Binitarianism and Trinitarianism (No. 76)

(Edition 3.0 19941112-20001202)

This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright notice must be included. No charge may be levied on recipients of distributed copies. Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching copyright.

In the sermon on Gideon's Force the topic of Binitarianism was addressed as a prelude to the important topic of the Restoration of the Last Days. This topic needs to be addressed in its entirety because of the fact that the Ditheist or Binitarian error is present in many of the Churches of God. The Binitarian error is as heretical in its way, as is Trinitarianism in its structure, being built on a similar heretical premise. We will examine both structures for the errors on which they are built. The inability to deal with the error stems in part from the form of cult mentality that was examined in the paper The Cult Mentality (No. 74)).

The name for God in the singular is Eloah and this name does not include the Son from Proverbs 30:4-5. The name for Eloah is the El Most High or Elyon. He is referred to as such in the text at Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

The Soncino translates the Masoretic text as according to the number of the Children of Israel. Thus the nexus is confined to the twelve tribes and the Canaanite territories, but only by Rabbi Rashbam. The MT reads bene ysrael where the LXX or Septuagint reads aggelon theou and the Qumran reads bene 'ilhym [or bene eliym] (cf.. Smith The Early History of God, p. 7, n. 37 noting also Meyer, and Skehan BASOR 136 (1954):12-15, and the text of Ben Sira 17:17, reflecting later exegesis of Deuteronomy 32:8 implies a divine ruler for every nation. We know with reasonable certainty that Deuteronomy 32:8 has been altered, sometime after Christ, to reflect the later limited concepts.

There is little doubt, however, that at the time of Christ the nations were understood to be under the direction of the elohim who were those entities referred to as Sons of God in Job 1:6 and 2:1 who included Satan and who all went before the throne of God on a regular basis. These Sons of God or Sons of the Most High were divided into two groups which had a council of elohim. The Council was itself divided into an inner and an outer council of elohim. Psalm 89:5-8 refers to YHVH who is faithful in the assembly of the saints (multitude). He is the highest of the Sons of the Mighty or the Eliym. He is greatly to be feared in the congregation or inner assembly or council of the saints or qedosim. This congregation, from Revelation 4 & 5, numbered thirty entities. Sabourin (The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning, Alba House, N.Y., 1974 f.) notes the uses of Eloah and deals with the council and the Sons of God from Psalms 86:9-10; 95:3; 96:4; 135:5. On pages 102-104 he mentions the saints or Holy Ones (qedosim) from Psalm 89:6-8 who are God's celestial attendants and that the term is used also of the human faithful. These are the bene HaElim or bene HaElohim; the Sons of the God. Sabourin notes also Coppens comment (ETL, 1963, pp. 485-500) that the noun qedosim designates, in the Masoretic text, the supra terrestrial court of YHVH, who are held to be elohim (pp. 102-103). Sabourin says

There is no doubt that the elohim are a plural structure and that they are the messengers in the Bible texts referred to as angels and that Christ himself was the Angel of the Presence or the Angel of YHVH. It is thus absurd to suggest that no angel was referred to as creator when Christ was admitted to be creator and was also the Angel of YHVH. Moreover, there is no indication that the plural terms involving creators were confined to two Beings which were God and Christ. This is an unsupported assumption that is contrary to the Bible.

It is, moreover, a basic assertion of Binitarianism, which is logically absurd and conveys within its structure the logical inevitability of Trinitarianism. This error entered the Church some 30-40 years ago and some people cannot divest themselves of their paradigm. Moreover, the terms used in explanation of YHVH do not explain the difference between YHVH and YHVH of Hosts (Isa. 44:6-8; 51:15; 54:5; Jer. 10:16; 32:35 et seq; Amos 4:13; 5:27) who is Eloah, his superior, nor do they correctly explain the meaning of YHVH and the revelation at Sinai as 'eyeh 'asher 'eyeh or I will be what I will become.

YHVH means He who causes to be and is a third person form of the revelation (see Oxford Annotated RSV) used by a subordinate.

There are thus two Yah(o)veh here, the Yah(o)veh of Israel and his superior Yah(o)veh of Hosts who is the Alpha and Omega and the Rock and Redeemer of the Yahweh of Israel. This is the Eloah, the Elohim that anointed the Yah(o)veh or Elohim of Israel as Elohim in Psalm 45:6-7, and Hebrews 1:8 identifies this elohim as Christ. They are thus superior and subordinate and the subordinate has partners (metaxous) or comrades in the council as we see from the original Greek in Hebrews and the LXX.

The history of the Church shows that it has always been Unitarian (see the paper General Distribution of the Sabbath-keeping Churches (No. 122)). The structure of biblical Christianity is Unitarian.

It is useful to make some important notations about Trinitarianism so that we might more readily understand Binitarianism, which proceeds from the same theological error and is perhaps the same basic structure -- the difference between Binitarians and Trinitarians being largely semantic. The origins of the dispute and the Unitarian nature of the biblical model can be seen from the following papers: The Role of the Fourth Commandment in the Historical Sabbath-keeping Churches of God (No. 170) and The Unitarian/Trinitarian Wars (No 268).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, article Trinity Holy, Volume14, page 295 says

Theologians have long understood the Trinity to be non-biblical. It was introduced from a point of view that had lost the understanding of the divinity of Christ and the relationship to God. Brunner considers that Calvin in his Institutio I, 13,4, regards the doctrine of the Trinity from the point of view that

Brunner said of the doctrine of the Trinity that it was

Indeed this is seen to be so. The main objections lie in the requirements for rational and Biblical Theism together with Islam to be Unitarian. Brunner said

Brunner draws his theological position from the body of dogma that asserted itself, firstly at the Council of Nicæa in 325 CE and almost continuously from the council of Constantinople in 381 CE. Brunner asserts in explanation of the extraordinary position of Calvin above that

This conclusion is necessary because the doctrine of the Trinity had to be stated by the Athanasians in order to defeat the Arian position of the creation of Christ based upon the various proof texts such as Hebrews 3:2, Proverbs 8:22, John 16:28; 20:17, Ephesians 4:4-6 and Revelation 3:14; 4:11. Similarly Karl Barth held the view that

Calvin says that to drag Arius "out of his lurking-places"

Calvin held

This position demonstrates the most appalling circular reasoning not only by Calvin but by the Athanasian camp. The Athanasians could not refute, from Scripture, the position of Arius and the eastern bishops that Christ was created. The group was not Arians but were termed as such to give the impression that the philosophical understanding of the Godhead they espoused was new or arose with Arius, which it did not. Arius was trained by Lucian of Antioch, the most famous Christian scholar of the fourth century and the last martyr of Diocletian's persecution. His school also included Eusebius of Nicomedia, Menpophantus of Ephesus, Theognis of Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, Leontius of Antioch, Athanasius of Anarzabus and Asterius the Sophist as well as Arius (Harnack Hist. of Dogma, Vol. iv, p. 3, Eng tr.).

These eastern scholars were trained in a continuous tradition of the Church, which appears to be based systematically upon Scripture. This brought them into conflict with the syncretism developing in the west. When confronted with the scriptural position that Christ was a subordinate God and one created by God the Father as the primary emanation, the Athanasians contrived a doctrine, which had no biblical basis, in order to declare their opponents heretics. When these men refused to accept such a non-biblical position they were then calumniated.

Calvin admits that the step was extra-biblical and necessary to "expose" these "blasphemous Arians" (Institutes of The Christian Religion, Bk. I, 13,4, Tr. Beveridge, James Clark & Co., London, 1953).

The form of Unitarian Christianity which was erroneously labelled Arianism and semi-Arianism after one theologian of its school and who appears to be an extreme example was international in scope.

In the fifth century and part of the sixth century, in the Western provinces of the Empire, Arianism was the religion of the conquerors and Athanasian Christianity that of the conquered. This was so until the conversion of Clovis and the Salien Franks to Roman or Athanasian Christianity. Thus the division was more political than theological. The Arian Churches were national churches not politically based.

What we are seeing here is the settlement of a theological dispute by means of world powers. The true biblical position was never isolated as a serious issue by the Athanasian theologians. The growing position and power of the Church had, by the time of the debate, become so syncretised and divorced from the original biblical schema that anyone referring to the Bible alone for authority, stood apart from the mainstream clergy. The defeat of the Arians and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire in 590 CE under Gregory I froze debate on the matter. Christianity has been locked in a bizarre misunderstanding ever since.

The reorganisation of the elect at the present time is based upon the question of the understanding of the One True God. In the paper The Cult Mentality (No. 74), it was noted that the understanding of the One True God and His Son Jesus Christ was the basis for eternal life (Jn. 17:3; 1Jn. 5:20) and that understanding had been perverted by the Catholic sects.

It was noted in the paper The Cult Mentality (No. 74) what sort of deceit or intellectual dishonesty is evident in the Trinitarian and also the Binitarian manipulations of biblical texts. Such manipulation results in the type of arguments advanced in the G. L. Haydock commentary to the Douay-Rheims Bible (1850 reprint of the 1819 version), concerning John 17:3.

Once you get into this sort of distortion of truth you will believe anything. Note also the use of incorrect pejorative labels such as Arian seeking to obviate or deny the legitimate Unitarian structure of the Bible. There is no possibility that the One True God in John 17:3 or 1John 5:20 refers to Jesus Christ at all, with or without the article. The fact that the Douay-Rheims version is a translation of the Latin Vulgate and thus the article is deduced from the Latin is not mentioned. The term with the article does not refer to Christ but rather to The One True God whose Son is Christ. It is necessary for Trinitarians to resort to such deceit to maintain their position in the face of the texts. This is not new.

He who is true is the One True God. We know Him and are in Him who is true and in His Son Jesus Christ. We worship Him who is true, not His Son, Jesus Christ.

Malachi shows that the wrath of God is aroused because of the contempt of the priesthood for the name of God. There is no honour shown the Father and no respect to the master (Mal. 1:6). The Lord is angry that there is not one of the shepherds who would shut the temple doors so that the elect would not light useless fires on his altar (Mal. 1:10).

It was noted in the paper Gideon's Force and the Last Days (No. 22) that the Lord will accept no offering from their hands. The shepherds say that the victims of the feasts, namely, the sheep of God's hand are contemptible. There is respect of persons in that the elect are misinformed and an elite priesthood is established which will neither fight for the elect, nor for the name and honour of God.

The Bible tells us, at 2Thessalonians 2:3, that there will be a falling away or rebellion (RSV) first, before the Day of the Lord. This falling away is not one of the depletion of numbers of the elect but rather an apostasia, a rebellion or apostasy from the truth. Thus the elect are betrayed by the many who fall away (Mat. 24:10 RSV; or who are repelled Moffatt or who are offended (KJV) (from skandalisthesontai), or stumble, from the source in Isa. 8:15, where many of both the Houses of Israel and the inhabitants of Jerusalem stumble and fall from the truth and are broken).

The process that the man of lawlessness uses is that of declaring himself to be God in the Temple of God: Of which we are. The process is achieved by elevating Christ to co-equality and co-eternality with God. This process is non-biblical and is admitted by theologians (Calvin, Harnack, Brunner, etc.) to be non-biblical. This non-biblical step is necessary to make it impossible for the non-Trinitarians to co-exist with Trinitarians and so force the elect out.

The elevation of Christ to equality with God Most High then allowed the Church to claim authority from God and thus change times (Dan. 2:21) and the law as prophesied by Daniel (Dan. 7:25) and thus wear out the Saints of the Most High (ibid.).

Thus the man of lawlessness seeks to appropriate to himself the authority of Christ as his specific representative on earth and hence become, in this context, God.

The Trinity is a theological prerequisite to lead the elect to antinomianism and lawlessness. It has been allowed to be established in the Church for the third major occasion in the history of the Church. Why is that so?

Christ has eternal life from God who alone is immortal. We also are co-heirs with Christ to eternal life granted by the Father to those who obey and love him.

Binitarianism rests on the same intellectual error as does Trinitarianism. The premise is that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with God. This is clearly non-biblical. There is only One True God (Jn. 17:3; 1Jn. 5:20). This only Sovereign cannot be seen by men. That is why He spoke to us through angels as mediators who ordained the law (Gal. 3:19) proceeding from Him. This One True God alone is immortal. He grants eternal life to those who obey Him. Christ was the beginning (arche) of the Creation of God (Rev. 3:14). Christ was with God in the beginning but he was not God in the same way that the Father was God. He was granted power through obedience. He was in the form (morphe) of God. This word is held to be derived from SGD 3313 meros which is a primitive form of meiromai to get as a section or allotment; hence a division or share. The broad application connotes a piece or portion or on behalf. Morphe thus through the idea of adjustment of parts connotes shape, nature or form. Christ thus partook of the divine nature. Philippians 2:6 shows the concept.

This text shows that Christ did not seek equality with God. That is why this text was altered in the KJV to disguise the sense of it. Satan had sought to be equal and thus depose God. Christ became obedient even to death by crucifixion. The elect have been similarly obedient. Churches and organisations have sought to mislead the elect over two millennia and they have failed. The elect are chosen (hence the term elect). They are chosen through predestination. They are then called and once called, justified, and glorified.

The aim of the Satanic deception of Trinitarianism and Binitarianism is to make Christ different to the rest of the Host so that we might come into our positions with a false idea. Moreover, it seeks to accuse God in His motive for the creation of humans so as to set Him at odds with the Host. This was the basis of the false premises, which underlay the rebellion in the first instance. Christ asked the question that when he comes would he find faith on the earth?

This was to indicate that the true faith would be limited to very few in the last days. There are two groups in the first resurrection. One group is the administrative elect of 144,000 of the tribes. The other group is that of the great multitude who did not take the mark of the beast and made their robes white in the blood of the Lamb. Revelation 14 shows quite clearly that the selection of the 144,000 takes place over time. The time of the judgment follows the selection. Yet there are those who still die in the Lord after the fall of Babylon and during the time of the beast. The whore fell as a system in 1850 with the demise of the Holy Roman Empire during its 1,260 years from 590 CE to 1850 CE. The demise of the whore also saw the disintegration of the elect into the Sardis system and the seeds were then set for the rise of the Laodicean. This system was poor, pitiable, blind and naked. Revelation 14:12 calls for the endurance of the saints, who are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

There is thus an ongoing sequence of activity, which entails the death of the elect over this period. The persecution thus does not end with the destruction of the whore by the beast. Indeed the whore was destroyed by the beast in 1850.

The last inquisition took place between 1823 and 1846. Some 200,000 people were put to death or suffered life imprisonment or the galleys in the papal states alone (see Malachi Martin The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church). However, the whore again seeks to use the power of the beast and there is a persecution and indeed has been an ongoing persecution in the Communist block, both in the former Soviet Union and throughout Asia. This persecution will continue and in fact increase until Christ comes.

This text does not mention a place of safety at the return of the Messiah. As most of you know the persecutors will often be those of our own house. They will deliver you up to what they perceive as the Church authorities and what they perceive as the correct body. There is a conservative backlash coming. The whole purpose of the last forty years from the sixties and the sexual revolution was to set the stage for the persecution. These ministers appearing as angels of light will seek to persecute you. This entire test within the Churches of God is trivialised into a personality dispute or one of negative discounting of individuals. For example, many Unitarians are attacked for their stance not on what they say, nor on the basis of the issue. The matter is trivialised into people being influenced by personalities. There does not appear to be one member of our Church who made their decision based on personality, yet they are accused in that vein. The reason is due entirely to the intellectual dishonesty of the cult members who accuse them. If the issues are trivialised into personalities, then the matter does not have to be examined on its facts. This process is a form of propaganda developed by the Nazis and perfected by the Communists and it has nothing to do with God. It is now endemic in the United States. It does not however excuse the elect. The elect are required to group together and spread the truth. To assist us in dealing with the false premises involved in Trinitarianism and to a lesser extent Binitarianism the section appended to the paper The God We Worship (No. 2) is repeated.

In summary, the problem with Binitarianism reduces to a form of major/minor dualism. There are two Gods, a greater and a lesser, extant before creation. This structure has all the problems attendant upon Zoroastrianism in the explanation of evil and impugns God's omnipotence. Christ becomes a God who is mistaken, or at least not omniscient. The biblical texts are contravened by this structure. The reason that this structure is not defined is that it is logically flawed and has traditionally lead into Trinitarianism when developed. It generally appears among those who try to reconcile an incoherent Trinitarianism with the biblical texts, without facing the reality that mainstream Christianity is hopelessly in error.

The Church of God has been Unitarian for two thousand years. The Binitarian heresy is contrary to Scripture and has been resisted for two Millennia. The Binitarian error sets the seeds for the formal adoption of Trinitarianism.

PO Box 369 Woden, ACT 2606 Australia