Luke and Papias

I shall largely be summarizing the parallels between Luke and Papias presented by MacDonald (2012) who proposes Luke used the Exposition of Papias written sometime around 100 as one of his sources. It is not verified that Papias wrote before Luke. Nor am I persuaded of this but the parallels between the two works are significant enough to merit consideration. Ignatius, writing about the year 110 CE, quotes from Luke and also from John several times in his epistles. Many scholars would date Luke in the 80s or 90s but if Papias was a source for Luke then it would be placed sometime between 100 and 110. The similarities include not only similar content, but vocabulary, syntax and specific persons who are named in identical sequence—these are far beyond Minor Agreements that might be explained by coincidence or common sources. 

Luke describes his own work as διήγησιν περί τών πεπληροφορημένον έν ημίν πραγμάτων, which is to say, that he is compiling earlier written sources and oral traditions into a unified narrative. (Lk. 1:1)  Luke and Papias are both concerned with composing accounts that organize traditional content, preserved in earlier sources, in an appropriate order (τάξις), and Luke describes his own work as an “exposition” διήγησιν, which is quite similar to the title of Papias’ own work, εξήγησις. (Expos. 1:3. 5; Lk. 1:1-3) Both authors refer to oral traditions and logia handed down in christian communities with similar language and list the apostles in similar order. (Lk. 6:12-16; Expos. 1:5) Papias seeks to record “what was said or done [πραχθέντα] by the Lord,” (Expos. 1:3) and Luke seeks to record “the matters [πραγμάτων] of full credence.” (Lk. 1:2) The information Luke transmits was “handed on [παρέδοσαν]” and the information Papias transmits are “handed down [παραδίδωσιν]... traditions [παραδόσεις].” (Expos. 1:1 and 2) Using a verb only found once in his writings, “having followed [παρηκολουθηκότι] them all thoroughly.” (Lk. 1:3) Papias also uses the same verb and says he collected traditions from those who “followed [παρηκολουθηκώς] the elders.” (Expos. 1:5) As MacDonald notes, 

“Both authors use not only the same word [παρηκολουθηκώς], but they use it in the same tense, voice, mood and number—only the case is different because of the grammatical context.” (Ibid. pp. 45) 

Both authors seek to compile “sayings” λόγων in Lk. 1:4 and λόγους in Expos. 1:5, which have been passed down to them. Both men also address their audiences with the pronoun σοι. (Lk. 1:3; Expos. 1:5) Below I shall reproduce the chart which appears in MacDonald (2012), pp. 56-58, with a few slight adjustments: 

Preface of Papias’ Exposition

Preface of Luke

Title: Λογίων κυριακών εξήγησις Name of Author: Papias Name of Recipient: unknown Papias knew a book about Jesus ascribed to Mark and had heard from the elder John that Matthew wrote his arrangement of Logia in Hebrew, which “each translated” the best he could. “I will not hesitate to set in order [συγκατατάξαι] whatever I learned well.” Matthew “set in order [συνετάξατο] the logia.”  Mark translated the teachings of Peter, and Matthew composed his own logia. Papias seeks to gather the traditions [παραδόσεις] passed on about Jesus and the apostles from eyewitnesses and those who knew them.  Papias learned the teachings from those who had “followed [παρηκολουθηκώς]  the elders.”  Mark “wrote accurately [ακριβώς έγραψεν]” but not in sequence. “I will not hesitate to set in order for you (SD)”  Papias wanted to “confirm the reliability” of this tradition so that “you [σοι]” may learn from those “who taught the truth…. I would investigate the sayings [λόγους] of the elders.”

Title: Διήγησις of… (?) Name of Author: Luke (?) Name of Recipient: Theophilus (1:3)  “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to write it out for you in consecutive order [ανατάξασθαι], those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,  handed on to us [παρέδοσαν] it seemed fitting for me as well, having followed [παρηκολουθηκότι] everything carefully from the beginning,  to write precisely in sequence [ακριβώς καθεξής… γράψαι], most excellent Theophilus  so that you [σοι] may know the exact truth about the sayings [λόγων]  you have been taught.

While Mark, according to Papias, “wrote accurately [ακριβώς έγραψεν]” but did not write in proper sequence, τάξις, Luke will write his own work both “write precisely in sequence [ακριβώς καθεξής… γράψαι]... in consecutive order [ανατάξασθαι].” (4) Papias and Luke contain unique historical details such as similar accounts of the death of Judas (Expos. 4:5; Acts 1:18-20), the martyrdom of James (Expos. 2:3; Acts 12:1-3), the preaching of John the Baptist (Expos. 1:6; Lk. 3:8-13), et al. 

The Personhood of the Spirit

0. Introduction

In this article I discuss a primary exegetical argument for the personhood of the Holy Spirit. This doctrine is a feature of Christian orthodoxy, which is not shared by unitarians, Jews or Muslims. It is argued primarily from the data of the New Testament. 

1. General Data

The phrase The Nicene Creed of 325 mentions the Holy Spirit only once in the phrase, “And in the Holy Spirit.” Professing belief in the Spirit but not describing his nature. This is to be explained by several factors, primarily, the emphasis of the council was upon christology and generally the bishops present had hazy views concerning the Holy Spirit. The Creed was amended at the Council of Constantinople in 381 to include a definition of the Spirit. 

"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who in unity with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets." 

Likewise, the Arian leaders affirmed the personhood of the Spirit, Arius says in his Thalia, “There is indeed a triad, though of different glories.” And Eunomius in his Apology described the Holy Ghost as the second greatest creation of God, who guides the saints and sanctifies them. There are many varied meanings for the word "spirit" (πνεύμα) in the Scriptures depending upon the surrounding context. It may signify wind, breath, angels, demons, wind, breathing, life itself, a state of mind, a disposition, a personality, the immaterial part of man which survives the death of the body, the power of God, or the Holy Spirit himself.[1] The phrase "holy spirit" as such only three times in the Old Testament yet appears nearly a hundred times in the New Testament.[2] We should not be surprised then to discover that the meaning of this phrase may have taken on new significance between the two testaments, as Moule commented,

"In the Old Testament, 'spirit' is used chiefly to denote God's powerful action on and within persons, and especially members of his own people; or occasionally it means simply the breath of life."[3]

In the New Testament, when the definite article is used, "the Holy Ghost" or "the Spirit" often refers to a person, the Paraclete or Comforter sent by Christ to guide his Church. A very familiar distinction is made when the word "spirit" appears. At times "spirit" can refer to a mindset, wind, or force, and at other times with the article "the Spirit" refers to a particular angel or demon, Turner explains,

"This, I suggest is his practice: as a general rule, and subject to contradictions, whenever Holy Spirit has the definite article the reference is to the third person of the Trinity (expressed either as τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον or as τό ἅγιον πνεῦμα), but when the article is absent the reference is to a holy spirit, a divine influence possessing men. [...] That is true of Scripture too, for in Acts 4:25 the Psalms are said to have been spoken by God through David's lips by means of a holy inspiration (literally "holy spirit")."[4]

There is no passage in the Old Testament which strongly personifies the Spirit in the same way as the New Testament.  The Spirit is described as a "he (εκείνος)" in the masculine throughout the fourth Gospel, which is often done with persons. To give several examples will suffice, "But he (εκείνος) was speaking," (Joh. 2:21) "he (εκείνος) will declare all things to us," (Joh. 4:24) "he (εκείνος) who made me well," (Joh. 5:11) "he (εκείνος) was the lamp that was burning." (Joh. 5:35) Some falsely claim that the masculine αύτος, "him" is never used of the Holy Spirit but this is simply mistaken. We find it used at Joh. 16:7 where Christ promises, "I will send him to you," πέμψω αυτόν προς υμάς, here the masculine singular accusative αυτόν is used. This kind of language requires explanation. 

2. An Argument

Some may say that it is entirely unnecessary to posit the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit. Would it not be sufficient to say that it is always the power or presence of God or Christ? If we are to consistently accept all of the biblical statements about the Holy Spirit then we must conclude that it is a third person. The argument might be phrased this way,

1. If the Holy Spirit has will, intelligence, and volition it is a person.

2. The Holy Spirit has will, intelligence, and volition

3. Hence, the Holy Spirit is a person.

4. If the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son then it is a third person.

5. The Holy Spirit is not the Father, or the Son.

C. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a third person.

This kind of argument is often put forth in systematic theologies in some form, notably by Robert Letham, Gordon Clark, and Francis Turretin. In order to deny this kind of argument, one must deny that the Holy Spirit has will, intelligence and volition, or he must say that the Holy Ghost is identical with the Father or the Son. It is evident from even a basic examination of the New Testament writings that the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor is he the Son, most memorably in the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19, 

"Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 

We have also a clear example 2 Cor. 13:14, 

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all." 

And again in 1 Pet. 1:2, 

"The foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, into obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 

There are many other triadic passages in the New Testament distinguishing the three. If the Holy Ghost has intelligence, will, volition, feeling, and speaks—yet is not the Father or the Son, then it follows that the Spirit is a third person.[5] The Spirit is economically subordinate tothe Father (Joh. 15:26; Matt. 10:20; Rom. 8:9, 10) and economically subordinate to Christ. (Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19; 1 Pet. 1:11; Acts 16:17) 

3. The Paraclete

Christ promised his apostles that when he ascended to heaven, he would send them a Paraclete, παράκλητος who would lead them into all truth. The term Paraclete signifies an advocate, helper, or comforter. Using the same term, the Lord Jesus himself is said to be a Paraclete or comforter, "if any man should sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 Joh. 2:1) But the Son and the Spirit are not the same Paraclete, he says at John 14:16, "I will pray to the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever." The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Jesus who sends it as "another Paraclete," άλλον παράκλητον, the term άλλος signifies another of the same sort. The Spirit is not the Son or the Father but he is another Paraclete who is sent by and therefore subordinate to them. He continued,

"But the Paraclete, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you." (Joh. 14:26)

In this passage the Holy Spirit is again distinguished from the Father and the Son as a third person. The Spirit will be a teacher, therefore, he must know something. To have knowledge and the ability to teach it is to possess intellect, personhood. These kinds of passages sparked the subsequent pneumatological debates about the status of the Spirit. 

"But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall bear witness of me." (John 15:26)

This passage is the central proof text for the filioque, often cited by Catholic theologians. But it is unlikely the evangelist had this mind. Even Letham, who argues that the passage does refer to an eternal procession admits. 

"In the locus classicus, John 15:26, Jesus says he will send the Paraclete at Pentecost, who proceeds from (εκπορεύεται) the Father. Much New Testament scholarship argues that the procession here refers to economic activity only."[6]

The processions seem to conflate the economic and the ontological trinity. Eastern and Western answers to this problem vary. In his defense of the filioque Ratramnus admitted,

"Therefore, if the Son proceeds from God the Father and the Holy Spirit also proceeds, what will keep the Arians silent, not blaspheming that the Holy Spirit is also the Son of the Father?"[7]

The accusation being, that if the procession of the Logos from the Father causes him to be a Son, then equivalently, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father would also cause the Holy Spirit to be another Son. Christ promised, "I will send him unto you. And he, when he comes, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (Joh. 16:7, 8, 13) The strongest proof text for the personhood of the Spirit is from Paul, 

"Now in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (Rom. 8:26, 27)

The Holy Spirit is also depicted as an intercessor and prays to the Father on behalf of the saints. It seems difficult to apply these descriptions to a mere divine power or force. (cf. Jer. 7:16; 27:19) Alford endeavored to avoid this conclusion at all costs,

"The Holy Spirit of God dwelling in us, knowing our wants better than we, Himself pleads in our Prayers... Macedonius gathered from this verse that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and inferior to God, because He prays to God for us. But as Aug. Tract. vi. in Joan. 2, vol. iii. p. 1425, remarks, 'non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso apud semetipsum in illa Trinitate gemit, sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit.' No intercession in heaven is here spoken of, but a pleading in us by the indwelling Spirit, of a nature above our comprehension and utterance."[8]

The verses in question do not say the Spirit pleads 'in our prayers,' whatever that is supposed to mean, rather, the text says that the "Spirit himself intercedes." The Spirit is the one praying in these verses. Alford mentions first Macedonius, who was bishop of Constantinople and a native Greek speaker, a man who spoke ancient Greek from infancy. Macedonius understood Rom. 8:26, 27 as a description of a heavenly intercession made by the Spirit to the Father and this is the plain reading of the text. But should we favor the opinions of Augustine, who was not a native Greek speaker, and who had difficulty reading the language even after professional schooling?[9] Augustine never mastered either Greek or Hebrew. He primarily relied upon Latin translations of Scripture when exegeting this text. Saint Paul directly says that "the Spirit himself intercedes for us," το πνεύμα υπερεντυγχάνει υπέρ ημών, and as you see here, the Spirit is the direct object of the verb. You will not find any modern translation which makes believers the subject of this statement. Even Gregory Nazianzen was forced to concede that the Arians were correct in saying that the Holy Spirit prayed to the Father in this passage.[10] The Spirit (το πνεύμα) is the direct object of the verb υπερεντυγχάνει which has the third person ending and means to intercede. The intercessory prayers of the Spirit prove his personhood and subordination to the Father beyond doubt. Persons pray not intimate forces.

The Spirit not only is a teacher of wisdom and supernatural gifts he decides who will receive which gifts. "The same Spirit works all things, dividing to each one individually even as he wills." (1 Cor. 12:11) One must possess intellect and will to make such a choice. The Holy Spirit decides which men to give such gifts to according to his own will, "the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:8-10) The same may be said regarding Acts 15:28 "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials." Are we to say that the doctrine of the apostles "seemed good" to an impersonal force or power? The verb translated "seemed good" is the aorist form of δοκέω, a word which means to think, suppose, presume, or regard.[11] Such examples are more than sufficient to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is a person, not a mere force or power. Nor can it be claimed that the Holy Spirit is another name for Jesus or his Father because it is clearly distinguished from both.[12] The Holy Spirit often spoke and issued commands to prophets and apostles. It is sufficient to list these passages for the benefit of the reader because their meaning is clear.[13] The phrase "the spirit speaks" or "the Spirit says" occurs repeatedly.[14] Altogether there is good support for the Nicene doctrine of the Holy Ghost in the scriptures.

[1] Gen. 8:1; Job 9:18; Matt. 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:31, 32; 28:19; Mk. 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Lk. 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25; 26; 3:16, 22; 4:1; 11:13; 12:10, 12; Joh. 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 4:8, 31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17, 18, 19; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44, 45, 47; 11:15, 16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Rom. 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Cor. 2:13; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Cor. 6:6; 13:14; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 4:8; 2 Tim. 1:14; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jude 20,

[2] Psa. 51:11; Isa. 63:10, 11; Matt. 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:31, 32; 28:19; Mk. 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Lk. 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25, 26; 3:16, 22; 4:1; 11:13; 12:10, 12; Joh. 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 4:8, 31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17, 18, 19; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44, 45, 47; 11:15, 16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Rom. 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Cor. 2:13; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Cor. 6:6; 13:14; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 4:8; 2 Tim. 1:14; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jude 20.

[3] Charles F. D. Moule, The Holy Spirit (New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2000), pp. 19.

[4] Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (T&T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1965, pp. 19, 20.

[5] Compare Matt. 28:19; Lk. 11:13; Joh. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13; Acts 5:3; 13:2-4; 15:28; 20:28; Rom. 8:16, 26, 27; 1 Cor. 12:8-11; 13:14. [6] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, 4.4.1.

[7] Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum Opposita Romanam Ecclesiam Inflamantium, PL 121, 247.

[8] Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. 1865) Vol. II., pp. 396, 397.

[9] Confessions 1.13, 14. [10] Orations 31.12.

[11] Thayer, pp. 154.

[12] Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2.

[13] Acts 10:19; 11:12; 13:2-4; 21:11.

[14] 1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22.

The Holy Trinity and Gamaliel’s Principle

Note: This article is from 2023, when I endeavored to defend a Monarchical Trinitarian position. I presently do not believe in any trinitarian theory but some have shown interest in arguments I presented during that time. — A. S. Sept. 15, 2024. 

0. Introduction

I will explain how Gamaliel’s principle can be used to demonstrate Trinitarianism. The principle is stated in the book of Acts (5:35-39) by Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin, and it essentially states that divine messages which God intends to be believed cannot fail or be overthrown. If God intends to reveal a message then he speaks clearly and he does not allow his words to be muted, or so severely misunderstood, corrupted, or neglected that they lose effect. The Unitarian claims amount to saying that God failed to reveal himself properly to the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history and serve as an implicit denial of Gamaliel’s principle. It is hardly plausible that a God, who is a loving father, should so utterly fail to be clear about his identity to the vast majority of professing Christians. 

1. The Principle Stated

The book of Acts records an occasion when some of the apostles were arrested by the Jewish Sanhedrin for their preaching of the Gospel. A certain member of the Sanhedrin, Rabban Gamaliel,  the teacher of  Saul of Tarsus,  came to the defense. He said to his peers, 

“Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:35-39, NASB 1995) 

The argument is supported with several historical examples. Theudas, a revolutionary who, according to Josephus, claimed to be a prophet, endeavored to free the holy land of Gentile rule. His claim to prophethood died along with his message because he was not supported by God. (Josephus, Ant. 20.97-98.) Consider any of the true prophets, such as Moses, Isaiah or Ezekiel, none of their prophecies ever failed and their teachings were not lost or severely corrupted. Likewise, Judas the Galileean led a failed revolt against the Roman empire and eventually the sect he funded, the Zealots, were overthrown. (Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.433; Ant. 18.1-10.)

The author of the Acts of Apostles endorses Gamaliel’s principle, after the apostles are freed the entire narrative which follows supports Gamaliel’s argument. The gospel preaching of the apostles is not halted even after facing severe opposition. St. Stephen is stoned (Acts 7:50-59), and St. James is beheaded (Acts 12:2), but the word of the gospel is still preached. The Judaizers try to corrupt the message of the Church (Acts 15:1-5) but God protects his Church from error and it continues to ‘expand daily’ in the face of persecution. (Acts 16:5) Even the final verses of Acts show an implicit endorsement of Gamaliel’s principle, as St. Paul is in house arrest, personifying the persecution of the Church; he continues to spread her message of salvation to all who will listen. 

“[St. Paul] stayed two full years in his own rented quarters and was welcoming all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered.” (Acts 28:30, 31)

Darrel Bock argues in his commentary on Acts that Gamaliel’s speech is about “the ultimate success of the new faith, which is rooted ultimately not in where the faith stands now but where it is headed eschatologically in Jesus’s return and victory. This means that this movement will have staying power, as its content reflects the gospel given from God.” (Darrell L. Bock, Acts. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2007, p. 256.) In other words, the principle is not just a passing statement, it is something that St. Luke, the author of Acts himself, endorses and structures his narrative around. Similarly, Theodore Ferris wrote, 

“Gamaliel is a personification of the elder statesman. His counsel is one of  wise restraint… He is a perfect instance of the moderating influence of the judicial mind.” (Theodore F. Ferris. Acts, Interpreter’s Bible Commentary; Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1954, p. 86.)

The point being that the author of Acts considers Gamaliel’s argument to be a correct one. To let the Christians go free and see whether God will preserve and support the message they preach in the face of opposition. If God intends to found a religion, then the movement will not be overthrown and the message God intends to communicate through this religion will not become severely corrupted or lost to history. The principle might be summarized in terms of about three propositions: 

1. Any religious movement that has the support of God will not be overthrown or fail. No opposition will be able to destroy it. 

2. Any religious movement that does not have the support of God will be overthrown or fail. It will eventually crumble in the face of opposition or be destroyed. 

3. Any divine revelation intended for all humans will be clearly communicated, a message which is commonly distorted or misunderstood is not the kind of revelation God would have given. 

In short, if these three propositions are true then the very triumph of Nicene orthodoxy over rival positions such as Photinianism, Sabellianism, Gnosticism, and Arianism, are strong evidence that it is true. The message supported by God which has endured every attempt to overthrow it. The first two propositions are evident in the fact that all of the ancient Churches, and all of the other common Churches are Trinitarian. The apostolic Churches and all of the mainstream Protestant churches affirm the Nicene definition. If God does not protect his religion from being overthrown and corrupted, it inevitably will be due to human error, this is where the necessity of the doctrine of the infallibility of the church lies, as Newman argued, 

“In proportion to the probability of true developments of doctrine and practice in the Divine Scheme, so is the probability also of the appointment in that scheme of an external authority to decide upon them, thereby separating them from the mass of mere human speculation, extravagance, corruption and error, in and out of which they grow. This is the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church.” (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 1st pub. 1845; 1878 edn., Longman, Green, & Co., 1906, p. 78.)

To my mind, the most pressing is the third proposition. Consider that most humans know very little about philosophy or theology. Many have families, jobs, or other responsibilities which do not afford them the liberty to study theology in great detail. It would indeed be very unwise for God to reveal himself in cypher. To make a statement of himself in such a way that only through carefully and critically studying theology or history that he can be known. Would God make himself so difficult to see? Most of mankind have never engaged in careful theological study involving ancient languages and intricate philosophical elucidations. For most of history books were costly and few were literate. For all of history, most of mankind has had to focus upon other more practical pursuits to attain the needs of daily life, such as food, clothing, and a safe home. If God is not careful to ensure that most of his people have a clear picture of his identity, then the vast majority of people (who would otherwise worship him) would instead end up worshiping a false God which bears a vague similarity to the true God. As Swinburne has stated, 

“The third test is that the church has developed the original revelation in a way which plausibly brings out what was involved in it, and applies it to new situations in a natural way. A revelation intended for all humans which gets distorted beyond recognition is not the kind of revelation which God would have given.” (Richard Swinburne, Revelation: From Metaphor To Analogy 2nd Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 108.)

The vast majority of Christians throughout history did not have access to written Bibles or a collection of writings by the fathers of the Church. They had the living unwritten tradition of the Church in their ears. The consensus of the beliefs which filled the Churches on Sundays are what the average Christian believed. The faith recited in the creeds, hymns, and sermons of the Church are what constituted the deposit of faith that the average Christian believed. If God did not safeguard something so basic as his identity in such sources of faith, then it seems he did not wish the vast majority of Christians to know him. 

“If the revelation is to be public, it must consist of publicly accessible unwritten or (better) written traditions. But it cannot consist solely of original documents or other proclamations; continuing guidance is required, a mechanism which helps translators of the original revelation to get their translation correct.” (R.  Swinburne, Revelation. p. 103.)

To say that unitarianism is true is to claim that God permitted the teaching of the church to be massively distorted, corrupted, and misunderstood for centuries and that even in the present day the overwhelming majority of Christians are in grave error concerning the identity of God. This is the precise opposite of a continuing guidance for the Church such as is promised in John 16:13 and elsewhere. 

2. The Central Argument 

All of the churches that exist today broke off from or descended directly from a Trinitarian Church that affirmed the Nicene Creed. None of the Unitarian, Sabellian or Arian movements of today have any continuity with history. None can trace their lineage to the apostles. And those churches which are altogether new could not be the same ancient faith founded thousands of years ago by the Lord Jesus. 

“A new society of people who came together in the nineteenth century out of an interest in applying the teachings of Jesus but did not result from any breakaway from a previous society cannot be part of the Church.” (R. Swinburne, Revelation. p. 182.)

Historically, the movements founded by Paul of Samosata, Marcellus of Ancyra, and their successors were all overthrown. The churches who supported Arius of Alexandia and Eunomius of Cyzicus, were all overthrown. All the modern Churches that endorse similar non-trinitarian theologies broke off from Trinitarian churches. All the unitarian churches claim to “restore,” “recover,” “rediscover,” or “re-establish” some lost truth which was neglected for most of Church history. But the central problem is—that they were overthrown at all. For centuries these heresies died, or ceased to exist. For hundreds of years there was no church on earth endorsing these heresies. 

1. The principle of Gamaliel is true and when applied to the history of the Christian church,  it implies that the true church has a message and a movement which will not be overthrown or corrupted. 

2. If the true Church has a message and a movement which will not be overthrown or corrupted, then it will have a historical continuity i.e. the movement will endure through time and will not cease to exist, hence the lineage of successors should be traceable to the apostles. 

3. All non-trinitarian movements were overthrown (e.g. Photinianism, Sabellianism, Gnosticism, Arianism, Marcionism, Ebionism, etc.) and any modern counterparts are restorationist movements who broke off or descended from Trinitarian churches, which have no historical continuity. 

C. None of the non-trinitarian movements are the true Church. 

Let us take for example the Arians, who even succeeded briefly in gaining the favor of an emperor Valens, to their perverse views. They were quickly thrown out of the Churches by his successor Theodosius I, and Arianism in the Roman empire soon died. It survived for a time among the Germanic kings, but the last Arian King was Garibald of Lombardy, who lived in the seventh century. After his conversion, Arianism died in Europe and was lost to history until, subsequent to the protestant reformation, individual restorationists and reformists started to revive this dead heresy. 

Suppose Arianism were true. Would God have let it almost utterly vanish from the earth for so long? If Eunomius and Aetius had the true gospel, why did their movements fail? God decided to let their rivals, the supporters of the Nicene definition, spread the gospel across the earth? Is such a theory truly credible? The triumph of Nicene orthodoxy is itself strong evidence of its truth. “If it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:39) Which position was overthrown? In the search for the true Church, it is safe to rule out any movement which does not have a historical continuity and which does not affirm a Trinitarian doctrine of God. 

3. The Great Apostasy

To dodge the force of this argument the only substantive rebuttal is to appeal to the doctrine of the “great apostasy.” The Mormons and the Adventists cry out in the streets!

‘But the New Testament predicts a time of mass apostasy! This has happened, and we are here to fix it!’ 

Firstly, for reductio assume that the great apostasy was indeed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The principle of Gamaliel would still be endorsed in the New Testament and this would just be a massive internal contradiction within Christianity. Only Trinitarian Christianity meets the requirements of the principle of Gamaliel, therefore if trinitarianism is somehow apostate then there just is no true form of Christianity according to the principle. It is a self-defeating rebuttal. 

But upon examination it is evident that the texts about apostasy which they appeal to are about events in the long distant future during the eschaton, or last days shortly before the return of Christ. They have nothing to do with events during our present age. St. Jude explained. 

“Beloved, remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following their ungodly lust.”” (St. Jude 1:18)

St. Paul warns that Christ will not return until “The man of Sin” or the Antichrist appears, “the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction.” (2 Thess. 2:1-4) Has the antichrist come? Where is he? Are people prohibited from buying and selling unless they take the mark of the beast and the false prophet? (Rev. 13:17) The antichrist is going to do public miracles that cause the vast majority of mankind to worship him, “all power and signs, and false wonders,” (2 Thess. 2:9) out of his mouth “are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and the whole world, and gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.” (Rev. 16:13) The “apostasy” foretold in the New Testament is not a long period of thousands of years, starting shortly after the first century. It is an event subsequent to the appearance of the Antichrist, which takes place shortly before “the war of God,” or Armageddon. (Rev. 16:13-16) It is not a slow and gradual process starting after the last apostle died and ending when almost two thousand years later Joseph Smith finds some gold plates. The apostasy is not an event which begins when the last Arian bishop dies and ends when Charles Taze Russell founded a publishing company. It is an event the New Testament authors clearly place in the last days. When Christ gives his parable of the wheat and the weeds, the language is apocalyptic and culminates in “the tares” being gathered and burnt in the flames of hell. (St. Matt. 13:39-43) Notice that even in this parable, the wheat is never overthrown, it does not cease to exist for a period. It endures with a historical continuity, from the time it is planted until the final judgment. 

4. He Will Guide You

The Lord Jesus promised the exact opposite of immediate apostasy for his church. He promised that after he departed from the Earth, he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his followers into all truth. 

John 16:13 (NASB1995):

“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”

The Holy Ghost would not be a poor teacher or a distant guide, “but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.” (St. John 14:17) the Spirit of truth will be “in” the church, abiding in her life and operations and history. The Councils are not merely meetings of bishops, but there the Holy Spirit dwelt, guiding the history of the Church so that the decrees can state with the same confidence as the first council, “it pleased us and the Holy Spirit to write to you.” (Acts of Apostles 15:29) The Holy Spirit will reside with the church “forever” to guide and teach her. (St. Joh. 14:26; 15:26) The restorationist claims of a “great apostasy” in the early centuries stand in stark opposition to these promises. Christ asks in the parable of the wise judge, 

“When the Son of Man returns, will he find the faith upon the earth?” (St. Luke 18:8) 

The answer to this question must be yes. The Lord Jesus promised “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against his Church. (St. Matt. 16:18) This promise surely means, at the very least, that the true church will not disappear for centuries after being defeated by human opposition. “I am with you until the end of the world.” (St. Matt. 28:20)  In the epistles of Saint Paul, the church is called the body of Christ, and all of its members have a vital function. (1 Corinthians 12:14-23; Colossians 1:18 et al) To say that the true church was overthrown and ceased to exist for the time is to imply that the body of Christ was not on earth for a time. The unitarian must either say that during the vast majority of Christian history that trinitarians constituted the earthly body of Christ, or that for centuries there was no body of Christ upon earth. 

5. Conclusion

The principle of Gamaliel is true and when applied to the history of the Christian church, it implies that the true church will have a message and a movement which will not be overthrown or corrupted. Therefore the true church today must have a historical continuity with the movement found by Jesus and his apostles.  This movement and its teachings must persevere through time in the face of all human opposition. None of the non-trinitarian churches pass this test. All of them descended from trinitarian churches.  There is no Unitarian movement that can trace a line of successors back to the first century.