Church of God News

CG7-Denver local congregation logo

COGwriter

The CG7-D: Church of God, (Seventh Day) posted the following Q & A:

How can Jesus be divine and yet “subordinate to the Father in rank,” as your Statement of Faith says?

The Bible teaches both. As our Statement of Faith also reads, “The phrase ‘only begotten Son of the Father’ reveals two complimentary truths about Jesus Christ: 1) His inherent, essential nature and 2) His position within the Godhead” (This We Believe, p. 22). The deity of Christ and His order in the Godhead need not be seen as contradictory.

As is implicit in the title, God the Father is the “head of Christ” and greater in position or rank (1 Corinthians 11:3; John 14:28), but not in essence and nature, as John’s Gospel declares: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (14:9; cf. 1:1; 20:28). It is wrong to assume that if one is greater in one way, one must also be greater in another way. When the Bible speaks of the Godhead, it is speaking of the divine essence, or nature, of God (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9). There is equality of essence and nature in the Father and the Son; neither is inferior to the other. Yet their roles and rank within the Godhead are distinct. Divine nature is not compromised by subordinate order.

Since God exalts and bestows authority to Jesus (Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2:9-11), some assume He cannot be God. However, the error is in assuming the bestowal extends to the nature and essence of the Father and Son. Notably, both exaltation texts have in view the Son in His incarnate humanity.

Regarding the full divinity of Christ, our Statement of Faith reads as follows:

The unique nature and identity of Jesus Christ is further seen in Scripture by the fact that several divine names are used in reference both to the Father and the Son. . . . Jesus shares not only the names of God but also His nature: “Who [Jesus], being in very nature God . . .” (Philippians 2:6). “He is the image of the invisible God . . . For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him. . . . For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 1:15-19; 2:9). “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being . . .” (Hebrews 1:3) (TWB, pp. 18, 20).

Regarding His subordination to the Father, Christ is called God’s Son. He is the begotten, while the Father is unbegotten. Again, the title Son implies their shared nature and likeness, as well as an eternal order on the part of the Son to the Father. Unlike earthly fathers and sons, this order is not temporal (in time) but eternal, as God’s nature is eternal. Yet just as earthly fathers can be greater in authority than their sons without implying an inferiority of being, the Father giving authority to His Son in no way implies that the latter is not God or is an inferior being (John 5:19, 20; 8:42).

First Corinthians 15:28 says, “Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” In short, the Father and the Son share the unity of essence and nature in equality, and the Son willingly submits to the authority of the Father in rank once He has conquered all enemies of God, including death. Subordination is in rank only, not in the divine nature.

— Elder Chip Hinds

The above is consistent with how the original Christian church understood the Godhead.

Many who claim Christianity do not realize that the early church was neither trinitarian nor unitarian, but was binitarian. And, shockingly, most people who profess Christianity are not even familiar with that term.

Early Christians considered that the Father and the Son were God and that the Holy Spirit was the power of God. And while some dispute this, historically it is a fact.

Do any scholars realize this?

While there are many articles at the COGwriter website which document the binitarian beliefs of 2nd century Christians, I thought that a few quotes from modern theologians may be eye-opening for those who have had little exposure to the binitarian truth of the Godhead.

Modern scholars, like Larry Hurtado, have realized the Christians who claimed to be Nazarene, including most considered to be “proto-orthodox,” held a binitarian view of the Godhead:

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

Furthermore, it perhaps should be mentioned that the sacra nomina (generally two-letter abbreviations, perhaps intended to identify the documents as “Christian”) found on early documents associated with Christianity is also believed to support the position that those that professed Christ in the second century were binitarian. Larry Hurtado also observed:

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

Dr. Harold Brown, a Protestant trinitarian scholar, has admitted:

The language of the New Testament permits the Holy Spirit to be understood as an impersonal force or influence more readily than it does the Son…those who saw the Holy Spirit as a Person, were often heretical, for example, the Montanists (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 140).

Harold Brown also has admitted:

It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity (ibid, p.5).

And that is true. And he was specifically referring to doctrines like the trinity and other teachings that are contrary to what the Continuing Church of God holds.

What about Roman Catholic scholars? The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches this about the 4th century binitarians, which it calls the Semi-Arians:

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

Thus it is clear that many held the binitarian view at that time (including no doubt, many who were not true Christians).

What about Eastern Orthodox Catholic scholars? Notice this frank admission from a bishop of the Orthodox Church about the late acceptance of the trinity:

… the councils defined once and for all the Church’s teaching upon the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith — the Trinity and the Incarnation. All Christians agree in regarding these things as ‘mysteries’ which lie beyond human understanding and language … the first two, held in the fourth century … formulated the doctrine of the Trinity … The work of Nicea was taken up by the second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381. This council expanded and adapted the Nicene Creed, developing in particular that teaching upon the Holy Spirit, whom it affirmed to be God even as the Father and the Son are God … It was the supreme achievement of St. Athanasius of Alexandria to draw out the full implications of the key word in the Nicene Cred: homoousios, one in essence or substance, consubstantial. Complementary to his work was that of the three Cappadocian Fathers, Saints …(died 394). While Athanasius emphasized the unity of God — Father and Son are one in essence (ousia) – the Cappadocians stressed God’s threeness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (hypostasis) (Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London, 1997, pp. 20-23).

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

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

Pneumatomachi…The majority of this sect were clearly orthodox on the Consubstantiality of the Son; they had sent a deputation from the Semi-Arian council of Lampsacus (364 A.D.) to Pope Liberius, who after some hesitation acknowledged the soundness of their faith (Arendzen, John. “Pneumatomachi.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174a.htm>)

Notice that the Orthodox bishop of Constantinople, Macedonius, in the fourth century held to some form of Semi-Arian view:

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

Thus, into the middle of the fourth century, the two major leaders of the Greco-Roman churches endorsed Semi-Arian, non-trinitarian positions. How then can the Greco-Romans and Protestants claim then that the trinity was the original view of the church? It is a historical fact that it was NOT.

Furthermore notice:

367. COUNCIL OF TYANĄ accepted the letter of Liberius pronouncing the Semiarian Bishops to be orthodox. (Johnson CFH, ed. The book of Saint Basil the Great, Bishop of Cappadocia, on the Holy Spirit. Claredon Press, 1892, p. lviii)

A few years later, from 370-380, Demophilus, who was anti-trinitarian, was the Patriarch of Constantinople (List of Patriarchs of Constantinople. Patriarchate of Constantinople, http://patriarchateofconstantinople.com/list-of-patriarchs.html accessed 07/21/21).

About this time the Emperor Valens went to Antioch on the Orontes; while he was on his journey Eudoxius died, after having governed the churches of Constantinople during the space of eleven years. Demophilus was immediately ordained as his successor by the Arian bishops. The followers of the Nicene doctrines, believing that the course of events was in their power, elected Evagrius as their bishop. He had been ordained by Eustathius, who had formerly governed the church of Antioch in Syria, and who having been recalled from banishment by Jovian, lived in a private manner at Constantinople, and devoted himself to the instruction of those who held his sentiments, exhorting them to perseverance in their view of the Divine Being. (Sozomen. The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen: Comprising a History of the Church from A.D. 324 to A.D. 440 ; Translated from the Greek, with a Memoir of the Author ; Also The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, as Epitomised by Photius. Bohn, 1855, p. 264)

So, we see that the appointment of Demophilus was fairly normal, but that the trinitarian crowd elected Evagrius who was ordained by one who had been banished. They helped set the stage then, for the later removal of Demophilus.

Even the official website of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople once admitted that the arians/semi-semiarians ruled that “see” for at least “forty years” in the fourth century (Gregory I of Nazianzen 379-381. © 2010 The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.  http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/former-patriarchs/gregory-i-of-nazianzen viewed 04/17/10). Furthermore, it should be understood that there is no evidence that Constantinople had any “bishops” prior to the fourth century who were actually trinitarians.

The pagan convert Theodosius declared the trinity to be the official policy of his empire in 380 A.D. But even that late declaration also supports the view that trinitarianism was not an original catholic belief.

The current Nicene creed, that was adopted at the 381 Council of Constantinople which was convened by Emperor Theodosius, met resistance before acceptance.
Please understand that Theodosius removed Demophilus from being the Patriarch of Constantinople because he would NOT accept the Emperor’s trinitarian Nicene Creed. The 5th century Greco-Roman historian Socrates Scholasticus wrote:

When the emperor found the Church in this state, he began to consider by what means he could make peace, effect a union, and enlarge the Churches. Immediately therefore he intimated his desire to Demophilus, who presided over the Arian party, and inquired whether he was willing to assent to the Nicene creed, and thus reunite the people, and establish concord. Upon Demophilus’s declining to accede to this proposal, the emperor said to him, “Since you reject peace and unanimity, I order you to quit the churches.”

Which when Demophilus heard, weighing with himself the difficulty of contending against superior power, he convoked his followers in the church, and, standing in the midst of them, thus spoke: “Brethren, it is written in the Gospel.’ If they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another. ‘ ‘ Since therefore the emperor excludes us from the churches, take notice that we will henceforth hold our assemblies without the city. (Socrates Scholasticus, pp. 265-266)

Therefore, consider that: 1) trinitarianism was not the position of the patriarchy of Constantinople, 2) Arian meant Semi-Arian above (and this happens in other writings), 3) an emperor removed the patriarch Demophilus for not endorsing the Nicene Creed, and 4) that political considerations, not theological, looks to have been the reason to push trinitarianism.

So it took councils of men and an emperor to change the predominant view, that the Godhead was basically binitarian, to trinitarian. Yet, as recorded in the New Testament, Jude wrote:

“…contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered for the saints” (Jude 3).

The faith delivered once for all should not have been changed. Getting back to the Orthodox,

Such a doctrinal change to the trinity should never have been made and never has been adopted by the true Christian Church.

Regarding the New Testament, even a trinitarian scholar has admitted:

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

Since modern scholars know that the early church was binitarian and not trinitarian, have you been taught this before?

If not, perhaps you had better look into this further.

The Continuing Church of God also had the following sermon on its ContinuingCOG channel:

Here is a link to the sermon: The Godhead.

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
CG7-D: Church of God, (Seventh Day): History and Teachings Nearly all COG’s I am aware of trace part of their history through some affiliation with this group. Loren Stacy is the president of the largest CG7 USA group (Denver). Do you know much about them?
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
Is The Father God? What is the view of the Bible? What was the view of the early church? Here is a link to a related video: Should You Call God Father?
Jesus: The Son of God and Saviour Who was Jesus? Why did He come to earth? What message did He bring? Is there evidence outside the Bible that He existed? Here is a YouTube sermon titled Jesus: Son of God and Saviour.
Proof Jesus is the Messiah This free book has over 200 Hebrew prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus. Plus, His arrival was consistent with specific prophecies and even Jewish interpretations of prophecy. Here are links to seven related sermons: Proof Jesus is the Messiah, Prophecies of Jesus’ birth, timing, and death, Jesus’ prophesied divinity, 200+ OT prophecies Jesus filled; Plus prophecies He made, Why Don’t Jews Accept Jesus?, Daniel 9, Jews, and Jesus, and Facts and Atheists’ Delusions About Jesus. Plus the links to two sermonettes: Luke’s census: Any historical evidence? and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, but … These videos cover nearly all of the book, plus have some information not in the book. We also have the book translated in the Spanish PRUEBA de que JESÚS es el MESÍAS and French PREUVES QUE JÉSUS EST LE MESSIE languages.
Jesus is God, But Became Flesh Was Jesus fully human and fully God or what? Here is information in the Spanish language¿Es Jesucristo Dios?.
Virgin Birth: Does the Bible Teach It? What does the Bible teach? What is claimed in The Da Vinci Code?
Why Does Jesus Have Two Different Genealogies listed in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 seemingly list two different genealogies for Jesus. Why? Here is a version in the Spanish language: ¿Por qué Jesús tiene dos genealogías diferentes las cuales aparecen en Mateo 1 y Lucas 3?
Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity? Or did they have a different view? A related sermon is available: Truth about the Holy Spirit: What THEY do not want you to know!
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it? Here is an old, by somewhat related, article in the Spanish language LA DOCTRINA DE LA TRINIDAD. Two related sermons are available: Trinity: Fundamental to Christianity or Something Else? and The Godhead and the Trinity. A brief video is also available: Three trinitarian scriptures?
Was Unitarianism the Teaching of the Bible or Early Church? Many, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim it was, but was it? Here is a link to a related sermon: Unitarianism? How is God One?
Did the Archangel Michael become Jesus? The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach this, and SDA Ellen White did, but does the Bible allow for this? Here is a link to a related video message: Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? Here is a related article in the Spanish language: ¿Se convirtió el Arcángel Miguel en Jesús?
How Many Creators? Did the ancient Mayans know the truth about the Godhead at creation?
Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning This is a longer article than the Binitarian View article, and has a little more information on binitarianism, and less about unitarianism. A related sermon is also available: Binitarian view of the Godhead.
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History; The First Protestant, God’s Command, Grace, & Character; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God’s Plan; Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG?; Millennial Kingdom of God and God’s Plan of Salvation; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats; The Godhead and the Trinity; Fleeing or Rapture?; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences.

Tweet

This entry was posted on Friday, October 4th, 2024 at 4:00 pm and is filed under COG News, Doctrine.

• WCG, Irenaeus, and the Trinity
• WCG’s J. Tkach Again Misunderstands Jesus
• WCG: Irenaeus on the Trinity
• WCG, Trinity, GIC?
• WCG Misapplies Early History
• WCG/GIC: Trinitarian Theology
• Modern Scholars: Early Church Binitarian
• Was the early church trinitarian or something most know little about?
• CG7: Holy Spirit Confusion
• Do scholars realize that the early church was not trinitarian, but binitarian?