradictory traditions, and even the succession of the first popes is disputed.  The first certain dates are AD 222 and 235, the elections of Urban I and Liberius.”  Notice the words “contradictory traditions” and “disputed” in discussing the Roman claims of the first popes.

There is a warning in Scripture that people will turn to fables when they fall away.

For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn away to fables.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4 WEB)

The above Scripture warns us that some people will turn away from the truth and turn to fables.

Jesus’s example of comparing tradition to the word of God must be applied to all the church fathers’ writings, council decisions, papal bulls, statements of faith, and other sources that form the basis of what each particular church or teacher teaches. Just because someone was the bishop of some ancient place does not mean they are a source for the rule of faith. And especially, the Catholic Church, with its history of criminalizing opponents of their doctrine, promoting church growth by force, up to killing people disagreeing with it, promoting the integration of world philosophy with Christianity, as well as all the doctrines proven false in the Reformation and more, is not a sure source of the faith that the apostles taught. The doctrines taught by the Reformers and their successors must also be compared to properly handled, untwisted scripture.

So, we have reviewed some of what Scripture says about the process of how the word of God is delivered from God to men. God puts his word in the mouths of the prophets. God puts his word in the apostles to teach it. God warns against speaking presumptuously and against corrupting his prophecies with the philosophies, the traditions of men, or the elements of the world. Scripture warns that some will rise up in the church, teaching twisted, distorted versions of the gospel. Some of the teachings are devilish.  And what these twisted teachers want is for people to follow them.

Likewise, teachers are given no leeway to presume anything about God’s word. They likewise have no leeway to integrate worldly philosophy and traditions with the truth of God’s word. It would be nonsense to presume that while the apostles and prophets are explicitly told not to speak presumptuously and stick to the message, teachers would be allowed to do otherwise.

On the other hand, scripture tells us to seek God’s wisdom and God’s wisdom alone.

Be as Little Children

Jesus said:

And said, “Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Matthew 18:3)

A mother took her young kids out shopping for a birthday present for their father. As soon as they entered the shop, the little boy spied a fantastic-looking firetruck with lights and sounds, a motorized ladder, and other accessories. “There”, he said, “it is the best gift. We always play with my trucks whenever Dad plays with me, and we always have the best time! “No,” said the little sister, pointing to a big doll on the corner shelf that talked, walked, and said, “There’s a great doll over there. Dad likes playing dolls with me; that’s what we should get because he loves playing dolls with me.”

The mother put her hands on the shoulders of her two young children and said, “I am excited to see that you want to give your dad a good gift, but you’re picking things that you want without really knowing what your father wants. Yes, he enjoys playing with both of you with your toys. But he’s doing that as a gift to you. We want a gift for him. If you really want to know what someone wants, you must ask them. You need to listen to them when they talk about what they want.

She continued, “He wants a certain power screwdriver back in the hardware department.”

The young children replied with things like, “How could he choose a tool over a toy?” “That doesn’t make sense; we’ve never seen them use those kinds of things.” “How could you know that?”

The wise mother said, “You kids are only going off the little bit you know. You can’t always figure out things based on the little bit that you know. I know because I asked him, and he told me.”

People are little children in God’s eyes. And he is so much bigger than us. We can only know what he tells us. We little children only look foolish when we try to figure out God.

We need to recognize that we are only little children to God, and act accordingly.

Perhaps most importantly, this article is about love. The first and greatest commandment is:

You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.
(Deuteronomy 6:5)

I want to do this. I want to love God with all of my heart, all of my soul, with all of my might. I have met other people who say they want to do the same. But, we will read below that to love God is to keep his word. And a lot of these people who say they want to love God also follow philosophies, traditions of men, and other elements of the world. We can’t do those things and say we are loving God while doing them.

If you love God, you will keep his word. As little children, we must know we can’t figure out God. We can only go by the truths that he reveals to us.

God revealed things through his son, Jesus Christ. Everything Jesus did or said, he received from the Father.

Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.
(John 5:19)

So, anything Jesus said he got from God is God’s word. Again, Jesus says that his word isn’t really his, but the Father’s.  And he talks about what it means to really love God.

Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him. He who doesn’t love me doesn’t keep my words. The word which you hear isn’t mine, but the Father’s who sent me.
(John 14:23-24)

There it is, to love God, you have to keep his word. The point is, if you don’t stay true to God’s word, you’re not loving God. That’s the answer to how to love God and how not to love God above. We don’t want to be like the little children in the story about buying a present, thinking that we know God and what He wants because of our limited experience. To love God, we must know what God revealed and stay true to his revealed word.

Everyone who teaches that God’s word is something other than the Scriptures, or who twists it to mean something God never intended, is not only not loving God themselves, but is also teaching others not to love God. And God doesn’t like that.

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea.
(Matthew 18:6)

One of the things that a loving father does is lovingly and patiently reprove people when they are in error. In fact, the Scriptures are full of examples of error for us to learn from.

Now all these things happened to them by way of example, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come.
(1 Corinthians 10:11)

We will discuss some examples of errors today.

Now, let’s look at our example of the Cappadocian Fathers. These Cappadocian Fathers were one of a long line of contributors to a complex system of doctrines now considered orthodox. Orthodox theologians present themselves as the developers of the doctrine that emerged from the original church led by the apostles, through many refinements. Orthodox doctrine holds that what the apostles brought to the table was incomplete and needed further development, so while it may appear different, it is simply a polished version of what the apostles meant. That’s their view, not mine or the scriptures’.

This article is aimed at Trinitarians who have accepted the heavily promoted story of the Orthodox community and believe that the Trinity is in line with Scripture and is just a development of what the apostles taught. This article shows that the arguments used to teach that Yahweh and Jesus are of the same substance are not from scripture but reasoned from philosophy.  It also aimed at Unitarians who come under fire from Trinitarians, equipping them with the knowledge of why the Trinity renders the word of God void in its construction.

University of Oxford Professor Johannes Zachhuber wrote a paper that is very interesting because it not only describes the intellectually and philosophically grounded processes that the Cappadocian Fathers used to help construct part of the Trinitarian doctrine, but also discusses the attitude of some members of the Christian intellectual community toward those who dispute their claims.

First, let’s just say that the paper is not an expository teaching of the Scriptures. Rather, it is more a history of the development of various philosophical perspectives that shaped the evolution of Christian thought and its resultant doctrine.

The paper, entitled The Philosophical Dimension of the Christological Controversy, says that in previous times, writers who didn’t follow the generally accepted attitude towards the Trinity and other Orthodox doctrines were considered either “epigonal Platonists or anti-philosophical zealots.”   Zachhuber says those categorizations are “finally giving way to a more nuanced perception of the genuinely philosophical dimension of Patristic thought in its own right.”[3]

Admittedly, that is probably a little hard to understand for non-philosophical types, including myself, by the way. But if you’re going to promote the Trinity, then you need to understand enough of Zackhuber’s paper to see how a nonbiblical word and unscriptural thinking built the Trinity.  And if you’re not a Trinitarian and want to reach people with the truth, you need to see enough to explain to them why this doctrine is not taught in Scripture.

In his paper, Zachhuber refers to the long-standing acceptance of the church fathers’ writings, their philosophical leanings, and how opponents of the mainstream thought of orthodox Christianity at different stages were dismissed.

Basically, the orthodox doctrine of the church proclaims a somewhat linear progression of Christian thought, starting with the apostles’ writings and then continuing through the church fathers (both early and later) and on to the ecumenical councils, Papal bulls, and other developments in Christian thought to the doctrines mainline Christianity teaches today. This process reflects an acceptance of the idea of the development of Christian doctrine, whereas the original writings (church epistles) were not fully explanatory, and to understand the Christian faith more fully, doctrines such as the hypostatic union, the Trinity, sacraments, and other later Christian developments were necessary, according to Orthodox theology.

Zachhuber’s comments are significant because they reflect that writers who didn’t align with this generally accepted order were previously labeled “epigonal Platonists or anti-philosophical zealots.”

Google AI returned that “epigonal Platonists” refers to a school of thought after the original Platonic academy so they are early Platonists.

I read papers like Zachhuber’s from time to time and see that comments like his accurately represent University and seminary training in Christian doctrine, where, generally,  Trinitarian and other tenets of Orthodoxy are accepted dogmatically, and opponents are treated dismissively.

The article, Indoctrination and Deception Part 2 – The Trinity and Other Doctrines That Christians are Indoctrinated With – Not All Things Are Better Caught Than Taught, shows that as far back as Tertullian and up to modern theologians like Roger E. Olson, Trinitarian theologians have treated opponents dismissively by portraying them as simple or even villains.

In fact, using their thinking, Paul could be classified as an anti-philosophical zealot.

I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
(Galatians 1:14)

The above verse says you could describe Paul as a zealot. Paul describes himself as exceedingly zealous and writes directly against worldly philosophy and the wisdom of the world in several places in his writings, so he might be called an anti-philosophical zealot. When theologians dismiss people whom they call anti-philosophical zealots, are they including him?

Thus, I’m especially interested in Zachhuber’s use of “anti-philosophical zealots.”  While the word zealot, innocently, only means someone strongly persuaded about something, it is often used as a derogatory term.[4] It is used to dismiss people’s reasoning as unintelligent and to label someone as emotionally charged, believing something that really doesn’t have substance.

When used as such, this is a logic fallacy called ad hominem. An ad hominem fallacy is when, rather than challenging the wisdom of what someone says, you discredit their character or capacity. In this case, a zealot is someone who presents an emotionally charged argument rather than one with substance.

The ad hominem fallacy is often just a form of abuse.[5] It can be used to bully people intellectually into rejecting ideas because they don’t want to be guilty by association. In our case, calling Unitarians religious zealots or anti-philosophical zealots, people are being warned that these zealots are just full of emotion, and their writing doesn’t have substance. Furthermore, you should not consider what they say because that would make you guilty by association. Thus, objectively looking at the Scripture examples supporting scriptural Unitarian theology is out of the question for them.  I have talked with Trinitarians who think they are unbiased and fair-minded, who won’t even consider that scriptural Unitarianism teaches only from scripture, while Trinitarianism is acknowledged to require unscriptural terms like homoousion as well as philosophical concepts and logic outside of scripture.

Zachhuber actually offers some encouragement in this area, as he says the old stereotypes of opponents to mainline, linear acceptance of Christian thought are now being replaced by “more nuanced perceptions.”

I hope this is true. Zachhuber also acknowledges that these theologians are all working under the assumption that the church council decrees are correct. In fact, he acknowledges that these developments in the doctrines of the Trinity and other Orthodox instructions might not be shared by “anyone who was not bound by the dogmatic decisions of the Church.”

That is an incredibly important point. On the website OriginalChristianity.net, I have documented numerous places where concessions like that are made in the treatment of the philosophical discussion for the Trinity and other tenets of orthodoxy. The triune God concept is an assumption required for the philosophical logical underpinning of the Trinity to work. Trinitarians take the concept of the triune God to be as axiomatic as the fact that one plus one equals two. The problem is that the whole world accepts one and one equals two as axiomatic, while only Trinitarians, a minority of the population, accept a triune God as axiomatic.

In John 1 – The meaning of the Logos, The Slippery Slope of Applying Mathematical Precision to Language Expressions, documentation is given that the doctrine of the Deity of Christ was developed piece by piece over time.

“It wasn’t until Kallistos in the middle of the third century that the logos Christology taught that Jesus Christ was coeternal with God. And after him, Novation (circa 250 AD) started using the terminology that Jesus Christ shared a “communion of substance”. But this is hundreds of years after Pentecost and perhaps a hundred and fifty years after the passing of the apostles.”

In his article, Zachhuber draws attention to the recent increase in focus on the contributions of the Cappadocian Fathers, which is another piece in the construction of the logic of the Trinity.

In the later fourth century, these Cappadocian fathers, Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea; Basil’s younger brother Gregory of Nyssa, Bishop of Nyssa; and a friend of theirs, Gregory of Nazianzus, Patriarch of Constantinople, all worked on resolving issues with the coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity. Remember, the Trinity was not declared at the Council of Nicaea; just the deity of Christ had been developed and declared by then. The Nicene Creed, developed at Nicaea, credits only God the Father and Jesus the Son as fully God and of the same substance. While it mentions the Holy Spirit, it does not say that the Holy Spirit is fully God or of the same substance as God the Father and the Son.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which declares the doctrine of the Trinity pretty much as we know it now, was not proclaimed until the first Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.[6]

The fundamental problem is that no one had a scriptural basis for explaining how three persons could be the same God. While some verses refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the same verse, none state that they are three persons in one God.  In contrast, various scriptural verses declare the Son of God’s inferiority to the Father.  For example,

for the Father is greater than I.
(John 14:28b)

For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection”, it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him. When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.
(1 Corinthians 15:27-28)

In other words, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 says God the Father made all things subject to Christ. So when it says that all things are put in subjection to Jesus Christ, it is obvious that God the Father is not included in that. When this process of subjecting all things to Christ is completed, Jesus Christ will then be subjected to God the Father so that God the Father may be all in all. The point is that while Scripture talks about Jesus being the head now, in the long run, it is God the Father who is really the head and over everything.

Scripture clearly proclaims the Son as subject to the Father in those verses. And those aren’t the only ones.

Early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr declared the Son inferior to the Father.

“Justin’s emphasis is on the divine Logos, subordinate to God the Father , yet his Son,  His agent, and one with Him in some true, though rather indefinite, sense.”[7]

The Cappadocian fathers advanced the philosophical argument that the three persons in the Trinity share the same essence (Greek, ousia) of the overriding substance (hypostasis). One definition of hypostasis is the essential nature of something.[8]

Ousia and hypostasis are words that are found in the New Testament. However, the word used at Nicaea to affirm that the Son is equal in substance to the Father was the Greek word homoousios, a word not found in Scripture. The word means the same substance (Homo = same and ousia = substance). The Arians-led delegation wanted to use the similar-sounding word homoiousios, which means “like substance.”But neither word is scriptural. The homoousios vs homoiousios debate lasted 55 years or more, depending on the source.[9]

So, we see that the Cappadocian fathers did not invent the term homoousios to reconcile the doctrine of the Trinity. The Alexandrian theologian Origen discussed it as much as a century earlier. In fact, the term was condemned at the synods of Antioch in 264-268 A.D. Trinitarians view the eventual resolution to ratify the term after all that controversy as a good thing.[10]

The Cappadocian fathers are credited with resolving the homoousios vs. homoiousios debate, but they didn’t introduce any new information; rather, they just ratified an old argument as finally concluded.

Here is a quote from Basil regarding the development of the Trinitarian doctrine. I will warn you that this may be hard for non-philosophical types to read.  But please focus on the completely philosophical nature of this discussion, arguing about the meaning of a few words, something that we were warned against when we read 2Timothy 2:14 above

“4. The non-identity of hypostasis and ousia is, I take it, suggested even by our western brethren, where, from a suspicion of the inadequacy of their own language, they have given the word ousia in the Greek, to the end that any possible difference of meaning might be preserved in the clear and unconfounded distinction of terms. If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named. Nevertheless, there is one point which I should like to have pressed on your excellency, that you and all who like you care for the truth, and honour the combatant in the cause of true religion, ought to wait for the lead to be taken in bringing about this union and peace by the foremost authorities in the Church, whom I count as pillars and foundations of the truth and of the Church, and reverence all the more because they have been sent away for punishment, and have been exiled far from home. Keep yourself, I implore you, clear of prejudice, that in you, whom God has given me as a staff and support in all things, I may be able to find rest.[11]

Basil goes far afield of declarations made in scripture in this paragraph. Basil is taking an utterly philosophical approach. He is using biblical terms, in this case, hypostasis and ousia, but reasons outside of Scripture to make the Nicene Creed fit together coherently when he concludes above, “Let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named.”

People, this is not God revealing his truth to men. God did not put the word homoousion into an apostle’s or prophet’s mind and tell them to teach it. This is a few men, intellectually pursuing the theory of the Trinity, which is not articulated in Scripture but had been discussed and argued about for centuries, then arguing that this word, not used in Scripture, homoousion, is the best way to present the Trinity. It is not Scripture, yet it is put on par with Scripture and used to promote a doctrine not taught in Scripture as Scriptural.

And, in answer to the question in the title, it’s not loving God to teach something as God’s truth that is outside of what God revealed.

Eventually, Zachhuber’s paper discusses how the use of the word homoousion and the concept of the hypostatic union became integral to the doctrine of the Trinity, and without them, there would be no Trinity as it is taught. That’s because the term homoousion is the logical basis of the hypostatic union. By making Jesus exactly the same substance as the Father, the Councils in 325 and 381 AD cemented the logic for presenting Jesus as the one in whom their hypothesized totally divine and totally human natures are united into one person, Christ. But remember, the scriptures above always present Christ as subject to the Father in the end. And Christ’s will is presented as different from the Father’s in Scripture, as in the following verse.

“Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”
(Luke 22:42)

Jesus’s will is clearly not the same as the Father’s in the above verse. Jesus, the Son, submitted to the will of the Father.  In Scripture, Jesus is always lesser than the Father and submits to him.

Amazingly, according to Zachhuber, Cappadocian reasoning like this became a paradigm for resolving problems with the Trinitarian concepts.  Again, Basil is not “comparing spiritual things with spiritual things” as it is used scripturally because he is not comparing the ratification of the term homoousion with what Scripture actually declares. He simply justifies using an unscriptural word to justify an unscriptural solution because that is the only way the previously made unscriptural council decisions could fit logically. From a purely scriptural perspective, he is building error upon error.

The Cappadocian Fathers’ reasoning is perhaps Platonist, but other philosophers also discussed it. For example, ousia, essence or substance, was discussed in Aristotle’s Book IV of Metaphysics.[12]

Reasoning like this became a model for resolving problems with Trinitarian concepts and other orthodox doctrines.

It needs to be reiterated that the Cappadocian Fathers’ reasoning is not the word of God; God did not put his word in their mouths. Like the theologians and philosophers before them, the Cappadocians speak presumptuously, describing God and Jesus Christ in terms they and the theologians around them reasoned. Thus, they make the word of God void when it says that God’s word comes to us through his revelation to his apostles and prophets.  In contrast, Cappadocians twisted the use of ousia and hypostasis, inserting homoousion to make Catholic doctrine fit.

And since we see that the word homoousion is not a word from Scripture, there is a big problem with some churches teaching the Trinity that claim the Scriptures are their only source of faith. No church teaching the Trinity can claim that the Bible is its sole infallible authority for faith.

The Roman Catholic church does not declare that the Scriptures are the only source of faith and practice. In fact, it calls that doctrine, also called Sola Scriptura, heresy.[13] Not that it makes it right, but it is no problem logically for Catholics to use unscriptural terms and arguments in their doctrines. But many Protestants across a number of denominations do claim Scripture as the only source of truth. And the rub is that you can’t use unscriptural terms like homoousion and claim that the Bible is your only rule for faith and practice.

So, many Baptist, Lutheran, Churches of Christ, Assemblies of God, Sovereign Grace, and other churches promote the Trinity, while having in their statements of faith that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith, while at the same time including the Trinity with its unscriptural elements as another pillar of their beliefs.

The logic is simple. For example, Main Street Church claims to believe only what is taught in the Scriptures. Like all Trinitarians, Main Street Church teaches that the term homoousion is required to define the identity of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.  Homoousion is not in the Scriptures.  Main Street Church cannot claim to believe only what is taught in the Scriptures, as it believes things not in the Scriptures, starting with homoousion.

At the very least, if you don’t want to give up homoousion, then stop claiming that the Bible is your only source of faith. On the other hand, if you genuinely believe that the Scriptures are the sole source of truth, then give up homoousion and preach the truth Scripture does not teach that there are three persons in one God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, co-eternal and of the same substance.  God the Father is supreme over all, Jesus Christ is his only begotten son, born of the Virgin Mary, a man who was raised from the dead after dying for our sins, and sits at the right hand of the Father as a mediator between Yahweh and us, and the holy spirit is our connection to those two whereby we receive communication and power to live in fellowship and abundant life.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
(1 Timothy 2:5 WEB)

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. You will be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth.”
(Acts 1:8)

There were further problems after the Cappadocian shift in the philosophical development of the Trinity.  Zachhuber describes how subsequent changes followed the Cappadocian Fathers’ contribution, as philosophy added new dimensions. He describes how there were different intellectual trajectories following the Cappadocians. He discusses how the Physis had dual meanings, and later authors discussed universal and individual natures. Individual natures were absent from the Cappadocians’ discussion, which posed problems philosophically.

In his paper, Zachhuber cites arguments from a number of philosopher-theologians, including Cyril, John the Grammarian, Severus of Antioch, John Philoponus, Leontius of Byzantium, Theodore of Raithu, and John of Damascus, spanning centuries.

Among the arguments and concepts presented are philosophical topics such as free-floating universals, the Monophysite vs. miaphysite debate, the lingering debate over whether one hypostasis could have two ousia, the capacity of the physis to stand between the universal and the individual, and others.

I cite the above points in Zachhuber’s paper to emphasize the extrabiblical, worldly philosophical nature of this study of Christ.  Zachhuber documents how these worldly philosophical concepts ruled the construction of Trinitarian doctrine.

Of course, these writings do not mention the scriptural mandate against adding to or subtracting from Scripture.

You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:2)

The Cappadocian writings render the word of God seen above in Deuteronomy 4:2 void.

Opponents to Trinitarianism Dismissed as Zealots

While Zachhuber appears to acknowledge that proponents of orthodoxy may proclaim applying the above Scriptures to the situation as the rantings of zealots, it is simple logic to say that anyone taking the Cappadocian approach, or later approaches for that matter, cannot claim that their only rule for faith and practice is Scripture because we clearly have evidence here that doctrine is being formulated with terms and logic outside of Scripture. The entire construction of the doctrine of the Trinity, while using scripture in bits and pieces to argue different points, is made outside of Scripture. The critical glue that “proves” that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of the same substance (homoousion) is pulled from philosophy, going beyond scripture.  The developments in Christology (the study of Christ) throughout Christian history after the apostles appear to depend more on the winds of philosophy than on the knowledge of God contained in Scripture.

The theologians who developed the doctrine of the Trinity reasoned it using bits of philosophy from men like Plato and Aristotle. In contrast, the apostles received what they taught by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

But I make known to you, brothers, concerning the Good News which was preached by me, that it is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.
(Galatians 1:11-12)

The Cappadocian Fathers used worldly philosophy to imagine how the Trinity might work, accepting earlier conclusions from the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Constantinople approved this because what they presented was consistent with what had already been declared church doctrine in Nicaea.

Zachhuber writes in his article that this Cappadocian approach was adopted from that point on with little controversy. It went from an argument as of their writing to an assumption used in later arguments.

Just as important, it is significant that Zachhuber acknowledges that it is likely that people who don’t submit to the doctrinal declarations of the Councils would not reach the Cappadocian conclusions regarding the same essence and hypostasis standards set by the Cappadocian Fathers.

This is also acknowledged in some Christian history texts. For example, Justo Gonzalez, the author of The Story of Christianity, acknowledges that some of the arguments to construct the Trinity are extra-biblical and “far distant from that of the gospels,” but, amazingly, says that the extra-biblical construction is necessary because of the doctrine’s importance.[14]

This is lifting (exalting) the Trinity, a doctrine that uses some Scripture and imaginative thinking built on extra-biblical words like homoousion, over what Scripture, without those extra words and reasonings, actually says. Here’s what Scripture says we are supposed to do with imaginative thinking about the knowledge of God.

Throwing down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;
(2 Corinthians 10:5)

Adding homoousion to what Scripture teaches is equivalent to the Pharisees telling the Jews to tell their parents that the money they should be given is Corban or adding the washings, baths, and other such traditions that Jesus talks about in Mark chapter 7. As such, these unscriptural traditions need to be thrown down.

The whole Cappadocian Father process described here nullifies the word of God, which states that we are not to add to or subtract from Scripture or privately interpret it. The 55-year or more debate over the word “homoousion” while arguing over the meaning of ousia and hypostasis violates the charge in 2 Timothy 2:14 not to argue over words.

The whole debate should never have happened, and would not have, without the allowance by church leaders for integrating Scripture with philosophy.

How is homoousion still relevant?  Amazingly, some people argue that without that term, there is no Christianity!  One Baptist says that without homoousion, he would cease to be a Christian.[15] Nothing can be further from the truth. The apostles themselves wrote all that they had received by revelation from Jesus Christ and never used the word. Nobody could be better Christians than they were.

I want to challenge the reader to prove that the Scriptures declare the Trinity for themselves. Prove the Trinity without using any assumptions. Only use deductive logic using points declared in Scripture. You can’t just piece together some verses that look good and ignore a bunch of the other ones that say things like Jesus is inferior to the Father, and the Father is greater than the Son, etc. You must find the verses that say that Yahweh, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three persons of the same God.  It’s got to say all of that somewhere for you to say the Scripture declares it.  Those statements are not there.

Years ago, after growing up in the Roman Catholic Church, steeped in Trinitarian doctrine, and then attending a Christian Unitarian church, I found myself at a crossroads. There were no Unitarian assemblies anywhere near where we moved that we could find, and my wife, especially, wanted to attend church with some friends and family at their Trinitarian Churches.

We started attending various churches, and I was blessed to see many people who praised God in worship and had a hunger for God, but I was never at peace because there were so many different things taught that were supposedly all God’s word, but often varied from church to church.  The Trinity was regularly paid homage to, but never taught in depth or proven. The Trinity was declared the most important doctrine in the church, and the Nicene Creed was recited at various times and places.  But no church I went to ever even attempted to prove the Trinity from scripture.

I started studying the Trinity for myself again, in case I had missed something previously, and the Trinity could be truly and completely scriptural. I have never wanted to be in the minority on anything, so I looked for studies that prove the Trinity beyond just the use of ambiguous scriptures that looked like they would be helpful if the Trinity was true, but don’t actually teach that there is one God in three persons, co-eternal and of the same substance.  I found what I have presented in this article and other articles on originalChristianity.net: Scripture does not teach the Trinity. While Scripture contains many verses that Trinitarians can use to substantiate their doctrine, albeit twisting their meanings here and there, they cannot prove the definition of the Trinity using Scripture alone.  They rely on the extra-biblical word of homoousion.   They rely on the unscriptural doctrine of Dyothelitism and others.  Then, they compile a list of Scriptures that contain bits that, when put together as a whole, can make a compelling argument for the Trinity, though some terms in verses need to be twisted, such as “firstborn” as not really being born as in “begotten, not made”. (Begotten means to have brought a child into existence.)

A compelling argument is not a conclusive one. Basically, it’s like a circumstantial case in the law. A circumstantial case is one in which certain circumstances that favor a particular conclusion are presented in hopes of securing a conviction. But, as compelling as that may be, it will never be conclusive.

While I have never wanted to be in a minority, I would rather stand with what God’s word says or against what it doesn’t say than just go along with the crowd. As a young boy, my mother said to me more than once, “Don’t be a lemming. According to some stories, lemmings are crazy little rodents who will all run off a cliff to their death following each other.” Life is full of things where people just follow the crowd, and sometimes it’s to their detriment. So I say to you, “Don’t be a lemming.”

The problem is that people in the natural world cannot understand the spiritual world. And a lot of people in churches are just natural people and not very spiritual.

Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14)

Now, saying someone is a natural man and not a spiritual one is not saying that some of them are not intelligent, and perhaps highly trained and educated. It’s talking more about where our source of truth is. Highly trained individuals in the world can be exceedingly bright, quick-witted, and insightful about how the world works. The world’s systems of analysis have built complex systems of thought and engineered many scientific discoveries.
But, as we read above, none of that mental ability comes into play with receiving the things of God, understanding them, or teaching others about them. It’s a totally different ballgame. That’s what the above verse is talking about.  Natural people elevate the wisdom of this world as the highest form of wisdom, while spiritual people recognize the wisdom in God’s word as higher than any wisdom of the world.

Furthermore, looking at bits of information here and there and piecing them together to draw conclusions about spiritual things is presumptuous.  If God were one God in three persons and of the same substance, all coeternal, he would have plainly said so in his word.

The fact is that he did not. Still, people teach all the intricacies of this doctrine of the Trinity and claim to prove the Trinity from Scripture. But they don’t do it using scripture alone.

Dr. Robert A. Morey offers a “proof” of the Trinity that requires not only the above extrabiblical logic but also “the Trinity as the ‘given’ of special revelation and then deduce various theological implications from it.”[16] His “proof” requires that you assume the Trinity is true, and then you can find enough verses and logic to substantiate it using inductive logic. That isn’t how God reveals his word. We can’t go to God’s word with preconceived assumptions. That is presumptuous.

Remember the Scripture (John 14:23-24) we quoted above: If we keep God’s word, we love God. If we don’t keep God’s word, we don’t love God.  Homoousion is not God’s word. Teaching it as God’s word is not loving God.

The article, T 1.10.1 Tradition in Original Christianity, Not Only Is Jesus Called God In Scripture, But So are Moses, Judges, Magistrates, The Adversary, And Devil Spirits, But All Are Subject to the Father – More on Verses Used To Prove the Trinity – Unitarian and Trinitarian Resources, offers more information as well as a listing of numerous Trinitarian and Unitarian resources.

Professor Zachhuber should be commended for pointing out that attitudes toward people challenging the process of constructing the Trinity are changing. His comments that the Cappadocian Fathers might have reached a different conclusion if previous doctrinal declarations had not bound them are insightful and welcome.

People thinking that they can understand God beyond what he explicitly declares in His word are like ants on an elephant bigger than the universe, foolishly thinking that they can understand something so far beyond their ability to understand that it is ridiculous.

Especially when it comes to discussing who God is and what he wants; Be as little children:

And said, “Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Matthew 18:3)

As little children, we lovingly obey our Father.

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. Whoever loves the Father also loves the child who is born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is loving God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
(1 John 5:1-3)

We obey God and steer clear of the things he has warned us against.

Blessed is the man who makes Yahweh his trust, and doesn’t respect the proud, nor such as turn away to lies.
(Psalms 40:4)

Scripture warns us not to think that we can add things like great writings, philosophies, and other worldly elements to his word.

Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him. Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved and found a liar:
(Proverbs 30:5-6 DRB)

Perhaps this is the first time you have seen the truth in this. God is a gracious and merciful God, and overlooks periods of ignorance.

The times of ignorance, therefore, God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent,
(Acts 17:30)

Go with the word, the whole word, and nothing but the word. Get the wisdom of God, which God supplies abundantly to his people. those who seek him and only him.

For Yahweh gives wisdom. Out of his mouth comes knowledge and understanding.
(Proverbs 2:6)

Do you want to be wise? Do what God says to do in his word:

“Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
(Matthew 7:24-27)

Look at this greatness; we can have a spirit of wisdom and revelation and know the exceeding greatness of his power and much more.

For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which you have toward all the saints, don’t cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of his calling, and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might
(Ephesians 1:15-19)

But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.
(1 Corinthians 2:12-13)

The wisdom of God is built into the spirit we receive.  We must know that man’s wisdom does not have what we need; only God’s wisdom does.  So we compare everything against the knowledge of God contained in scripture. That is what “comparing spiritual things with spiritual things” refers to.

Finally, look at how the love of God is entwined with the knowledge of God in these verses. Walking in love includes having the word of Christ living richly in our hearts as we teach and admonish one another in wisdom.

Above all these things, walk in love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to the Lord. Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him.
(Colossians 3:14-17)

Ultimately, this is about loving God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our might.   We read John 14:23-24 above, which says that keeping God’s word is loving God, and not keeping God’s word is not loving God.

[1] This is a variation on an old story that went around years ago, although it may have been some other insect. A Google search for a similar story resulted in no direct hits, although elephants and ants in kids’ stories are not uncommon.  For example, The Story Of The Elephant And The Ant With Moral For Kids is a morality story for kids, but it’s not the one I heard.  last checked 2/19/25

[2] The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Baptist Faith and Message, https://www.sbts.edu/baptist-faith-and-message/, June 14, 2000

[3] The Philosophical Dimension of the Christological Controversy, Johannes Zachhuber, available@academia.com, this paper is located at https://www.academia.edu/41825536/The_Philosophical_Dimension_of_the_Christological_Controversy. Professor Johannes Zachhuber is Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at the University of Oxford, visited 2/5/2025

[4] “Zealot.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zealot. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.

[5] Ad Hominem Fallacy and Verbal Abuse: Definition and Examples, HealthyPlace.com, https://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/verbalabuseinrelationships/2017/11/ad-hominem-fallacy-definition-and-examples, HealthyPlace advertises itself as “the largest consumer mental health site on the net. We provide authoritative information and support to people with mental health concerns.” Date of visit: 1/31/2025

[6] Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Orthodox wiki, located at https://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed, viewed 1/15/2025.

[7] A History of The Christian Church, Williston Walker, Scribner, New York, 1959, p. 47

[8] Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “hypostasis,” accessed January 15, 2025, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypostasis

[9] Homoiousian, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiousian

[10] Homoousios: A 100 year debate, The Uniting Church in Australia, https://journeyonline.com.au/features/homoousios-a-100-year-debate/#:~:text=In%20264-268%20the%20Synods,Jesus%20that%20overlooked%20his%20humanity.

[11] ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA, Letter 214, New Advent, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202014.htm, accessed 1/18/25

[12] Ousia, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia, viewed 1/17/25

[13] Sola scriptura, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura#:~:text=Sola%20scriptura%20(Latin%20for%20%27by,the%20teaching%20of%20the%20Bible., visited 2/3/2025.

[14] The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Justo L Gonzalez, Harper Collins, New York, 2010, p. 301-302

[15] Does Christianity need the Homoousion?, Randal Rauser, https://randalrauser.com/2018/09/does-christianity-need-the-homoousion/, visited 2/5/2025.  This is just a random site pulled from a Google search for the word “homoousion”.

16  The Trinity, Evidence & Issues, Dr. Robert A Morey, Xulon Press, 1996, p.10

17 Ancient Philosophy and Science, University of Pittsburgh, The Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences, Department of Classics, visited 3/29/2025.

© copyright Mark W Smith 2025-26, All rights reserved. Last revised 5/11/26