Forget the Trinity! On James White’s Book The Forgotten Trinity
By Kerry A. Shirts
Director of Research
FAIR
James White’s newest book The Forgotten Trinity (224 pages) is an attempt to bolster the late doctrine of the Trinity into a revelation. I will attempt to look at how James White fares in his quest, from a historical analysis of what happened at the creeds, since Mr. White virtually ignores that background. It is rather obvious why he does, as it is not a flattering strong point for him to make his case.
I actually found his book pleasant to read. I believe James White ought to continue writing for believers of his view, since he doesn’t write so polemically and argue in circles with Mormons as has been his wont to do. I rather enjoyed his down to earth easy going style and enjoyed reading his book very much. His attempts at explaining the Trinity meet with grave problems which I will discuss, and ultimately say that for understanding the Trinity from a Christian view, read his book. However, his analysis of the historical situation regarding the Trinity and its development is woefully lacking, and his desire to place it in the camp of revelation as the word of God along with the Bible is flawed as well.
I take serious exception with White when he notes that "we withhold fellowship from groups like the Mormons and Jehovah'’ Witnesses because they reject the Trinity and replace it with another concept."1 Since the Trinity wasn’t officially sanctioned by the Church until over 300 years after Christ, I hardly see having to accept that late doctrine as a necessary prerequisite to being a Christian. To be a Christian, one must accept and follow Christ, not some later councils of the church which adapted political creeds from non-Christian emperors. Besides, what does this exclusionist arrogant attitude do to his later saying "we are to look out for others rather than jealously guard our own rights and privileges. We are to serve others, even though we are all equals before the Lord"?2 Are Mormons excluded from being served, or are we not equal before the Lord? Does Mr. White seriously contend that his phrase "all equal before the Lord," means something other than all, which certainly includes Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses? It appears that Mr. White pays wonderful devotional lip service to Christian ideals, yet his actions condemn his hypocrisy. Considering he asks "What is the key to contented and peaceful Christian community?" His interpretation of Paul’s answer is revealing. "when we look outside of ourselves and serve others... here is the great secret of Christian fellowship: humble service toward others. Self denial. Not looking out for #1 but making everyone else #1, and looking out for them!"3 So pray tell, why are Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses "withheld" from fellowship? I didn’t read anything in Paul’s writings that Mr. White used that made it necessary for Christians to believe certain doctrines in order to be allowed to be fellowshipped. There is a certain element of hypocrisy here that White needs to clear up. In fact, I dare say Mr. White speaks like a Christian, but acts like an anti-Christian, according to his own "great secret of Christian fellowship." It ought to rather embarrass him to no end to say one thing and do another.
I believe Mr. White is confused when he asserts that the Trinity is the highest revelation we have been given of God.2 The Trinity is not a revelation at all, rather a political statement. There was never any revelation declared whatsoever. In fact, the historical background of the Trinity as a war of words rather than revelation has been amply shown in the historians of Christianity in the first place. James White is on the Internet, and therefore has no excuse for trying to make it seem that the Trinity was a revelation from God. Ecclesiastical History as found on the Internet thoroughly refutes that proposition. Let us look closer at the historical situation which gave rise to the creeds.
Socrates Scolasticus discussed what happened in the dispute of Arius with Alexander his bishop in clear words.
The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop
"After Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to. He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery- the UNITY of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan, from love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he thought vigorously responded to what was said by the bishop. 'If,' said he, 'the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.'"5
What catches our eye is the philosophizing and showing off their own "logical acumen", not for the love of the truth at all. The incentive for the disputation is "love of controversy." This is hardly revelation, rather a showman’s paradise of one-upmanship. Note that the problem arose because of "too philosophical minuteness" in discussing the relationship of Father and Son. One man proposes something in a showy way, the other attempting to outdo his opponent takes an opposite extreme. Clearly this is not in the realm of revelation as White contends. In a later chapter, Socrates shows that the "novel train of reasoning" which was being shown off resulted in serious problems. "and thus from a little spark a large fire was kindled." And this contention which resulted in the creeds is called an "evil," not a good thing, such as a revelation would have been.6 We read further that the Emperor was grieved at this disturbance so he wrote a letter to the churches. That letter is one of the most instructive and interesting in all of Christianity on this theme, which I quote to show the attitudes and problems which have crept into the church in later times. Socrates said the letter was written in hopes to "to extinguish the conflagration which had been kindled," which is hardly how a revelation would have ever been described. Let us read the Emperor’s letter:
I am informed that your present controversy originated thus. When you, Alexander, inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain inexplicable passage of the written Word, rather on a subject improper for discussion; and you, Arius rashly gave expression to a view of the matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence. This dispute hating thus been excited among you, communion has been denied; and the most holy people being rent into two factions, have departed from the harmony of the common body. Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant. And what counsel does he offer? It was neither prudent at first to agitate such a question, nor to reply to such a question when proposed: for the claim of no law demands the investigation of such subjects, but the idle useless talk of leisure occasions them. And even if they should exist for the sake of exercising our natural faculties, yet we ought to confine them to our own consideration, and not incautiously bring them forth in public assemblies, nor thoughtlessly confide them to the ears of everybody. Indeed how few are capable either of adequately ex-pounding, or even accurately understanding the import of matters so vast and profound!
And even if any one should be considered able to satisfactorily accomplish this, how large a portion of the people would he succeed in convincing? Or who can grapple with the subtilties of such investigations without danger of lapsing into error? It becomes us therefore on such topics to check loquacity, lest either on account of the weakness of our nature we should be incompetent to explain the subject proposed; or the dull understanding of the audience should make them unable to apprehend dearly what is attempted to be taught: and in the case of one or the other of these failures, the people must be necessarily involved either in blasphemy or schism. Wherefore let an unguarded question, and an inconsiderate answer, on the part of each of you, procure equal forgiveness from one another. No cause of difference has been started by you beating on any important precept contained in the Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection with the worship of God; but ye both hold one and the same judgment on these points, which is the Creed. Moreover, while you thus pertinaciously contend with one another about matters of small or scarcely the least importance, it is unsuitable for you to have charge of so many people of God, because you are divided in opinion: and not only is it unbe-coming, but it is also believed to be altogether unlawful.
In order to remind you of your duty by an example of an inferior kind, I may say: you are well aware that even the philosophers themselves are united under one sect. Yet they often differ from each other on some parts of their theories: but although they may differ on the very highest branches of science, in order to maintain the unity of their body, they still agree to coalesce. Now, if this is done amongst them, how much more equitable will it be for you, who have been constituted ministers of the Most High God, to become unanimous with one another in such a religious profession. But let us examine with closer consideration, and deeper attention, what has been already stated. Is it right on account of insignificant and vain contentions between you about words, that brethren should be set in opposition against brethren; and that the honorable communion should be distracted by unhallowed dissension, through our striving with one another respecting things so unimportant, and by no means essential? These quarrels are vulgar and rather consistent with puerile thoughtlessness, than suitable to the intelligence of priests and prudent men. We should spontaneously turn aside from the temptations of the devil. The great God and Saviour of us all has extended to all the common light.7
Notice what a chiding the Emperor gives the bishops here. He declares that all this showmanship and showing off with fancy philosophical language is the problem, much to his scandalized consternation. It was a pernicious evil. It caused divisions and meanness, and was not understood by the common folk at all, and hence should not be indulged in. And this letter is written to the men who were to help form the creeds! Where is there revelation claimed in all this? What a tongue lashing given to the men of the church from a non-Christian pagan to the Christian bishops! This, we believe demonstrates without doubt that the Trinity was not in the scriptures. The creed which included the doctrine of the Trinity was the philosophies of men, as history dictates, and Mr. White apparently does not understand.
Socrates also includes a very interesting situation which shows just how far removed from revelation the bishops were.
There were among the bishops two of extraordinary celebrity Paphnutius, bishop of Upper Thebes, and Spyridon, bishop of Cyprus: why I have so particular referred to these two individuals, I shall state hereafter. Many of the laity were also present, who were practiced in the art of reasoning, and each eager to advocate the cause of his own party. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, as was before said, supported the opinion of Arius, together with Theognis and Maris; of these the former was bishop of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon in Bithynia. These were powerfully opposed by Athnasius, a deacon of the Alexandrian church, who was highly esteemed by Alexander his bishop, and on that account was much envied, as will be seen hereafter. Now a short time previous to the general assembling of the bishops, the disputants engaged in preparatory logical contests before the multitudes; and when many were attracted by the interest of their discourse, one of the laity, a confessor, who was a man of unsophisticated understanding reproved these reasoners, telling them that Christ and his apostles did not teach us dialectics, art, nor vain subtilties, but simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works. As he said this, all present admired the speaker and assented to the justice of his remarks; and the disputants themselves, after hearing his plain statement of the truth, exercised a greater degree of moderation: thus then was the disturbance caused by these logical debates suppressed at this time.8
This plainly shows that as the philosophically minded Christian logicians were disputing and showing off, one of the old believers stands, rebukes them, bears his testimony that this is not the proper method of Christ and the Apostles! So far had they come down away from the days of revelation. And what's more, the philosophers were corrected, and clamed down, and acted a good deal more sober, but only for a time. The simpler faith and good works, were abandoned later for philosophy and subtle language even to adapting Greek terms to describe God, which were never used by Christ nor the Apostles.
Theodoret in his Ecclesiastical History discussed how jealousy was the driving wedge between bishops and thus arose doctrinal wranglings and contentions.
The Church in Alexandria was ruled for a short time by Achillas. He was succeeded by Alexander, who proved himself a noble defender of the doctrines of the gospel. At that time, Arius, who had been enrolled in the list of the presbytery, and entrusted with the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, fell a prey to the assaults of jealousy, when he saw that the helm of the high priesthood was committed to Alexander. Stung by this passion, he sought opportunities for dispute and contention; and, although he perceived that Alexander's irreproachable conduct forbade his bringing any charges against him, envy would not allow him to rest. In him the enemy of the truth found an instrument whereby to stir and agitate the angry waters of the Church, and persuaded him to oppose the apostolical doctrine of Alexander.9
"The Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople. To his most revered and likeminded brother Alexander, Alexander sendeth greeting in the Lord."
Impelled by avarice and ambition, evil-minded persons have ever plotted against the wellbeing of the most important dioceses. Under various pretexts, they attack the religion of the Church; and, being maddened by the devil, who works in them, they start aside from all piety according to their own pleasure, and trample under foot the fear of the judgment of God. Suffering as I do from them myself, I deem it necessary to inform your piety, that you may be on your guard against them, lest they or any of their party should presume to enter your diocese (for these cheats are skilful in deception), or should circulate false and specious letters, calculated to delude one who has devoted himself to the simple and undefiled faith.
They then ran hither and thither to form cabals against us, even addressing themselves to our fellow-ministers who were of one mind with us, under the pretence of seeking peace and unity with them, but in truth endeavouring by means of fair words, to sweep some among them away into their own disease. They ask them to write a wordy letter, and then read the contents to those whom they have deceived, in order that they may not retract, but be confirmed in their impiety, by finding that bishops agree with and support their views. They make no acknowledgment of the evil doctrines and practices for which they have been expelled by us, but they either impart them without comment, or carry on the deception by fallacies and forgeries. Thus concealing their destructive doctrine by persuasive and meanly truckling language, they catch the unwary, and lose no opportunity of calumniating our religion.10
This background understanding of the creeds is necessary in order to show us the contention that the Trinity is the highest revelation, is actually the highest absurdity presented for man’s acceptance using philosophical and "evil" principles. An absurdity, at least from the teaching of God in the Bible. James White apparently is completely unaware of this, though he shouldn’t be as he has access to the Internet addresses I have used here. Consider further what Sozomenus concludes concerning the philosophizing in the making of the creeds. Note that it caused many to literally refuse to embrace Christianity.
When Constantine returned to Byzantium, certain philosophers came to him to complain of the innovations in religion, and particularly of his having introduced a new form of worship into the state, contrary to that followed by his forefathers, and by all who were formerly in power, whether among the Greeks or the Romans. They likewise desired to hold a disputation on the doctrine with Alexander the bishop; and he, although unskilled in such argumentative contests, and perhaps persuaded by his life, seeing that he was an excellent and good man, accepted the struggle at the command of the emperor. When the philosophers were assembled, since every one wished to engage in the discussion, he requested that one whom they esteemed worthy might be chosen as spokesman, while the others were to remain silent. When one of the philosophers began to open the debate, Alexander said to him, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ not to speak." The man was instantaneously silenced. It is then right to consider whether it is a greater miracle that a man, and he a philosopher, should so easily be silenced by a word, or that a stone-wall should be cleft by the power of a word, which miracle I have heard some attribute to Julian, surnamed the Chaldean.
Constantine was also deeply grieved at the diversity of opinion which prevailed concerning the celebration of the Passover; for some of the cities in the East differed on this point, although they did not withhold from communion with one another; they kept the festival more according to the manner of the Jews, and as was natural by this divergence, detracted from the splendor of the festal sacrifice. The emperor zealously endeavored to remove both these causes of dissension from the church; and thinking to be able to remove the evil before it advanced to greater proportions, be sent one who was honored for his faith, his virtuous life, and most approved in those former times... AFTER there had been many synods held in Egypt, and the contest had still continued to Increase in violence, the report of the dissension reached the palace, and Constantine was thereby greatly troubled; for just at this period, when religion was beginning to be more generally propagated, many were deterred by the difference in doctrines from embracing Christianity.
The emperor openly charged Arius and Alexander with having originated this disturbance, and wrote to rebuke them for having made a controversy public which it was in their power to have concealed, and for having contentiously agitated a question which ought never to have been mooted, or upon which, at least, their opinion ought to have been given quietly. He told them that they ought not to have separated from others on account of difference of sentiment concerning certain points of doctrine.11
This is the background which is usually overlooked by Trinitarians when they try to discuss the Trinity. It is by no stretch of the imagination a doctrine of the Bible. In fact, I find a most interesting confession of a Catholic scholar concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine held by most Protestants as well. This isn't a mistake in the Bible of a true doctrine already in the Bible, this is a man-made doctrine added to the Bible later. The Old Testament definitely does not have the trinity. "The New Testament does not specify the terms of the relationship between Father and Son, nor among Father and Son and Holy Spirit. It assumes only that there is some relationship..." He then cites Matt. 11:27; John 1:1; 8:38; 10:38; 1 Corinth. 2:10; John 14:16, 26; 17:3; Gal. 4:6; John 15:26; 16:7; Mark 12:1-12; John 1:1, 14; 2 Corinth. 4:4; Hebrews 1:3, and then notes something incredibly interesting. "...none of these texts individually, nor all of them together, express a theology of the Trinity as such." He then, rather honestly, notes that "It took three or four hundred years before the Church began to make the proper distinctions, to go beyond the formulations of the Bible [note this] and the creeds alone, and to see how the 'economic Trinity' and the 'immanent Trinity' are one and the same...we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less into the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries."12 This negates White’s contention that "history can shed much light on the doctrine of the Trinity, but only insofar as it shows us how the people of God have struggled to safeguard and defend the truth of God revealed to them in Christ."13 The people have not struggles with the revelation of God, they have philosophized it away as I have shown above in the historians accounts of the creeds’ development.
I don’t agree with Mr. White that "to know Christ truly is to know the Trinity."14 White’s contention here is clearly against his statement that "God is bigger than we can ever imagine." His extended thought that "the term Trinity has never meant that the Trinity is an inherently irrational thing. Instead, it simply means that we realize that God is completely unique in the way he exists..."15 is simply not Biblical in any way, but assumes a background of Greek philosophy, not Christian revelation. Let us examine this more closely. The fact is that three in one is irrational, no matter how many words of explanation we see thrown at it. When Mr. White contends that "God is completely unique...he is totally unlike anything else..."16 he has to ignore Jesus. Jesus is God, according to Mr. White, who says "This is the monogenes theos, the Only Son who is God."17 But Jesus is not totally unique in a category apart from everything else. Even White notes that Jesus to John in the Gospels was "none other than the eternal God in human flesh, Yahweh."18 God is obviously not, as Mr. White contends, totally unique, unlike anything else, rather he has unique elements, which none of the rest of us doubt at all, but he is certainly not totally other, else how to understand him as like something, namely us?! Mr. White’s philosophy makes hash of his religion. White’s gross misunderstanding of Isaiah’s statement on God "To whom then will you liken me?" is amazing. He seriously thinks that "to compare God to anything in the created order is, in the final analysis, to deny his uniqueness" is way off base!19 God is talking about the strength of the nations in Isaiah 40, and it is to their strength that he compares his own strength in posing that question. None are stronger than the Lord. All we have to do is take a minute to read the chapter to see that. This Greek metaphysical thinking that God is saying he is totally other is irresponsible to the Biblical meaning.
From this angle, White launches into the silliest definitions and concepts I have ever read in print concerning the meaning of words and how we are to really understand God. He says words carry "excess baggage" which we really ought to discard. "The most glaring example of this is the word ‘person,’ a word that is often used when discussing the Trinity. When we use the word ‘person,’ we attach to it all sorts of ‘baggage’ that comes from our own personal experiences. We think of a physical body, an individual, separate from everyone else. We think of a spatial location, physical attributes like height, weight, age - all things associated with our common use of the word ‘person.’ When we use this word to describe a divine person (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit), we tend to drag along with it the ‘baggage’ that comes from our common use of the term in everyday life...it will be our task (and it is a difficult one!) to labor to separate such ‘baggage’ from our thinking..."20 We see here then that the Trinity is the conclusion upon which he bases his facts. If the evidence makes the mistake of proving otherwise, the evidence is dealt with, usually by merely asserting what words can and cannot mean, i.e., ‘person,’ as it is applied to the Trinity. Such methodology would be the failure of any discipline were it allowed to go unchecked.
Now we get to his basic definition. "Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."21
Notice how many words here are based on Greek philosophy and not on the Bible! "Being," "coequal," "coeternal." White’s explanation is interesting in this light. White now expounds that this means "it also insists that God’s ‘Being’ (capitalized so as to contrast it with the term ‘persons’ found in the next clause) is one, unique, undivided, indivisible."22 We see clearly how influenced White is from Greek philosophy instead of the Bible. The Bible does not have the words "unique," "undivided," and "indivisible," in relation to God at all. All those terms (and their inherent meaning for God) are from Greek philosophy. For Mormons, this is inexcusable. We accept the Bible view of God, not Greek views about God in the Bible.
He further explains that the definition insists on three divine persons, however, "we are not saying there are three Beings that are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be self-contradictory."23 On this we agree. Well, then he gets us into the much with saying "The second clause speaks of three divine persons, not three divine Beings...we must not succumb to the temptation to read the term ‘person’ as if we are talking about finite, self-contained human beings."24 And he we immediately note that Jesus himself is clearly a person, though not a finite person, but a divine person. So White is talking about "one what and three whos." "The one what is the Being or essence of God; the three who’s are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mis up the what’s and who’s regarding the Trinity."25 And yet, the "Being" idea and essence is what is adapted from Greek Philosophy, not the Bible. And our question automatically becomes, what is each person individually if not a God in their own right? Hence three Gods.
White is fooling no one when he says "I do not approach the Trinity as a philosophical issue or a theological speculation...I approach the Trinity as a revealed truth."26 So why does he insist on adding such philosophical non-Biblical "baggage" as the words "Being," "indivisible," "undivided," "essence," "coequal," "coeternal," "unique," etc., all of which are philosophical terms? None of these terms, nor their definitions as White gives them, comes from the Bible, but come from philosophy.
While this is not an exhaustive nor necessarily complete analysis of White’s book, I find enough problems that I cannot recommend his book for a serious understanding of God.
Endnotes
1. James White, The Forgotten Trinity, (Hereafter cited as TFT), Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis Minnesota, 1998: 14.
2. White, TFT: 126.
3. White, TFT: 121.
4. White, TFT: 14.
5. The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus, Website address: http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/26.txt
6. The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus., Website address: http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/26.txt
Chapter VI. "Division begins in the Church firm this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents"
7. The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus, Website address: http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/26.txt "Victor Constantine Maximum Augustus to Alexander and Arius"
8. The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus, Website address: http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/26.txt "Victor Constantine Maximum Augustus to Alexander and Arius"
9. The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, Website Address:
http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/27.txt
10. The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, Website Address:
http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/27.txt
11. The Ecclesiastical History of Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus. Website Address:
http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/27.txt
12. Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Study Edition, Winston Press, 1981: 347. F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame, Eerdman's, 1958, admits the word "homoousios" (of the same substance) which was judged heretical, later became the very hallmark of orthodoxy! (p. 255). In fact, this word was not even in the Bible! (p. 306). Also J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Harper & Row, 1978, Chapters IX-X has an excellent discussion on the Trinity and its development.
13. White, TFT: 177.
14. White, TFT: 15.
15. White, TFT: 20.
16. White, TFT: 25.
17. White, TFT: 63.
18. White, TFT: 138.
19. White, TFT: 25.
20. White, TFT: 25-26.
21. White, TFT: 26.
22. White, TFT: 27.
23. White, TFT: 27.
24. White, TFT: 27.
25. White, TFT: 27.
26. White, TFT: 28.